Asian Students' Classroom Communication Patterns in U.S. Universities: An Emic Perspective

cover

next page >

Cover

title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject

publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:

Asian Students' Classroom Communication Patterns in U.S. Universities : An Emic Perspective Contemporary Studies in Second Language Learning Liu, Jun. Greenwood Publishing Group 1567506208 9781567506204 9780313016028 English English language--Study and teaching--Asian speakers, English language--Study and teaching--United States, Intercultural communication--United States, Students, Foreign--United States. 2001 PE1130.A2L58 2001eb 378.1/9829995073 English language--Study and teaching--Asian speakers, English language--Study and teaching--United States, Intercultural communication--United States, Students, Foreign--United States.

cover

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page >

Page i ASIAN STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN U.S. UNIVERSITIES

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

Page ii Recent Titles in Contemporary Studies in Second Language Learning The Catalan Immersion Program: A European Point of View Josep M. Artigal A Developmental Psycholinguistic Approach to Second Language Teaching Traute Taeschner Reading Development in a Second Language: Theoretical, Empirical and Classroom Perspectives Elizabeth B. Bernhardt Bilingualism and Testing: A Special Case of Bias Guadalupe Valdés and Richard A. Figueroa Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research James P. Lantolf and Gabriela Appel Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition Bill VanPatten Listen to the Silences: Mexican American Interaction in the Composition Classroom and the Community Kay M. Losey Words Into Worlds: Learning a Second Language Through Process Drama Shin-Mei Kao and Cecily O’Neill Reading and Recall in L1 and L2: A Sociocultural Approach Regina Roebuck Annotated Bibliography of Scholarship in Second Language Writing: 1993–1997 Tony Silva, Colleen Brice, and Melinda Reichelt

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

Page iii ASIAN STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN U.S. UNIVERSITIES An Emic Perspective Jun Liu Contemporary Studies in Second Language Learning Elizabeth B. Bernhardt, Series Editor

Ablex Publishing Westport, Connecticut • London

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

Page iv Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Liu, Jun. Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities: an emic perspective / Jun Liu. p. cm.—(Contemporary studies in second language learning) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes. ISBN 1–56750–620–8 (alk. paper) 1. English language—Study and teaching—Asian speakers. 2. English language—Study and teaching—United States. 3. Intercultural communication—United States. 4. Students, Foreign—United States. I. Title. II. Series. PE1130.A2 L58 2001 378.1′9829995073—dc21 2001022176 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2001 by Jun Liu All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2001022176 ISBN: 1-56750-620-8 First published in 2001 Ablex Publishing, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.ablexbooks.com Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

< previous page

page_v

Page v Contents Preface Introduction: My Journey of Adaptive Cultural Transformation 1 Asian Students in U.S. Universities International Students in the United States Cross-Cultural Adaptation Intercultural Communication Classroom Communication 2 Studying Asian Students’ Participation in American Classrooms Classroom Participation Research A Multicase Ethnographic Study Participant Profiles 3 Understanding Asian Students’ Classroom Communication Patterns Classroom Communication Patterns Synthesis of Perceptions 4 Factors Affecting Asian Students’ Classroom Communication Patterns Factors Across the Individual Participants Synthesis of Factors Study Findings

< previous page

page_v

next page > vii xi 1 1 9 16 23 39 43 47 55 71 72 150 155 156 165 175

next page >

< previous page

page_vi

Page vi 5 Interpreting Silence from an Asian Perspective A Theoretical Framework of Silence Silence in U.S. Academia Behind the Mask of Asian Face-Saving and Politeness The Willingness to Speak Up in Content Courses 6 Asian Students’ Adaptive Cultural Transformation The Concept of Adaptive Cultural Transformation Adaptive Cultural Transformation Processes Adaptive Cultural Transformation Competence Recommendations Epilogue References Author Index Subject Index

