Understanding Asian Students

Understanding Asian students’
oral participation modes
in American classrooms*

Jun Liu
University of Arizona

Second language acquisition (SLA) researchers have not adequately explored
English as a Second Language (ESL) students’ use of English in academic
settings other than the language classroom. Social contexts of language
learning, such as students’ content course classrooms, affect not only the
amount and the type of input learners receive, but also the extent to which
learners are able to engage in meaningful real-life communication in the
target language. An increasing educational concern in American academic
settings is some ESL students’ minimization of the importance of verbal
communication in their content courses. To challenge the linguistic explana-
tion of the inability of ESL students to adapt to active oral participation
modes in their content courses, this study, by focusing on Asian graduate
students in different majors in a US university, examined multiple pertinent
factors affecting their oral participation modes via both classroom observa-
tions and interviews. Sociocultural, linguistic, cognitive, affective, and peda-
gogical/environmental factors were found to influence these students’ oral
communication in their content courses, with socio-cultural factors exerting
the largest influence on students’ classroom reticence. Directions for further
research are recommended.
Introduction

In the past few decades, the quality, scope, and sheer size of the higher educa-
tion enterprise in the United States have attracted students and scholars from all
parts of the world in unprecedented numbers. In the 1994–1995 academic year,
when the study reported in this paper was conducted, for instance, there were
452,635 international students enrolled at 2,758 accredited US institutions.
Among all the foreign students, about two-fifths (42%) were enrolled in

Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 10:1 (2000), 155–189. issn 0957–6851
© 2000 John Benjamins Publishing Company

156 Jun Liu

graduate programs, and more than half (57.8%) were from Asia (Desruisseaux
1995). In compliance with the continuing increase of international students in
the United States, there has been considerable research addressing the various
needs of international students. Studies on US university campuses have
explored international students’ perceived needs (e.g., Manese, Sedlacek, &
Leong 1988), academic needs (e.g., Leong & Sedlacek 1986), adjustment (e.g.,
Mallinckrodt & Leong 1992), acculturation (e.g., Schumann 1978; Hansen
1998), emotional well-being (e.g., Ying & Liese 1990, 1991; Parr, Bradley, &
Bingi 1992), stress precipitators (e.g., Oropeza, Fitzgibbon, & Baron 1991),
coping with stress (e.g., Leong, Mallinckrodt, & Kralj 1990), help-seeking
sources (e.g., Leong & Sedlacek 1986), counseling style preferences (e.g., Exum
& Lau 1988; Merta, Ponterroto, & Brown 1992; Yau, Sue, & Hayden 1992), and
perception of counselor credibility (e.g., Sodowsky 1991). Although these
studies cover a broad spectrum of the diverse needs of international students,
some of the results are problematic for the following reasons. First, many
studies tend to study international students as one cultural group rather than as
specific nationalities with distinct characteristics, so the results are not easy to
interpret as overgeneralizing and stereotyping might easily occur. Second, as
most of the studies are done via questionnaires, differences between/among
groups are reported only as group means, thus minimizing individual differenc-
es. Third, the existing studies have not investigated the attitudinal and value
orientations of international students, which are believed to be of crucial
importance in facilitating communication. Last, but not least, there is a scarcity
of literature on the particular problems and needs of a specific population.
Asian students in US higher education, for instance, is an area that needs special
attention as the Asian student population exceeds half of the international
student population in US higher education (Desruisseaux 1995).
While Asian students contribute to the diversity and the cultural and
intellectual aspects of the American campus environment, they also present
challenges for administrators, faculty, and students alike (Council of Graduate
Schools in US, 1991). International students in general, and Asian students in
particular, experience many difficulties in adjusting to an American lifestyle in
the process of completing their degrees. Their adjustment seems extremely hard
because of the difficulty of being away from home (e.g., Leong 1984; Stafford,
Marion, & Salter 1980). They meet the challenge of learning to function in a
totally different environment with limited English proficiency (e.g., Abadzi
1980; Agarwal & Winkle 1985; Miller & Winston 1990) and experience transi-
tional difficulties and culture shock (e.g., Ting-Toomey 1999). The difficulties

Understanding Asian students’ oral participation modes in American classrooms 157

most Asian students as well as other international students have in US universi-
ties can be grouped into several categories: (1) academic problems in terms of
a lack of English language proficiency, completing various academic tasks, and
familiarizing themselves with American academic norms and expectations; (2)
social problems in terms of social integration, problems in daily life tasks,
homesickness, and role conflicts; and (3) financial problems in terms of
insufficient financial resources (cf. Lee, Abd-Ella, & Burke 1981; Adelegan &
Park 1985; Meloni 1986; Boyer & Sedlacek 1986; Heikinheimo & Shute 1986;
Reinick 1986; Pederson 1991).
Within the academic domain, a problem of growing concern is the inability
of Asian students in English as a Second Language (ESL) settings to adequately
adjust to active oral classroom participation in terms of speaking up in academ-
ic content courses. An attendant problem is the feeling of frustration that often
causes these students anxiety and concern. One obvious fact is that for most
Asian students, English was learned primarily as an academic subject. Even
though these students have a fairly good command of English, as evidenced in
passing the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) requirement to
enter American universities, there is still a gap between what they know (usage)
and what they do (use) in highly demanding academic content courses in which
English is the medium of instruction. In the past few decades, a significant
amount of research has been conducted to explore and explain the possible
relationships between the second language learner’s linguistic knowledge and
his/her language performance. Researchers (e.g., Canale & Swain 1980; Savig-
non 1983; Brown 1987; Ellis 1985, 1994; Saville-Troike 1989; Larsen-Freeman
& Long 1991) seem to agree that the complex process of second language
acquisition cannot be solely explained by cognitive factors. Ellis (1994) dis-
cussed five key issues related to second language acquisition: learner language,
external factors, internal factors, individual learner differences, and classroom
second language acquisition. Among these five issues, both external factors
(e.g., social factors, settings, and input and interaction and SLA) and internal
factors (e.g., language transfer, linguistic universals, cognitive processes, and
individual learner differences) seem to be of crucial importance to explain the
differential success among ESL learners. Central to second language acquisition
research is language learners’ interaction patterns in classrooms. Chaudron
(1988) identified four major areas that depict the nature of interaction and its
possible effects on target language learning in second language classrooms: (1)
selectivity of teachers’ speech to L2 learners in mixed NS and NNS classes, (2)
the variability in teachers’ choice of language in addressing learners, (3) the

158 Jun Liu

pattern of questioning behavior, and (4) characteristics of feedback to learners
following errors of L2 production or subject matter content. In an ethnographic
study of teacher-student interaction in a language classroom, Enright (1984)
found that the two teachers he studied differed in their attitudes towards
classroom interaction. While one teacher preferred his students not to speak
unless they were spoken to, the other teacher gave his students opportunities to
say whatever they wanted to say in class. As a result, student interaction patterns
varied significantly. The classroom research has shown that teachers may be less
likely to address L2 learners when they are mixed with native speakers (Chau-
dron 1988). The results of many other studies (e.g., Philips 1972; Cazen et al.
1980; Duff 1986) suggest that the different teacher-student interaction patterns
are the results of the mismatch between teachers’ and students’ cultural beliefs.
Sato (1982) studied the issue of teacher selection of students by ethnicity in two
university-level ESL classes. She found that the teachers had a tendency to select
the non-Asian students (60%) more than the Asian students (48%), which
suggests that the teachers perceived that non-Asian students were more ready
to participate in class. As Chaudron (1988) pointed out, “lack of attention or
negative functional treatment will at least not promote, and may inhibit,
students’ progress” (p. 121). In their edited volume, Voices from the language
classroom, Bailey and Nunan (1996) devoted a section to classroom dynamics
and interaction. Some substantive issues were revealed as pertinent to class-
room interaction. For example, to explore the problems many teachers face in
dealing with ESL students’ reticence in classroom, Tsui (1996) examined 38
teachers’ perceptions of the factors that contribute to student reticence in
secondary schools in Hong Kong, and she identified five factors contributing to
the lack of students’ participatIon: (1) the students’ low English proficiency; (2)
their fear of making mistakes and being ridiculed by classmates; (3) the teachers’
intolerance of silence, which leads to a very short wait time for students to think
about a question or to come up with an answer; (4) unequal speaking opportu-
nities afforded to each student by the teacher; and (5) overly difficult teacher
language input. The results of her study suggest that it is the interaction of these
factors rather than any single factor that contributes to student reticence.
In order to help Asian students as well as other international students cope
with American academic settings such as content classrooms, various ESL
programs and centers in American universities have been established to offer
courses to help ESL learners overcome various sorts of language barriers and to
be competent in demonstrating their knowledge and abilities in their content
areas. However, once out of ESL programs, these students are no longer treated


as language learners. They are expected to do the same as everyone else in their
content courses. Active oral classroom participation, for instance, is highly
encouraged in US universities, but the fact that many Asian students tend to be
quiet in their content classrooms is often assumed to be caused by their
linguistic incompetence, the improvement of which is often considered as a task
for ESL instructors by content professors. Although there are some speculations
about Asian students’ reticence in their content classrooms, there is no research
to explain why many Asian students tend to be quiet in their content courses in
American universities. There is no literature to date on whether Asian students’
silence in classrooms is due to their being unable to participate, or their being
unwilling to participate, or a combination of both. Likewise, there is no study
that looks closely at Asian students’ perceptions towards oral classroom partici-
pation as compared to their own participation modes in their content courses.
Consequently, we do not know whether silence, as demonstrated by many
Asian students in their content classes, necessarily affects these students’
academic achievement as these silent students are usually very serious in
completing their written tasks (Liu & Kuo 1996). Nor do we know how these
silent Asian students perceive their oral classroom participation in relation to
their American counterparts who are active in classroom participation. It is my
firm belief that the ultimate purpose of English language teachers is to help
learners improve their communicative competence (Swain & Canale 1980) so
that these students will feel comfortable and confident beyond their language
classrooms. The study reported in this paper addresses ESL learners outside
their ESL classrooms. By focusing on a group of Asian students’ perceptions
towards and modes in oral classroom participation in their content courses, this
study looks at second language learners (Asian students) in a broader social
context (content classes) where they are not treated and judged solely as
language learners, but rather as intellectual individuals. By means of various
interview schedules and observations, this study attempts to increase the
understanding of the oral classroom participation perceptions of Asian students
pursuing advanced studies in the United States. The significance of this study is,
therefore, to help raise the consciousness of both ESL instructors and content
professors, as well as American students, in understanding Asian students’
perceptions towards, and modes in, oral classroom participation so as to create
a supportive means to help them build up confidence and competence in
reaching their academic goals. This, in turn, attempts to promote harmonious
classroom environments, and strengthen intercultural communication.

160 Jun Liu

Method

This study was conducted on the main campus of a major US Midwestern
university in the 1994–1995 academic year. Both the diversity of the interna-
tional graduate students as well as the total number of Asian graduate students
at this university were on the top ten list among all the universities in the
United States at the time of the study. I chose Asian graduate students as the
focus of the study for several reasons. First, the very topic under study, oral
classroom participation, is closely related to the Asian population. Asian
students’ silence in American classrooms has become a concern for many
college and university professors in US higher education, and yet studies about
Asian students outside ESL classrooms in American universities are scarce.
Second, my Asian background as an ESL learner, ESL teacher, and a American
university professor provide me with cultural knowledge to address this issue
from an emic as well as an etic perspective. As an in-group member of an Asian
culture, I felt comfortable in building rapport with the Asian students in the
study, and my initial attempts in developing instruments and gaining field
experiences in classroom observation and interviews enabled me to treat every
step of the study with competence and confidence.1 Third, narrowing down the
participants to a specific group (Asian graduate students) allows me to get more
in-depth data and more focused analysis to maintain trustworthiness (Lincoln
and Guba 1985) of the study.
The overall purpose of this study is two-fold: One is to describe, analyze,
and interpret Asian students’ perceptions of classroom participation in terms of
speaking up in their content courses. The other is to suggest ways to help these
students adapt more adequately and effectively to the culture of American
higher education, and to help raise the consciousness of both college and
university ESL instructors, content professors, and American peers in helping
these Asian students with their intercultural communicative competence and
comfort level in class. The objectives are: (1) to describe the oral classroom
participation modes of the participants in the study via classroom observations;
(2) to analyze these students’ perceptions towards their participation in their
academic content courses via different interview schedules; (3) to interpret their
perceptions towards, and modes in, their content courses through factor
analysis, and (4) to discuss some salient patterns unique to the understanding
of Asian students in American universities.
To describe the central themes or principal outcomes that cut across a great
deal of participant variation, I used “maximum variation sampling” (Patton


1990) for this study, which allowed me to select my participants from different
program areas and from different cultural backgrounds. I invited all the Asian
students (n = 30) enrolled in my graduate ESL Composition classes to partici-
pate in the study on voluntary basis in two consecutive quarters. My focus was
not to look at these students oral classroom participation modes in the compo-
sition classes though having them in my classes allowed me to know each
individual better, which facilitated data analysis. I conducted an informal
interview with each participant, informing each of the nature of the study and
the commitment I expected. After the initial interview, I narrowed down the
scope of the study to twenty participants. Among the ten participants who did
not offer to be involved in the study, five were too busy to make the time
commitment, two were not interested in the topic, and the remaining three
were non-traditional Asian students. The twenty participants who stayed in the
study were from the top six Asian groups according to the international students’
population rate at the university then. They were Chinese (Taiwanese, Mainland
Chinese, and Hong Kong Chinese), Korean, Japanese, and Indonesian, and they
were from both natural science programs (e.g., Exercise Physiology, Geodetic
Science, Pharmacy, Chemical Science, Mechanical Engineering, or Biophysics),
and social science programs (e.g., Educational Policy and Leadership, Music,
Social Work, Counseling Education, Agricultural Education or Early and Middle
Childhood Education). These participants were almost evenly divided in gender
(55% male participants and 45% female participants), and the intended degree
of their study (40% Ph.D. students and 60% MA students). At the time of this
study, they were all first or second-year full time Asian graduate students who
had had adequate experience in taking various courses in their program areas,
which served as a crucial basis for the study in understanding their perceptions
towards, and modes in, oral classroom participation in their content courses.
Table 1 is the demographic information of the participants. In order to facilitate
the understanding of these participants, I assigned a pseudonym and a code to
each participant to denote the major, the gender, the nationality, and the order
among those participants who came from the same country. For instance, the
pseudonym “Mr. Physiologist” means a male student whose major is in Physiol-
ogy. The code “MPHDC1” refers to a male Ph.D. student who is from China
and is listed as the first student among four Chinese students in this study.
The data of the study comes from two major sources: Interviews2 and classroom
observations.3 As data collection and data analysis were interwoven, the
observation fieldnotes and interview transcriptions became the formative
products of the data collection and the dependent source for data analysis. The

162 Jun Liu

Table 1. Pseudonyms and codes of the participants
Intended In-group
Gender Degree Nationality Major Order Pseudonym Code
M Ph.D. China Ex. Physiology 1 Mr. Ex. Physiologist MPHDC1
M MA Geodetic Science 2 Mr. Geo Scholar MMAC2
F Ph.D. Pharmacy 3 Ms. Pharmacist FPHDC3
M Ph.D. Family Resource 4 Mr. Ecologist MPHDC4
Management
F MA Hong Kong Ed. Administration 1 Ms. Ed. Administra- FMAHK1
tor
M MA Taiwan Chemical 1 Mr. Chemical MMAT1
Engineering Engineer
F MA Music 2 Ms. Musician FMAT2
M MA Korea Mechanical 1 Mr. Mechanical MMAK1
Engineering Engineer
F Ph.D. Consumer 2 Ms. Consumer FPHDK2
Science Scientist
M Ph.D. Geography 3 Mr. Geologist MPHDK3
F MA Textile and 4 Ms. Fashion FMAK4
Clothing Designer
F Ph.D. Human Nutrition 5 Ms. Nutritionist FPHDK5
M Ph.D. Geodetic Science 6 Mr. Geodetic MPHDK6
Scientist
M Ph.D. Japan Biophysics 1 Mr. Biophysicist MPHDJ1
F MA Social Work 2 Ms. Social Worker FMAJ2
F MA Counseling Ed. 3 Counselor FMAJ3
M MA Indonesia Ag. Ed. 1 Mr. Ag. Specialist MMAI1
F MA Early Childhood Ed. 2 Ms. English Teacher FMAI2
M MA Early Childhood Ed. 3 Mr. Political Science MMAI3
Teacher
M MA Early and Middle 4 Mr. Social Studies MMAI4
Childhood Ed. Teacher

theoretical framework of the data analysis in this study was influenced by
Wolcott (1994) and Miles and Huberman (1994). From Wolcott, I tried to
incorporate the logic in differentiating data description, data analysis and data
interpretation. From Miles and Huberman, I tried to follow the three concur-
rent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/
verification. I believe that these flows are essential and sequential for better data
analysis. To facilitate data analysis, the participants in the study are classified
into four clusters according to their participation modes based on class observa-
tions and interviews (see Table 2).