< previous page

page_vi

next page > 189 189 195 200 209 219 221 222 224 230 239 241 261 267

next page >

< previous page

page_vii

next page >

Page vii Preface Asian Students’ Classroom Communication Patterns in U.S. Universities examines what adaptive cultural transformation means to Asian students and what Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation means to those around them by focusing on one social and academic setting: content classes in American colleges and universities where Asian students are immersed with American students and other international students. This book has three goals. The first goal is to explore and describe Asian students’ classroom communication patterns through their oral classroom participation modes in their content courses with reference of their perceptions of classroom participation as influenced by the interaction among sociocultural, linguistic, cognitive, affective, and pedagogical factors. The second goal is to explain and interpret Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in association with their various perceptions from an emic perspective. The third goal is to call for Asian students’ awareness and acquisition of adaptive cultural transformation competence. Because of my own journey of adaptive cultural transformation from an Asian student to an Asian professor in the United States, I believe that Asian students should strive to achieve adaptive cultural transformation competence consisting of social identity negotiation skills, cultural-sensitivity knowledge and mindful reflexivity, and communicative competence. Asian students’ construction of their cultural transformation competence also necessitates understanding and support from various communities in the target culture, including ESL and content course instructors, American peers and other international students, American college and university administrators, and other professional resources.

< previous page

page_vii

next page >

< previous page

page_viii

next page >

Page viii This book is written for those who are interested in working with or already working with Asian students in American colleges and universities and for Asian students studying in the United States and other English-speaking countries. In particular, it has three readerships in mind. The first readership consists of ESL teachers who work with Asian students in their classrooms on a regular basis and who are interested in understanding how their Asian students cope with other academic environments such as their content classrooms; how they transfer the language skills acquired in ESL courses into content courses; and what kind of communicative skills need to be introduced and strengthened in ESL classrooms to help these students become more linguistically and socioculturally competent in communication beyond the language classroom. The second readership consists of American college and university professors, instructors, teaching assistants, administrators, and international student advisers who work with Asian students and who are interested in understanding why they tend to be quiet in their content classrooms in their respective disciplines and how they can help them feel more comfortable and confident in adapting their classroom communication behaviors in the content courses to what is expected and encouraged in the target culture. The third readership consists of Asian students and scholars in the United States or other English-speaking countries and those prospective students and scholars in Asia who aspire to come to the United States or other English-speaking countries to further their education and careers. By recognizing their own cultural beliefs and values, this group will benefit from reading about the experiences of the Asian students described in this book who underwent both external and internal changes in their journey of adaptive cultural transformation. This book comprises six chapters. Chapter 1, Asian Students in U.S. Universities, gives an overview of international students in American higher education in general, and of Asian students in particular, focusing on the situations, problems, and cultural diversities they encounter in American universities. Issues such as cross-cultural adaptation, inter-cultural communication, and classroom communication are explored and discussed with reference to Asian culture and Asian students in the United States. Chapter 2, Studying Asian Students’ Participation in American Classrooms, presents a focused review of research in classroom participation before introducing a multicase ethnographic study in which 20 Asian graduate students enrolled in a major U.S. university were interviewed and observed over an extended time period. Profiles of all the participants are given together with a detailed description of the methodological framework of the study. Chapter 3, Understanding Asian Students’ Classroom Communication Patterns, identifies and defines four classroom communication patterns that emerged from the study: total integration, conditional interaction, marginal participation , and silent observa