Table 2. Cluster of the participation modes of the participants
Clusters of the partici- No. of students
pation modes in the cluster Participants Quotes from the participants from interviews
1. Very active 3 Mr. Geologist (MPHDK3) “I participate very actively in class.”
Mr. Geodetic Scientist (MPHDK6) “Actually I am one of those who participate actively in class.”
Ms. English Teacher (FMAI2) “I participated actively in my classes, especially when there are many other nonnative
English speakers.”
2. Somewhat active 5 Mr. Geo Scholar (MMAC2) “I ask questions selectively. I ask questions when I think they can engage further discus-
sion.”
Mr. Ecologist (MPHDC4) “In some of the classes I am very active, but some not.”
Mr. Mechanical Engineer (MMAK1) “I am very active participating in some courses from my own major, but so so in other
ones.”
Mr. Biophysicist (MPHDJ1) “I think I participate, depending on many factors.”
Mr. Political Science Teacher (MMAI3) “I asked questions and sometimes I gave my opinions, sometimes I answered questions
from professors. But it depended on courses.”
3. Not active 5 Mr. Ex. Physiologist (MPHDC1) “I seldom participated in classroom discussion.”
Mr. Chemical Engineer (MMAT1) “I do not talk a lot in class, but sometimes I ask questions.”
Ms. Consumer Scientist (FPHDK2) “The 1st quarter I did not ask any questions, but the second quarter I feel better. If I
have question, I’d like to ask.”
Ms. Nutritionist (FPHDK5) “If I were more active, maybe the time to adjust would be quicker and shorter.”
Ms. Counselor (FMAJ3) “I think if the teacher asks us opinions, I will not volunteer to speak up immediately.”
4. Extremely inactive 7 Ms. Pharmacist (FPHDC3) “I think I am very inactive one. I seldom talk in class, and usually I just keep silent. I
don’t want to speak too much in class.”
Ms. Ed Administrator (FMAHK1) “I usually talk in small group, but never in big classes before.”
Ms. Musician (FMAT2) “I am afraid that I do not participate in courses in my area a lot.”
Ms. Fashion Designer (FMAK4) “Because I am a shy person and I have no conﬁdence in speaking English and my
English is still poor, so yeah, I hesitate to speak and I am not a participating person.”
Ms. Social Worker (FMAJ2) “I never talk in class.”
Mr. Ag. Specialist (MMAI1) “I am not participating very much in my major class.”
Mr. Social Studies Teacher (MMAI4) “I don’t speak up in class or talk a lot in class.”

164 Jun Liu

Findings

This study identified 110 factors among the twenty participants across four
major clusters of oral classroom participation modes. These 110 identified
factors are classified into five major categories: 1. cognitive, 2. pedagogical, 3.
affective, 4. socio-cultural, and 5. linguistic. The factors within each category
can be subdivided into three groups: Facilitative factors that contribute to
positive perceptions towards oral classroom participation, debilitative factors
that are responsible for negative perceptions towards oral classroom participa-
tion, and neutral factors that can go either way depending on particular
circumstances.
Cognitive factors refer to the cognitive processing of information and
knowledge, and the cognitive learning styles and strategies the participants were
accustomed to. Cognitive factors that contribute to positive perceptions
towards oral classroom participation include, for example, professional
engagement due to prior teaching experiences (Factors 12 & 107) and inquisi-
tiveness due to in-depth discussion of the topic (Factor 25). On the other hand,
factors such as being textbook-dependent, and only asking questions related to
texts (Factors 23, & 53), lack of background knowledge or schemata and work
experience (Factors 83, 91, & 98), and tactfully using avoidance strategies
(Factor 36), all had negative impact on some participants’ perceptions towards
oral classroom participation. However, the neutral factors in this category, such
as the interest level in, and knowledge about, the subject matter under discus-
sion (Factor 20), and the readiness to ask questions (Factor 43), are dependent
on individual participants as constrained by multiple factors.
Pedagogical factors refer to the educational experiences of the participants
in terms of teaching styles of their former professors in their home countries as
well as the professors they had in the US, the class size and composition, as well
as the educational environment. Facilitative factors in this domain include
encouragement of US professors for participation (Factor 21), participation as
a requirement (Factor 41), and a relaxed classroom atmosphere when more
non-native English speaking peers are in class (Factor 27). Conversely, negative
factors can be attributed to the dominance of native English speaking peers
(Factors 26 & 84) and stress due to heavy course loads (Factor 51). Other
educational factors which are considered to be neutral in forming participants’
perceptions and determining their participation modes are lesson type (Factor
74) and class size (30).
Affective factors refer to participants’ personality traits, motivation and


attitude, anxiety, and risk-taking. Some participants’ positive perceptions
towards oral classroom participation can be associated with their extroverted
personality (Factor 25), risk-taking (Factor 34), feeling making mistakes is
unavoidable (Factor 54), and concern about the professor’s impression on
students based on participation modes (Factor 71). On the other hand, affective
factors came into play when participation was perceived negatively. For
instance, some participants considered themselves introverted (Factor 17),
having a lack of confidence in speaking (Factors 47 & 92), shy in nature and
passive in communication (Factors 68 & 76), over-relying on native speakers of
English (Factor 87), or feeling overwhelmed by native English speakers in class
(Factor 26), thus causing inhibition and/or intimidation (Factor 84). Students’
comfort level, which is a neutral affective factor, such as feeling comfortable
participating only when the majority of the students were Asian (Factor 27),
largely depended on how individual students felt about the composition of
students in a class.
Socio-cultural factors refer to the participants’ cultural beliefs, values, and
moral judgments that are heavily influenced by their cultural backgrounds and
former education in their home countries. Socio-cultural factors had a strong
influence on the perceptions the participants held towards oral classroom
participation. For instance, some participants in this study had a strong sense of
responsibility and obligation to participate in classrooms (Factor 42), and they
made efforts to participation due to peer pressure (Factor 24). The prior
experiences in the target culture and in American colleges (e.g., Mr. Biophysi-
cist, or Mr. Geologist) and graduate school (e.g., Mr. Mechanical Engineer) also
shaped their positive perceptions towards participation. On the other hand,
factors such as being a good student means taking notes and listening to the
teacher carefully without asking questions as a sign of respect for teachers
(Factor 72), lack of participation experiences in their own countries (Factor 18),
discouragement of oral participation in the native culture (Factors 88 and 89),
over-reliance on the L1 community (Factor 44), viewing class time too valuable
to ask questions (Factor 52), receiving their education from women’s colleges
(Factor 55), the role of women in countries such as in Korea (Factor 64), and to
save face by avoiding mistakes (Factors 49 & 78), inhibited the participants’
positive perceptions towards oral classroom participation. No neutral factors in
this study were found within the socio-cultural domain although the nature of
the identified factors could change over time.
Linguistic factors refer to the participants’ linguistic abilities and communi-
cative competence. The results of the study show that linguistic abilities of each

166 Jun Liu

individual student alone do not match their participation modes. However,
some participants clearly associated their active participation modes and their
positive perceptions towards participation with their good English speaking
skills (Factor 31) while others felt their poor English skills disadvantaged them
(Factors 58, 61, 62, and 77). The frustrations and inhibitions affected by the
linguistic deficiencies of many participants influenced their perceptions and
participation modes to a great extent. Nevertheless, linguistic factors alone
cannot determine the cause of the negative perceptions of the participants.
To understand the relationship between the participants in the four clusters
according to their participation modes (Cluster I: Active; Cluster II: Somewhat
active; Cluster III: Inactive; and Cluster IV: Extremely inactive) and the five
categories (1. cognitive, 2. pedagogical, 3. affective, 4. socio-cultural, and 5.
linguistic) delineated from 110 factors listed above, the following table (Table 3)
shows the mean percentage of each category distributed within each cluster:

Table 3. Frequency percentage of factors in 5 categories across 4 clusters
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
Cognitive Pedagogical Affective Socio-cultural Linguistic Total %
Cluster I 05.26 09.52 24.00 06.45 00.00 010.00
Cluster II 47.37 42.86 20.00 22.58 28.57 030.91
Cluster III 21.05 23.81 12.00 38.71 21.43 024.55
Cluster IV 26.32 23.81 44.00 32.26 50.00 034.55
Total % 17.27 19.09 22.73 28.18 12.73 100.00

Table 3 shows that among all the factors in five major categories, socio-cultural
factors (28.18%) are the most salient in general, followed by affective factors
(22.73%), pedagogical factors (19.09%), cognitive factors (17.27%), and
linguistic factors (12.73) according to the frequency percentage of the total
factors. It reveals that the three students who were active in classroom participa-
tion in Cluster I were most affected by affective factors (24%), but not affected
at all by linguistic factors. The five students who were somewhat active in
classroom participation in Cluster II were most affected by cognitive factors
(47%) as well as pedagogical factors (42%), and least affected by affective
factors (24%). The five students who were inactive in classroom participation
were most affected by socio-cultural factors (38.71%). The seven students who
were extremely inactive in classroom participation were most affected by
linguistic (50%) as well as affective factors (44%). Among all the twenty
students across the 4 clusters in this study, the seven students who were


extremely inactive in classroom participation in Cluster IV had the highest
frequency percentage of all factors (34.55%), followed by the five students in
Cluster II (30.91%), and the five students in Cluster III (24.55%), with the
lowest frequency percentage of all factors (10%) for the three students in
Cluster I.
While these descriptive statistics can help understand the distribution of
categorical factors within the students in each of the four clusters, and under-
stand the overall distribution of factors across all the students in the four
clusters, they do not provide us with the detailed information with which to
explain the differences in the above table. In the following table (Table 4), all
the factors in each category are divided into three kinds according to their
functions, namely, facililtative (factors that affect students’ positive perceptions
towards oral classroom participation), debilitative (factors that affect their
negative perceptions), and neutral (factors that could lead to either positive or
negative perceptions of students towards oral classroom participation and their
participation modes). The frequency percentage of each function against each
category will then be revealed.

Table 4. Frequency percentage of factors in 5 categories at 3 functional levels
Functional Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
levels Cognitive Pedagogical Affective Socio-cultural Linguistic Total %
Debilitative 52.63 38.10 60.00 80.65 92.86 64.55
factors (3)
Neutral fac- 15.79 23.81 00.00 00.00 00.00 07.27
tors (2)
Facilitative 31.58 38.10 40.00 19.35 07.14 28.18
factors (1)

As Table 4 indicates, among all factors, about two-thirds (64.55%) are debilita-
tive, and a bit more than one fourth (28.18%) are facilitative, with less than
one-tenth being neutral, suggesting that all factors identified in this study have
an overall negative effect on oral classroom participation. When debilitative
factors are put into perspective, linguistic (92.86%) as well as socio-cultural
factors (80.65%) dominate, suggesting that students’ linguistic abilities and
communicative competence are very important in determining their participa-
tion modes, and being aware of one’s poor speaking ability, for instance, will
trigger affective concerns such as face saving, and using avoidance strategies.
Moreover, a large number of socio-cultural factors, such as keeping quiet in

168 Jun Liu

class as a sign to show respect for teachers, trying to resolve questions through
attentive listening and thorough lesson preparation, or maintaining harmony
by holding off one’s different opinions, are all very crucial in shaping students’
perceptions towards oral classroom participation, which help produce more
listeners than speakers in class. But among all the facilitative factors, affective
(40%) as well as pedagogical factors (38.10%) are the most crucial, suggesting
that affective factors such as students’ high motivation, positive attitudes,
willingness to speak up in class, good risk-taking strategies, and extroverted
personalities all play important roles in helping students form positive percep-
tions towards oral classroom participation. These positive perceptions will likely
affect the students’ oral classroom participation modes from being inactive to
more active. Likewise, pedagogical factors, such as a lively and relaxed class
atmosphere, lesson type, encouraging professors, small class size, supportive
environment, and giving credit to oral participation, all contribute to active
participation modes of the students. Interestingly, only a small number of
factors in cognitive (15.79%) as well as pedagogical (23.81%) categories are
identified as neutral. This suggests that students’ perceptions and their subse-
quent participation modes will be either partially or totally dependent upon
both internal value judgments, e.g., the worth of the participation against
knowledge enhancement, as well as the external situation, e.g., the class size, the
lesson type, or the teaching style. Chart 1 below demonstrates the frequency
distribution of the 3 functional levels of the factors across the 5 categories.
As can be seen from the Chart 1, the distribution among the three function-
al levels within each category is different. For instance, in Category 2, Pedagogi-
cal factors, both facilitative and debilitative, are evenly distributed, and are close
in number to its neutral function, suggesting that pedagogical factors are
permeable for change. It also implies that college professors and native English
speaking students can make an impact on Asian students’ oral classroom
participation modes from being inactive to more active. In Category 5, for
Linguistic factors, the distribution between facilitative and debilitative functions
is dramatically apart, suggesting that those who have difficulties in speaking
English will not easily overcome their perceived linguistic deficiencies. It takes
time and effort for them to feel comfortable about their communicative compe-
tence to speak up in their content classes. This implies that Asian students,
especially those who are concerned about their speaking abilities, should make
efforts in risk-taking, confidence-building, and in seeking opportunities such as
oral classroom participation to improve their communicative competence. It
also suggests that college and university professors should provide such opportu-


100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pedagogical
Category 1

Category 3

Category 5
Sociocultural
Category 2

Linguistic
Category 4
Cognitive

Affective

Debilitative factors (3)
Neutral factors (2)
Facilitative factors (1)

Chart 1. The distribution of 3 functions of factors in 5 categories
nities and encouragement, and that native English speaking peers should
understand, and support their Asian peers’ efforts. As seen, the debilitative and
facilitative functions of socio-cultural factors are also widely scattered, with a
negative impact, overall, on Asian students’ participation modes. This suggests
a distance, rather than a conflict, between Asian educational beliefs and philoso-
phies and those of the American culture. Such a distance shall be acknowledged,
and reflected in intercultural communication settings such as American class-
rooms in which culture-sensitive knowledge and mindful reflexivity are
essential for successful classroom interaction. For Asian students, the crucial
point is their willingness to communicate and willingness to acculturate
themselves to the American academia in terms of adjusting to the oral discourse
communities in American classrooms as a symbol of their cultural transforma-
tion.
Although Chart 1 demonstrates the frequency percentage of factors in 5
categories at 3 functional levels, we do not know the variation of the frequency
percentage of factors in 5 categories among the twenty participants across 4
distinctive clusters. Therefore, the following 4 charts have been created in order
to provide a clear picture of how the factors at 3 functional levels are distributed

170 Jun Liu

in 4 clusters, and how the participation modes of the students in each cluster
might be affected by these factors.

6

5

4
Facilitative
3
Debilitative
2
Neutral
1

0

Cog. Affec. Ling.
Chart 2. Distribution of factors across 5 categories in Cluster I

Chart 2 shows that there are altogether 11 factors that affected the active oral
classroom participation modes of the three students in Cluster I. These factors
are all facilitative and more than half of the factors are in the affective category,
suggesting that factors such as high motivation, high self-esteem, low anxiety,
or high risk-taking all enhanced students’ active participation. Pedagogical as
well as socio-cultural factors together with cognitive factors help, too, though
to a less extent. However, no linguistic factor was mentioned by the three
students in this cluster, suggesting that these students who have a fairly good
command of English speaking proficiency were not affected by their linguistic
abilities when they chose to participate in class discussion or interact with their
classmates or instructors. It also suggests that linguistic abilities is an implicit
facilitative factor for students who are communicatively competent.
Chart 3 shows that there are altogether 34 factors that affected the perceptions
as well as the active oral classroom participation modes of the five students in
Cluster II. These factors are both facilitative and debilitative across 5 categories,
though with an uneven distribution. The relatively few neutral factors that were
identified are related to both cognitive and pedagogical categories only. Among
all the facilitative factors, cognitive and pedagogical factors outnumbered
affective and socio-cultural factors and there was only one instance of a
linguistic factor. Among debilitative factors, socio-cultural factors appear to


5

4

3 Facilitative

Debilitative
2

Neutral
1

0
Cog. Peda. Affec. Socio. Ling.
Chart 3. Distribution of factors across 5 categories in Cluster II

exert the greatest influence, followed by linguistic and affective factors, with
cognitive and pedagogical factors being least frequently mentioned.