< previous page

page_viii

next page >

< previous page

page_ix

next page >

Page ix tion. These patterns are then discussed in great detail by profiling each student classified within each pattern. Chapter 4, Factors Affecting Asian Students’ Classroom Communication Patterns, lists all the factors that are believed to have an impact on the differential classroom participation behaviors of the individual participants. These factors are then synthesized at three functional levels (facilitative, debilitating, and neutral) in five major categories (cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic). This chapter concludes with a discussion of the major findings of the study. Chapter 5, Interpreting Silence from an Asian Perspective, discusses the theoretical framework of silence in classroom settings. Building on the framework of silence in its cultural context, this chapter offers an Asian perspective on silence to help explain the complex sources of Asian students’ tendency to keep quiet in classrooms in American higher education. This chapter also explores the Asian concept of face-saving and politeness in light of the students’ perceptions and modes of classroom participation, followed by an illustrative conceptual framework of willingness to speak up in content courses. The final chapter, Asian Students’ Adaptive Cultural Transformation, revisits the multicultural context in which Asian students are situated. It defines the concept of adaptive cultural transformation, describes its processes, and calls for Asian students to build a competence in adaptive cultural transformation. Recommendations are made for all the constituencies: Asian students, their ESL and content teachers, their American peers, international student advisers and administrators in U.S. institutions, and professional resources. For me, to deal with a subject matter as complicated as the title of this book suggests is not bias free. My intention in writing this book is not to generalize to all Asian student populations or to all students within each Asian population in U.S. colleges and universities. It is my sincere hope that, through reading the cultural backgrounds and the characteristics of a focused group of Asian students in U.S. higher education through the lens of their content classroom communication patterns and various factors that affect these patterns as described, explained, and interpreted in this book, readers will be better able to understand Asian students’ beliefs, why and how they behave in certain ways in classrooms, and why they need to acquire competence in adaptive cultural transformation to the target culture. My subjective interpretation throughout the book could be a bias itself, but it is this subjective interpretation that motivates me, as an insider to Asian culture, to present, rather than criticize, the basis for stereotypes of Asian students in U.S. colleges and universities as reticent learners at best and passive knowledge absorbers at worst. It is also this subjective interpretation that urges me as an insider in U.S. academia to call for Asian students’ consciousness and sensitivity in building their adaptive cultural transformation competence. I present this book with a

< previous page

page_ix

next page >

< previous page

page_x

next page >

Page x special joy in understanding my own adaptive metamorphosis. Any misrepresentations and misinterpretations are my sole responsibility. Support for the writing of this book has come from a variety of sources. Initial research was conducted at the Ohio State University in 1994 and 1995 and funded by a research grant through the Ohio State Alumni Association. This book would not have been possible without the inspiration, support, and help of many students, friends, and colleagues. I’d like to thank all the Asian students who contributed to the rich database from which this book is written. Many of these students have graduated and are now working in U.S. companies and academia or have returned to their own countries, but their familiar voices often ring in my ears and their sometimes stressed and sometimes smiling faces often appear in front of me as I analyze and reanalyze the data. I am grateful to the general editor of this monograph series, Elizabeth Bernhardt, for her trust in me to write this book and for her encouragement throughout the process. I also thank two anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for their constructive comments. Special thanks go to Keiko Samimy, Diane Belcher, and Robert Donmoyer, who inspired this project from early on and whose support and guidance were invaluable. I would also thank Muriel Saville-Troike and Rudy Troike for their interest in reading the manuscript and furnishing me with encouragement and insightful comments. Thanks also go to Tang Wu and Lifeng Kuo for sharing their insights on Asian culture. My appreciation also goes to Cathy Mazak, Denise Celi, and Anila Mema for their assistance with, and comments on, an earlier draft of this book. I am indebted to both the Riley and Wilson families, who tolerated my many absences from social activities over the years. I am also grateful to my son, Tommy Liu, for his understanding and willingness to play basketball without me on many weekends, and to my dear parents and sister in China, who kept asking me over the phone when this book would be finished. And a very special thanks goes to Jette Hansen, who read and reread several drafts, critiqued this manuscript from various perspectives, and challenged me to dig deeper and deeper into my emic perspective without losing an etic view. Finally, I want to thank Peg Markow, managing editor at Innovation Publication Services, for her great support and help during the production phase of this book.