12

10

8

6

4

2

0
Cog. Peda. Affect. Socio. Ling.

Facilitative Debilitative Neutral
Chart 4. Distribution of factors across 5 categories in Cluster III

Chart 4 reveals that there are altogether 27 factors that affected the percep-
tions as well as the active oral classroom participation modes of the five
students in Cluster III. Facilitative factors are distributed at an unusually low
rate across 3 categories (pedagogical, affective, and socio-cultural). Debilitative
factors run across all 5 categories with socio-cultural factors being the most

172 Jun Liu

frequent, suggesting that socio-cultural factors are mainly responsible for the
perceptions and the inactive participation modes of the five students in this
category. The only 2 neutral factors identified are pedagogical in nature.

12

10

8
Facilitative
6
Debilitative
4
Neutral
2

0
Cog. Peda. Affect. Socio. Ling.

Chart 5. Distribution of factors across 5 categories in Cluster IV

As shown in Chart 5, the seven participants in Cluster IV were influenced
by 38 factors that are all debilitative in nature. Obviously, affective and cogni-
tive as well as linguistic factors are relevant, suggesting that the interaction
among these factors is crucial to students’ perception formation and their
classroom reticence. These students who are extremely inactive in oral class-
room participation not only have weak listening and speaking abilities in
English, but also are constrained by their socio-cultural values and prior
experiences in believing how students should behave in class. Their inhibition
in classroom participation and high level of anxiety caused by linguistic
concerns should be examined integratively.
In summary, there are approximately 110 factors over 5 categories (cogni-
tive, pedagogical, affective, socio-cultural, and linguistic) among twenty
students in 4 clusters (active, somewhat active, inactive, and extremely inactive)
according to their participation modes. These factors are observed at three
function levels: facilitative, debilitative, and neutral. In the cognitive domain,
the main facilitative factors include the impact of students’ prior teaching and
work experience, their interest in and knowledge about the subject matter, their
strong belief in the benefits of oral classroom participation, their sufficient
lesson preparation, and their curiosity about the content and the professor’s


explanations. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge of the subject matter,
over-dependence on textbooks, considering listening and understanding as the
priority in classrooms, and being overly concerned about the quality of the
questions to be raised are all main debilitative factors. The neutral factors are
mainly related to the quality of questions and the knowledge enhancement of
the class discussion based on individual students’ judgments. Although cogni-
tive factors are outnumbered by socio-cultural, affective and pedagogical factors
overall, more than half (52.63%) of the cognitive factors are debilitative in
nature, suggesting that Asian students’ perceptions towards oral classroom
participation as well as their actual participation modes in class are likely to be
influenced by cognitive factors, which are overall debilitative.
In the pedagogical domain, facilitative and debilitative factors are evenly
distributed (32.10% for each). The main facilitative factors include the use of
class discussion as the lesson type, opportunities and encouragement provided
by the professor, peer support, and oral class participation built into grading.
On the other hand, if lectures are used as the lesson type, if students are
underprepared for class, if students over-rely on the native speakers of English
to ask questions in class, or if they do not receive any support from their native
English-speaking peers, then these conditions will turn into debilitative factors
in shaping students’ perceptions towards oral classroom participation, and
inhibiting students’ active oral classroom participation. However, factors such
as the class size, the lesson type, and the chemistry as well as dynamics of the
class are all neutral leading to either positive or negative perceptions and
participation modes of students in class. For instance, many students in the
study expressed their concern about oral classroom participation in big classes,
especially those students in natural science majors. The classes are usually
attended by many students, i.e., from 20 to 200 students. The students in these
classes care more about other students’ time and interest levels, and they only
chose to participate in relatively small classes or in small groups.
In the affective domain, the main facilitative factors include high levels of
motivation, willingness to speak up in class, self-confidence, strong self-
determination, lack of concern about making mistakes in speaking, extroverted
and outgoing personality traits, and trying to impress professors by participat-
ing. Conversely, a lack of confidence in speaking and concern about not being
understood, introverted personality traits, anxiety in speaking English in class,
intimidation due to a lack of experience, being slow to react to questions, stress
due to heavy course-loads, and insecurity due to few non-native speakers in
class, are the main debilitative factors. The competitiveness among peers is one

174 Jun Liu

of the main neutral affective factors. For instance, some students are more
comfortable in participating in classes where the majority of the students are
native English speakers. These students are eager to demonstrate their content
knowledge about the subject matter under discussion (e.g., Mr. Geo. Scholar,
and Mr. Geologist) with native English speakers. Such competitiveness thus
becomes a facilitative factor for oral classroom participation. Conversely, other
students are intimidated in participating in class as soon as they realize that all
or the majority of their classmates are native English speakers. Therefore,
competitiveness becomes debilitative because of the linguistic inferiority felt by
these students (e.g., Mr. Ag. Specialist, Ms. Ed. Administrator, or Ms. Social
Worker). On the other hand, some students feel more competitive if the
majority of the classmates are non-native English speakers. In the case of Ms.
English Teacher, for instance, she felt extremely motivated to speak up in front
of other English as a second language speakers. Her competitiveness, which is
more of a linguistic than a cognitive factor in this particular classroom environ-
ment, serves as a facilitative factor for her participation. Among all the affective
factors identified in the study, about two-fifths are debilitative to the students’
perceptions towards oral classroom participation and their actual classroom
participation.
In the socio-cultural domain, the main facilitative factors include social
obligation and responsibility in lesson preparation, prior exposure to the target
culture and prior learning experiences in the US, willingness to accommodate
and acculturate to fit into the norm of American classrooms, and peer support
from both American students and international students. However, the
majority of the socio-cultural factors are debilitative. Among them, the most
salient one is avoiding speaking up in class in order to be polite and to save face,
a concept deeply rooted in Asian culture. Other debilitative factors include
concerns about other students’ interest and time, lack of participation experi-
ence as it was not emphasized in Asian culture, believing in attentive listening
and note-taking, being obedient to the teacher as authoritative figure by
keeping quiet, believing that valuable class time should not be taken by ques-
tions, a belief that questions and problems shall be resolved through self-study
and lesson preparation, lack of cultural schemata of how to engage in class
discussion, believing that the lack of oral classroom participation can be
compensated by a good grade, and over-relying on L1 study groups.
In the linguistic domain, the main facilitative factors are: Good English
speaking skills, regarding speaking up in class as an opportunity to practice English,
and being able to communicate with body language. The main factors that are


debilitating to oral classroom participation are: Limited language proficiency
and poor listening comprehension due to the speed and accent of the instructor
(especially among those students who are inactive or extremely inactive in oral
classroom participation); difficulty in expressing ideas spontaneously; poor
pronunciation and a strong accent, and poor grammar; over-reliance on using
the L1; intimidation caused by the flawless English of native speakers in class;
spending excessive amount of time before speaking up; and having learned
English in non-interactive ways (e.g., via books, tapes, or television).

Discussion

Although the factors identified can help understand and explain the students’
participation modes in their content courses, the interplay among these factors
across five categories (cognitive, pedagogical, affective, socio-cultural, and
linguistic) as well as the interchange of factors at three functional levels (facili-
tative, debilitative and neutral) within each category are very complex. However,
there are some recurring patterns and themes that can help us understand the
complexity of the nature of Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes.
First, among all the factors that affect the participants’ perceptions towards
oral classroom participation and their differential participation modes, socio-
cultural and affective factors are the most salient in shaping the negative
perceptions of the students towards oral classroom participation. This finding
belies the assumption that students’ linguistic abilities usually determine their
inactive oral participation modes. It also challenges the assumption that Asian
students’ reticence means that the students are passive or less able as these
students are too often regarded and treated as ESL learners. Such assumptions
towards Asian students based on their silence in class might have a negative
impact on these students’ self-esteem, and risk-taking. The participants in the
study, though from different countries in Asia, share similar socio-cultural
concepts, attitudes, and beliefs, which was cross-validated through interviews
and observations. These shared concepts, attitudes, and beliefs are reflected in
the deeply-rooted Asian concept of face-saving, the often-praised sense of
collectivism as well as the often-criticized sense of individualism by following
trends and avoiding confrontation with the teacher or other students in class,
the sensitivity to interpersonal harmony, the over-reliance on peers who share
a similar cultural background, the blind obedience to the teacher by listening
attentively and concealing and tolerating disagreement, the sense of guilt in

176 Jun Liu

expressing aggression towards authority figures, and self-discipline in solving
problems through reading the textbook.
In traditional Asian culture, a great emphasis is often placed on obedience,
proper conduct, moral training, and the acceptance of social obligations (Bond
1986). Naturally, independence and assertiveness, which tend to encourage
active oral classroom participation, are not emphasized. Therefore, the ways
Asian students behave in class are generally affected by their socio-cultural
backgrounds although the degree to which each participant in the study was
influenced by Asian culture, concepts, and beliefs is different. Various degrees
of Asian cultural influence on the individual accounts for their differential oral
classroom participation modes. Moreover, the obligation and responsibility
emphasized by Asian culture could make the students work twice as hard at
lesson preparation to find out the answers to the questions in the textbook
before they ask them in class, or could make them spend much time solving
problems accumulated in the previous class by reviewing their notes and
textbooks. The participants in the study also expressed achievement motivation.
As long as they can get a good grade, as long as they can learn, they will be
satisfied. In their opinion, obtaining high grades is equal to high achievement
in class. Therefore, if oral classroom participation is counted towards the overall
grade, even the least active students would try hard to speak up in class. Howev-
er, as some of the students were shy in nature, they prepared one or two ques-
tions before class or even wrote down what they intended to say before class.
Unfortunately, they either ended up saying what they had prepared at the wrong
moment, or they would not find the opportunity to fit their prepared oral output
into the lesson because their oral participation is more canned than spontane-
ous. Subsequently, they do not enjoy participation as it becomes an obligation.
It is also worth noticing that the socio-cultural training many Asian
students receive in their earlier education contributes largely to their character
formation. As mentioned in the works of Abbott (1970), Vernon (1982), and
Ting-Toomey (1999), in Asia, dependency, conformity, modesty, self-suppres-
sion, and self-contentment are taught from early on. Dominant moral and
religious thoughts or doctrines, such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism,
penetrate socio-cultural beliefs. In a way, most Asians are known as socio-
oriented people who believe in collectivism that emphasizes the importance of
the interdependent self, collective self-esteem, and particularistic-based
interaction. When all these socio-cultural beliefs and concepts are taken into
consideration, we will not be surprised to notice that the inactive role many
Asian graduate students in this study had towards oral classroom participation


were deeply affected by their early education in their own Asian cultures. The
affective factors which followed immediately after the socio-cultural factors in
terms of the frequency counts, therefore, could also be explained under the
broad spectrum of socio-cultural factors. They are interrelated. Personality
traits, for example, were found to be related to the oral classroom participation
modes. The extroverted students were more active in classroom participation
than the introverted students. Perhaps there is a link between Asian culture and
the trained introverted characteristics of Asian students in class to be quiet as a
sign of proper classroom behavior and respect for teachers (Liu & Kuo 1996).
We should, therefore, have more empathy in understanding and explaining the
classroom behavior many Asian students in this study showed: the lack of
motivation to participate in class, low-risk taking, inhibition, anxiety in
speaking, intimidation by native speakers of English in class, and sense of
inferiority in the English language.
While socio-cultural and affective factors are chiefly responsible for the
silent behavior of Asian students in class, their are intertwined with other
factors, such as linguistic, cognitive, and pedagogical factors. The lack of English
speaking abilities of many students in this study was disguised or protected in
shelter of their socio-cultural belief of keeping quiet in class as a sign to show
respect for teachers. Meanwhile, keeping silent in class because of the concern
for making mistakes in speaking up in their content courses can help face-
saving through the non-risk-taking strategy of avoidance. If the motivation
behind the behavior of keeping quiet in class is a mixture of being polite (socio-
cultural) and face-saving (affective), then the causes of such behavior are
multiple. Apart from the lack of communicative competence in speaking
English, cognitive factors such as the lack of prior work experience, the lack of
schemata of the subject matter under discussion, and insufficient lesson
preparation, have a detrimental effect on the Asian students’ reticence in class
as well. Likewise, pedagogical factors, such as lecture-only classes, big class size,
and caring primarily about grades in class, made many Asian students feel at
home as they went through their earlier education in their home countries in a
similar fashion. These students naturally felt comfortable (affective) as there
were not many differences in the way the courses were conducted except for the
language used as the medium of instruction, and they certainly would assume
that their behavior was appropriate. Naturally, they transferred their learning
styles and strategies, which had been successful in the classrooms in their home
countries, into American classrooms (socio-cultural).
Second, the findings of the study suggest that Asian students have the

178 Jun Liu

potential to speak up in their content courses, and Asian students’ oral class-
room participation modes can change over time. Such changes can be bi-
directional, incidental, or durable due to the interactions among multiple
factors. The impetus for such change can come from within (e.g., motivation
and attitude, self-confidence, or improvement of speaking abilities over time)
and/or from outside (e.g., dynamics of class, effects of teachers and their
teaching style, or other students’ participation modes and their attitude towards
Asian students). Interestingly, the students’ perceptions towards oral classroom
participation and their actual oral classroom participation modes are not well
matched. That is, those who seldom participate in classroom discussion or
seldom ask questions in class are not necessarily those whose perceptions
towards oral classroom participation are negative. Likewise, those who partici-
pated actively in their content courses did not always have all positive percep-
tions towards oral classroom participation. However, what is evident in the data
analysis, and consistent among the students in the study, is the belief all the
students felt, expressed, or acted throughout this study, regardless of their oral
classroom participation modes, that oral classroom participation helped
confirm their thoughts and clear the doubts in their minds whether through
their own participation or through their classmates’ participation. This positive
attitude implies that Asian students, regardless of cognitive, pedagogical,
affective, socio-cultural, and linguistic factors, have the potential to speak up in
their content courses, a finding consistent with earlier research (Liu & Kuo
1996) on the same topic.
However, one’s potential to speak up in class is constrained by multiple
factors. For instance, many students in the study who were extremely inactive
in oral classroom participation (e.g., Mr. Ag. Specialist, Ms. Musician, or Mr.
Social Studies Teacher) considered oral classroom participation in their content
courses as a positive means to improve their communicative competence, but
their poor English speaking abilities held them back from participating as they
were concerned about losing face if their professors and classmates could not
understand them. This raised their affective filter and inhibited them from
further participation. Meanwhile, the linguistic barrier concealed in their
silence forced them to seek alternative means (e.g., attentive listening, careful
note-taking and checking, thorough lesson preparation, or review in order to
retain achievement motivation through obtaining good grades) to maintain
their classroom identity.
Conversely, many students who were active or somewhat active in oral
classroom participation in their content course (Mr. Geodetic Scientist, Ms.


English Teacher, or Mr. Political Science Teacher) were well aware of their
weaknesses in speaking English, and they perceived oral classroom participation
as a source of motivation for them to improve their English speaking abilities,
which not only resulted in their active or somewhat active participation in their
content classrooms, but also in ESL classrooms and beyond. These students
were good risk-takers, and they relied on strategies such as thorough lesson
preparation and writing their questions down on paper in advance to sustain
their efforts. However, one’s negative experience in making mistakes in class
through oral classroom participation could prevent one from practicing further.
Moreover, inhibition in oral participation could also change positive percep-
tions towards oral classroom participation into negative ones. If the changing
perceptions towards oral classroom participation from either direction is
unavoidable, then to maintain the positive perceptions despite one’s actual
linguistic abilities needs motivation and willingness to practice in class. There-
fore, identifying and examining the multiple factors in different categories and
studying the interconnections within and among categories will help illuminate
suggestions to help transform Asian students’ potential to speak up in their
content classrooms into their actual participation.
Third, the findings of the study imply that gender and personality are
relevant to Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes. Among twenty
participants in the study, nine (45%) were female and eleven (55%) were male.
Among the eight active or somewhat active participants, only one student was
female (12.5%). However, of the twelve inactive or extremely inactive partici-
pants, eight (66.7%) were female students. This suggests that gender plays a role
in students’ oral classroom participation. Nine female students in the study
were more inhibited in oral classroom participation than male students
regardless of their linguistic abilities and interest in and mastery of the content
knowledge. The majority of the female participants in the study expressed their
socio-cultural belief of how a woman should behave in class in their own
culture. For example, both Ms. Consumer Scientist and Ms. Nutritionist who
graduated from women’s colleges believe that females in Asian cultures should
be quiet, polite, sensitive, and responsible. Therefore, part of the reason for
these Asian women students to be silent in class can be associated with their
cultural backgrounds and beliefs. One Japanese female student, Ms. Counselor,
spoke English very well, but she chose to be silent in class as she was accus-
tomed to being so in her own country. Interestingly, almost all the female
students in this study revealed that they were introverted in their content classes
although some of them were extroverted after class, especially when they were