< previous page

page_x

next page >

< previous page

page_xi

next page >

Page xi Introduction: My Journey of Adaptive Cultural Transformation I will always remember the days in the late 1970s when I was a freshman at a teachers’ college majoring in English language and literature, as the result of the restoration of the college entrance examination system suspended for 10 years during the Great Cultural Revolution in China. I had intensive English classes every day, focusing on grammar and word studies based on model essays and excerpts from classics. I spent a lot of time deciphering the selected readings from 18th-century British literature with the help of dictionaries and grammar books. At that time, speaking English with native English speakers, so-called foreign experts, was something I could only dream of. The small auditorium in which weekly thematic lectures were alternately given by a couple of foreign experts was always packed. I did not know how much I could digest from an hour-long lecture, but the feeling of the exposure to authentic English was great. Sometimes I laughed while others were laughing without knowing why, though I afterward spent hours listening to the tape recording I had made of the lecture until I found out why I had laughed with the others. Like some of my classmates, I was curious to see whether and how the pattern drills we practiced in listening and speaking courses and the vocabulary we learned from the textbooks could be used in real communication. Fortunately, Suzhou, the city where my university was located, is known as the Venice of the East, because it is full of beautiful gardens

< previous page

page_xi

next page >

< previous page

page_xii

next page >

Page xii and pavilions that are open for tourists. They were usually packed with visitors from home and abroad, so whenever I had the chance, I would go to one of those gardens either by myself or with my friends to seek opportunities to speak English with foreign visitors. I worked very hard to commit to memory English versions of introductions to and descriptions of those gardens, with the hope of using them in real communication. I wanted to make sure that I sounded British as the result of constant listening to and mimicking BBC and Linguaphone tapes. My eagerness to gain communicative competence in English was sometimes met with a less than enthusiastic response by visitors who were busy enjoying the scenery, but I felt encouraged even by a mere exchange of greetings. I had a dream that some day I would be able to go to an English-speaking country and become a fluent English speaker. Fortunately, my dream came true in 1991, 10 years after I graduated from college. I came to the United States to pursue my Ph.D. in second and foreign language education at The Ohio State University, which marked the beginning of my journey of cultural adaptive transformation. From taking weekly tests as a first-year graduate student to serving on doctoral dissertation committees as a professor, from making myself appear ridiculous by using formulaic speech in communication to making formal presentations at both national and international conferences, and from standing baffled before an ATM machine to preferring to deposit money at the drive-through window, I have slowly but surely adapted to this new culture. With a decade of experience in teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in a college in China, I was very confident in my English upon my arrival in the United States. But on many occasions, I felt very uncomfortable as I failed to communicate appropriately and effectively. When I first arrived at the airport in Columbus, Ohio, I was picked up by a colleague who kindly took me to his house for dinner that evening. As soon as we reached his house, his wife asked me if I wanted something to drink. Out of my Chinese sense of politeness, I said ‘‘No, thanks,” while actually feeling very thirsty and expecting her to ask me again. But to my surprise, she served herself a drink and started talking with me while preparing dinner. About half an hour later, the dinner was ready, and this time, she asked me directly whether I cared for a glass of root beer. Although I did not quite catch the lexicon modifying the word “beer,” I accepted her offer without hesitation, thinking that a glass of beer, whatever it was, would help me relax after a stressful 17-hour flight. No sooner had I taken the first sip than I realized that American beer had a very special taste. But such a different flavor soon became too unique to appreciate. To please my hosts, I kept drinking, pretending that I was really enjoying the beer, while waiting for the chance to request something else to drink. What I did not expect was that the hostess, impressed by my rapid drinking, took my glass and said, “So you like the taste, and I bet