180 Jun Liu

with their co-nationals. While the participants in this study were not chosen
based on the even distribution of gender, the fact that eight out of nine female
students in the study were inactive in classroom participation makes us wonder
what caused such unbalanced classroom participation modes between male and
female students. I brought up this issue in many interviews with these female
students and they revealed that in the majority of the courses they took in their
majors in US, Asian students were the minority, and Asian female students were
usually the minority among the Asian students in class. These female Asian
students had the tendency to focus on listening and understanding in class, and
they were more concerned about face-saving, and harmony than their male
counterparts, which can be directly associated with their socio-cultural and
prior educational backgrounds and the traditional Asian societal concept of the
role of women which is characterized as being passive, obedient, submissive,
and quiet. Although this traditional view of Asian women has been challenged
and altered, its negative impact still affects Asian female students’ behavior
especially when they are in an unfamiliar environment such as American
classrooms in which they are the minority. Most of the female participants in
this study were very cautious in oral participation, trying to be quiet in class, or
trying not to be aggressive if they spoke up in class, in order to maintain
politeness and harmony. This finding of gender differences is consistent with
the study by Fassinger (1995), who found that student gender is a significant
component in classroom participation, and consistent with Carson and
Nelson’s study (1996) which found that Chinese students’ primary goal for the
group was characterized as social — to maintain harmony — and that this goal
affected the nature and types of interaction they allowed themselves in group
discussions.
The study also implies that one’s personality is context-dependent, a
finding consistent with Peirce (1995), who challenged the notion of distinguish-
ing personality traits from introverted to extroverted without considering the
context, which is associated with one’s cultural belief systems. Given American
classrooms as a social context, this study suggests that an introverted personality
is more closely related to inactive participation modes of Asian students. Within
the content classroom settings, three out of three (100%) active participants
were all extroverted. Three out of five (60%) somewhat active participants were
introverted, but they were all determined, persistent, and inquisitive. Four out
of five (80%) inactive participants were introverted, and five out of seven (71%)
extremely inactive participants were introverted. It can be inferred that in
American academic discourse community such as content classes, some Asian


students within extroverted personality traits are more likely to be active in oral
participation, whereas those with an introverted personality are likely to be
inactive in oral participation. However, one must remember that one’s personality
traits is highly context-dependent and situation-specific, and there are always other
factors that should be taken into consideration when we determine the effect of
personality traits on oral classroom participation modes of the students.
Fourth, this study reveals that one’s participation modes are affected by
one’s content knowledge and prior experience, but not necessarily by one’s
length of stay in the target culture. Content knowledge was mentioned by at
least three participants as an important factor affecting their active oral contri-
bution to class. Lack of knowledge of the subject matter was also mentioned by
five participants as a debilitating factor inhibiting their oral classroom participa-
tion. The participants who did not have much knowledge in the subject matter
but were highly interested in their majors were cautious in oral classroom
participation, whereas the participants who had neither interest nor knowledge
in their majors were non-participants in class because they felt they had nothing
to contribute. The active participants were those who had sufficient knowledge
and a high level of interest in their major. Therefore, interest in as well as
knowledge of the subject matter one pursues appears to be of crucial importance
in affecting one’s active oral classroom participation modes. Closely related to
the interest level and knowledge base in one’s major is the prior major-related
experience one has. The findings suggest that the majority of the participants in
the study who had prior teaching or work experience were more active in oral
classroom participation than those who had not. Of the five participants who
had no prior experience, three (60%) were inactive or extremely inactive in oral
classroom participation. Of the seven participants who had prior teaching
experience ranging from two to seven years, for example, five (71%) were either
active or somewhat active in oral classroom participation. Therefore, one’s prior
experience did appear to have an impact on one’s participation mode, and one’s
prior experience in a major-related job appears to be a plus in one’s oral
classroom contributions.
The findings of this study also suggest that length of stay, alone, does not
determine one’s oral participation mode. The length of stay does not have
absolute significance without considering the context in which one stays and
the motivation with which one acculturates to the English-speaking communi-
ty. For instance, length of stay seemed to help some participants’ cultural
adaptation and active or somewhat active roles in oral classroom participation.
For example, Mr. Biophysicist spent almost five years attending a college in

182 Jun Liu

Alabama; Mr. Geologist had lived for five years in the US, first as a transfer
student in a university in Denver, then later as a master’s student at Ohio State;
and Mr. Mechanical Engineer spent more than two years getting his MA in a
university in West Virginia. However, it did not help others like Ms. Fashion
Designer and Ms. Pharmacist, who spent seven and three and half years,
respectively, at home taking care of their children, speaking their own languag-
es, and being quite detached from the American community. Therefore, if one
stays within one’s own L1 community in the target culture, length of stay does
not help much. However, if one spends or is willing to spend much time in the
target culture and target community, then length of stay becomes a facilitative
factor helping not only language improvement, but also the understanding of
the cultural concepts under which the language operates. This is consistent with
an earlier study by Oyama (1975), who found that length of stay alone had little
effect on immigrants’ acquisition of a non-native phonological system.
Fifth, the impact of American peers on Asian students’ participation modes
should be taken into consideration. This study suggests that Asian students are
usually very good at reading and solving problems, but due to their different
cultural upbringing and linguistic deficiencies, they tend to have mixed feelings
towards the general active oral classroom participation modes of their American
peers. As perceived by many participants in the study, American peers were
usually very active in oral classroom participation. Many participants in the
study found that the active participation of American peers was stimulating and
encouraging, and they felt motivated to participate themselves. Although some
Asian students were not active in oral classroom participation, they greatly
benefited from the active participation of their American peers and other
students. In fact, these students could get answers to their questions without
speaking up in class. However, some Asian students felt intimidated by the
active oral classroom participation modes of their American peers, which
resulted in their giving up speaking in class. In terms of support from American
peers, many participants in the study felt grateful and appreciative when they
sometimes were in trouble in expressing themselves in class, and their American
peers helped them express their ideas. However, different reactions of the
participants in this study towards the active participation mode of American
peers in class have several implications. Although American peers’ active oral
classroom participation modes could become a threat for some Asian students,
they can serve as role models for Asian students to follow. As many Asian
students have the potential to speak up, they may feel it beneficial for American
peers to help them with phrases or words while they are struggling to partici-


pate. Obviously, there is a need for greater cross-cultural sensitivity from Asian
students, their American peers, as well as from instructors.
Finally, this study shows that teaching style, lesson type, and class size are
crucial to Asian students’ participation regardless of their major of study. Eight
participants (40%) majored in the social sciences while twelve participants
(60%) majored in the natural sciences. Only two out of eight (25%) participants
in the social sciences were active or somewhat active in oral classroom partici-
pation, whereas six out of twelve (50%) participants in natural science were
active or somewhat active in oral classroom participation. This finding implies
that those who are in social science majors do not necessarily have advantages
in oral classroom participation, suggesting that the major of study alone is not
crucial in determining the oral participation modes of the participants without
considering the lesson type, the class size, as well as the teaching style. The
findings of this study further suggest that the content area instructors’ teaching
styles are crucial to the oral classroom participation modes of the participants
regardless of their major of study. Moreover, the lesson type and the class size
are important factors affecting students’ participation modes, and that seminars
and discussion lessons usually facilitate oral classroom participation regardless
of the major of study. Large class size inhibits oral classroom participation for
Asian students as they are concerned about others’ time and the quality of their
contributions or questions. The individual instructor’s teaching style is also an
important factor affecting students’ oral classroom participation modes. Lively,
humorous, and effective teaching styles are likely to encourage students to
participate regardless of the lesson type, and are also likely to alleviate the Asian
concept of the inappropriateness of participating in a big class, or in a lecture.
Instead of worrying about what students could contribute, instructors’ concern
should be about how they can motivate their students to participate actively in
class. In this regard, context-specific tasks designed by instructors to facilitate
classroom participation can be helpful under the condition that students in
class are motivated to do the tasks.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the following three recurring themes: (1) Not all Asian
students are reticent in classrooms although there is a tendency for Asian
students to be quieter in their content classrooms than their American counter-
parts on various occasions; (2) Asian students’ oral classroom participation

184 Jun Liu

modes are related to, but not determined by, their perceptions towards oral
classroom participatIon; (3) Among various factors that inﬂuence Asian
students’ perceptions towards oral classroom participation as well as their
participation modes, socio-cultural and aﬀective factors are the most salient
explanatory predictors. As such, further research is needed to better understand
the complexities of Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes in their
content courses in order to help these students adapt to American classroom
culture. One of the promising research directions is to study Asian students in
American universities in a broader social context of language learning and
language use, and to look at multiple discourse communities in which Asian
students construct multiple social identities from a contextualist perspective
(e.g., Fairclough 1992; McKay & Wong 1996). Studies are needed to identify the
discourse communities in which Asian students in American universities are
socially situated; to examine interconnections of multiple discourses Asian
students are exposed to; and how Asian students develop their second language
skills, negotiate their social relations and construct their social identities across
these discourse communities; and to understand how Asian students in
American universities invest in the target language and culture, how they
conceptualize cultural adaptation, and why and how they acquire or fail to
acquire cultural transformation competence and how this is related to their
classroom participation modes in content courses.