< previous page

page_xii

next page >

< previous page

page_xiii

next page >

Page xiii you cannot find it in China, eh?” “Yes, well, you see….” I tried to search for some polite words to indicate my dislike of the taste, but my hesitation was taken as approval, although the word “yes” in my reply did not exactly mean “yes” in this context in Chinese culture. Sure enough, my empty glass was soon filled up with the same liquid. This time, however, I did not finish it, fearing that it would be refilled. I used my Chinese strategy of implicit polite refusal by sipping it slowly. Half an hour later, the glass was still full. A couple of months into the first quarter at Ohio State, I began to realize the difference between everyday English and what I had learned from 18th- and 19th-century British and American literature. The idiomatic expressions I picked up from books and tapes sometimes caused confusion in communication; the canned proverbs, jokes, or tongue twisters I consciously carried into conversation were not regarded as humorous. What was worse, the British poetry I proudly inserted in conversation to reveal my solid literature background sometimes made me look comical. I was often dissatisfied with my conversational English, and I began to wonder how I had learned and taught English in China. Pragmatic incompetence apart, my lack of cultural experience on many occasions aggravated my frustration in communication. I felt ashamed that my knowledge of English, which was mainly obtained from books, did not make me feel natural in daily communication. One day, I had a conversation with a rental agent about the distinction between furnished and unfurnished rooms. Fifteen minutes into the conversation, the landlord, who was obviously impatient with my endless questions and the puzzled expression on my face, quit talking with me and showed me the apartment instead. I literally questioned the meaning of “to go’’ when I first ordered a combo in a McDonald’s because I did not know where else I could go besides the fast-food restaurant to eat the hamburger I had ordered. I was somewhat confused and offended one day when a taxi driver asked me to sit in the back seat while the passenger seat in front was available. In one of the courses I took during my first quarter, I felt extremely uncomfortable when I noticed that the professor sat on the desk while teaching. I was equally surprised to notice that some of my classmates brought soft drinks and potato chips into class. In Chinese culture, these behaviors are not acceptable because they indicate disrespect for teachers, but here in the United States, nobody in class seemed to be bothered. It took me almost a year to realize that I could actually try on every piece of clothing before I bought it, and I could return what I didn’t like. Things that were taken for granted by Americans were all new to me. It was not the language per se, though I could tell the difference between the language I used and the language spoken by Americans, but the American culture that overwhelmed my linguistic abilities. I came from a different culture, and the beliefs, values, and norms that governed my social behavior there no longer seemed to function well in this new envi-

< previous page

page_xiii

next page >

< previous page

page_xiv

next page >

Page xiv ronment. What I needed then, and what I later benefited from, was the desire and courage to embark on my journey of cultural adaptive transformation. I was born in a small southeastern town in China. All four of us—my parents, my sister, and I—are teachers by profession. My father, who is now retired, taught high school English in China for more than 35 years. My mother is also retired from teaching, having been a physical education instructor for more than 20 years in the same school my father worked in. My sister has been teaching English in a local teachers’ college for more than two decades, and I started teaching college English in China when I was 21. I grew up during the Great Cultural Revolution, a critical historical period in China, when intellectuals were compelled to work in the countryside to experience the “hard life” of farmers and peasants. Criticism and self-criticism (both forced and false) were the regular practice to show good will, and the intensive study and memorization of political slogans and quotations from Mao Zedong, then the Chairman of the Communist Party, was a daily routine. Anything related to Western culture had to be abandoned, and anything coming from abroad had to be confiscated. A sense of security was always missing, even at home, because once in a while the Red Guards (those left-wing high school students with red armbands on their left arms on which Hong Wei Bing—Red Guards—was written) would stop by without notice for revolutionary inspection. Such invasions, aimed at searching for evidence of Western influence, were sanctioned by the Communist party. As an English teacher, my father was considered likely to have been poisoned by Western thoughts and to possess Western books. I remember helping my father remove from our bookshelves dozens of English novels and short stories he had purchased in second-hand book stores in the late 1940s in Shanghai when he was a student in Da Xia University.1 I remember we wrapped these books and hid them underneath our beds amid piles of newspapers. I also remember the fun that my sister and I had displaying on the bookshelves as conspicuously as possible all sorts of works by Marx, Lenin, and Chairman Mao—almost all bound in red and gold. I seldom played truant, but I enjoyed the days when I was excused from school due to sickness, particularly because I could be left alone at home with the doors locked and spend hours and hours going through all the books underneath our beds, looking for the portraits of long-bearded Westerners such as William Shakespeare, John Milton, and Charles Dickens. I became acquainted with the names of Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Jack London. One day in a family conversation, a few of these names slipped out of my mouth, and my father was surprised. While warning me of the “danger” of these books, my father encouraged my sister and me to start reading ‘‘Rip van Winkle” from Washington Irving’s Sketch Book . It was indeed