Author’s Address:
Jun Liu
Modern Languages Building #67
P. O. Box 210067
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
85721-0067
Tel. (520) 621 1836
Fax. (520) 621 7397

Notes

* I would like to thank the twenty students who participated in this study, as well as Keiko
Samimy, Diane Belcher, Jette Hansen, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors of JAPC for
their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.


1. My initial research addressing international graduate students’ classroom participation
(Liu & Kuo 1996) was conducted in Winter Quarter, 1992. A survey of 51 international
graduate students enrolled at different levels of both the Spoken English Program and the
Composition Program at a Midwestern university was conducted by using a six-part
questionnaire (i.e., risk-taking, sociability, discomfort about speaking up, motivation for
keeping silent, strategies for keeping silent and cultural alienation). The results of the study
indicated that the international graduate students surveyed had the potential to speak up in
their academic content courses but were overcautious in risk-taking and socializing, partly
because of their sense of inferiority in speaking the language in the presence of native
speakers, and partly because of their anxiety about communicating in English. Also revealed
was the fact that the language proficiency of the students did affect their oral participation in
academic content courses. Students at lower levels, in both the Spoken English and Composi-
tion Programs, seemed to be highly motivated to improve their English through exposure to
U. S. culture, yet they were more reserved in speaking than the students at higher language
proficiency levels. This reluctance to speak up may have been due to their uneasiness and
uncertainty about both the English language and U. S. culture. This survey suggested the need
for further study of the problem.
2. In the process of designing and conducting the three different interview schedules, from
wide-open to semi-structured to structured formats, I tried to give each participant adequate
time to think and to reflect, to give them opportunities to ask questions, and to provide
information necessary to help them feel at ease in the interview. For example, in the wide-
open interview, I tried not to give any pre-designed questions to the interviewee and allowed
the interviewee to express freely what was in his/her mind under the broad category
“perceptions of participation.” In the semi-structured interview, I asked a few major
questions (e.g., “How do you like participating in your mainstream classes here in the United
States?,” “What’s your perception of classroom participation?”) to the interviewees one at a
time and I also probed issues with subsequent questions as they naturally emerged in the
interview process. In the structured interview schedule, I confirmed their input about the
investigated topic, and also gave each of them a chance to clarify any discrepancies between
the input from the structured interview and that from the previous wide-open as well as
semi-structured interviews. Immediately after each interview, I listened to the tape and
transcribed it taking into consideration some nonverbal communication behaviors I
observed in the interview (e.g., anxiety, smiles, struggles with words, or silence). After each
transcription, I recalled the entire interview process and kept fieldnotes (Wolf 1992) to reflect
my concerns over and experience with both the interview and methodology. I also showed
parts of the interview transcriptions to the participants for confirmation. The interview
transcriptions were then sorted and classified by the trends and patterns that became evident
as determined and guided by my research questions.
3. I observed all the participants in this study in at least one of their content courses.
Throughout my observations, I jotted down notes and made detailed fieldnotes immediately
after each observation to keep track of the development of the study, to visualize how my
research plan had been affected by the data collected, and to remain conscious of how I had
been influenced by the data. I asked the participant being observed in class as well as the class
instructor some questions right after the observation. I also made an effort to obtain the

186 Jun Liu

teaching materials and course syllabus of the class being observed to facilitate data analysis.
My descriptive fieldnotes about observations contained the portraits of all the students in the
class under observation in general, and the observed Asian students in particular, description
of the physical setting of the classroom, interactions between the teacher and the students
and among students in class in general, and the interaction between the observed student and
others in particular, and an account of the student’s participation mode and various
conditions under which the participation took place. My reflective fieldnotes contained
reflections about the analysis, themes and patterns that emerged, connections between pieces
of data, reflections on methods and the strategies I had employed in observation. Because the
students I observed came from different countries and different socio-cultural backgrounds,
I tried to associate their classroom participation modes with their cultural values, beliefs, and
social identities by addressing these issues in interviews. While reflecting on my own mind-
set, I tried to go to observe a class without predetermined assumptions about what was to
expect. I also tried not to be biased by some of these preconceptions in describing what I had
observed. To meet this end, I tried to reveal my bias, if there was any, in my journal, and
tried to reflect on my description in terms of objectiveness, authenticity, and clarity of the
language.

References

Abadzi, H. (1980) The use of multivariate statistical procedures in international student
admissions. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 195–120.
Abbott, K. A. (1970) Harmony and individualism. Taipei: Oriental Cultural Service.
Adelegan, F. O., & Parks, D. J. (1985) Problems of transition for African students in an
American university. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 504–508.
Agarwal, V. B., & Winkler, D. R. (1985) Migration of foreign students to the United States.
Journal of Higher Education, 56, 509–522.
Bailey, K. M. & Nunan, D. (1996) Voices from the language classroom. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Bond, M. H. (Ed.). (1986) The psychology of the Chinese people. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Boyer, S. P., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1986) Noncognitive predictors of counseling center use by
international students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 404–407.
Brown, H. D. (1987) Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Canale, M., & Swain. M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Carson, J. G. & Nelson, G. L. (1996) Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response
group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1–19.
Cazden, C. B., Carraso, R. L., Maldonado, A. A., and Erickson, F. (1980) The contribution of
ethnographic research to bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis, ed. Current issues in
bilingual education, 64–80. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New
York: Cambridge University Press.


Council of Graduate Schools in the US, Washington, D. C. (1991) International graduate
students: A guide for graduate deans, faculty and administrators. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 331418).
Desruisseaux, P. (1995) Foreign influx slows: Enrollment from abroad increases by smallest
margin in 10 years. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Nov. 10. A 38–39, 42–44.
Duff, P. (1986) Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to task. In R. R. Day, ed.
Talking to learn: conversation in second language acquisition, 147–181. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enright, D. S. (1984) The organization of interaction in elementary classrooms. In J.
Handscombe, R. A. Orem, and B. P. Taylor, eds. On TESOL ’83: the question of control,
23–38. Washington, D. C.: TESOL.
Exum, H. A., & Lau, E. Y. (1988) Counseling style preference of Chinese college students.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 16, 84–92.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Critical language awareness. London: Longman.
Fassinger, P. A. (1995) Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’
contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82–96.
Hansen, J. (1998) Current research on acculturation and SLA. Colloquium organized at 1998
TESOL Convention in Seattle, Washington.
Hansen, J, & Liu, J. (1997) Social identity and language: Theoretical and methodological
issues. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 567–576.
Heikinheimo, P. S., & Shute, J. C. M. (1986) The adaptation of foreign students: Student view
and institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(50): 399–406.
Hymes, D. H. (1972) On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991) An introduction to second language acquisition
research. New York: Longman.
Lee, M. Y., Abd-Ella, M., & Burke, L. (1981) Needs of foreign students from developing nations
at US. colleges and universities. Washington, DC: National Association for Foreign
Student Affairs.
Leong, F. T. L. (1984) Counseling international students: Searchlight plus #56. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan, (ERIC Counseling and Personnel Services Clearinghouse).
Leong, F. T., Mallinckrodt, G., & Kralj, M. M. (1990) Cross-cultural variations in stress and
adjustment among Asian and Caucasian graduate students. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 18, 19–28.
Leong, F. T. L., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1986) A comparison of international and US students’
preferences for help sources. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 426–430.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Liu, J. & Kuo, L. F. (1996) Factors affecting oral classroom participation of international
graduate students in ESL settings. Educational Research Quarterly, 19(4), 43–62.
McKay, S. L. & Wong, S. C. (1996) Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and
agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students.
Harvard Educational Review, 66 (3), 577–608.

Understanding Asian Students

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (17)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Understanding Asian Students

Ähnlich wie Understanding Asian Students (20)

Mehr von Arnau Cerdà

Mehr von Arnau Cerdà (20)

Understanding Asian Students