< previous page

page_xiv

next page >

< previous page

page_xv

next page >

Page xv a challenge because it was so different from what my sister and I were taught through the radio or in school slogans such as “Long live Chairman Mao,” “A long, long life to the Communist party,” and quotations from Mao Zedong translated from Chinese into English. My father was very patient and used to tell us that even though the story was a challenge for us to read, once we understood it and committed it to memory, our school English would become much easier. After spending tons of time consulting dictionaries, marking phonetic transcriptions and Chinese characters, and reading aloud, my sister and I enjoyed the story of the Catskill Mountains, and we had competitions in spelling as well as recitation. My sister always beat me in spelling, but I seemed to be a more dramatic reader as I took advantage of my training in Beijing Opera. Such intense competition led us in search of more books to read. We started practicing retelling chapters and challenged each other to recite longer sections from short stories and novels as well as British poems. Embedded in this early experience was a passion for learning English, and this passion affected my choice of major (English) in college, influenced my career path (English teacher) on college graduation, and eventually brought me to the United States to further my career in foreign and second language education. However, my cultural adaptive transformation in the target culture did not come easily. Perhaps the biggest challenge I have ever encountered in this process was how to strike a balance between my Asian cultural background and the American cultural environment I live in and between my identity in Chinese communities and in American communities. I was highly motivated both instrumentally and integratively to adapt myself to American culture—to gain new cultural experiences so I could understand and appreciate the target culture. But the Asian beliefs, values, customs, and habits that characterized my Chinese self were often roadblocks in my cultural journey. Cultural adaptive transformation requires determination and willingness to recognize one’s own culture and to understand and respect the target culture. In my journey of cultural adaptive transformation, I gradually perceived my Chinese cultural boundaries as permeable and flexible. Instead of letting my Chinese culture and my wellestablished first language social identity become a shield blocking me from constructing my second language identity in American culture, I became open-minded and willing to participate in various social activities to give myself opportunities to experience and understand the target culture. As I mentioned earlier, I was considered a fluent English speaker by many native English speakers in the United States, but in my first quarter at OSU, I was afraid to speak up in the courses I took. I was overwhelmed by the various teaching styles professors used in different courses, the amount of information given in each class, the required reading for each class, the weekly testing format, and the outspokenness of my American classmates. As

< previous page

page_xv

next page >

< previous page

page_xvi

next page >

Page xvi a result, I kept quiet, trying to figure out how to carve a niche for myself in the new classroom culture. I conducted numerous ‘‘experiments” on myself in adapting to this special social setting—the academic content classroom. I tried to speak up when I was very sure of something, but failed the first times because I was nervous about making grammar mistakes. Then I tried to focus on basic concepts in our readings and gave my interpretations of these ideas when they were discussed in class. Sure enough, my purposeful preparation somewhat helped my participation, but I still felt nervous about speaking up in class because I could hear the slightly unnatural tone in my voice. However, I kept trying and reflecting on my own experiences in participation and interaction with classmates. A couple of quarters later, I realized that my participation in classes had become instantaneous, improvised, and effortless. Learning some of the “normal” behavior in classroom communication in the target culture (speaking up in class) and unlearning some of the “normal” classroom behavior in my own culture (keeping silent in class most of the time) gradually brought about an internal transformation. In time, I deviated from the accepted patterns of my original culture in classrooms and acquired the new patterns of the target classroom culture. This “stress-adaptation-growth process” (Kim, 1998) in a classroom setting led to my increased functional fitness and a greater congruence and compatibility between my internal state and the conditions of the American classroom environment. As a result, my increased oral participation in content courses gradually made me aware of my existence in class. I could hear my voice in discussion, and I had a sense of belonging. This increased self-confidence also gradually enabled me to attain a level of communicative success beyond the classroom setting to meet my social needs in areas such as making friends with people from different cultural backgrounds and seeking graduate research and teaching assistantships across campus; to achieving psychological balance in terms of having high self-confidence, low levels of stress and anxiety, and high self-esteem; and satisfying philosophical drives, allowing me to be more creative in work and study and to have a sense of personal fulfillment. Not only has my increased classroom participation enhanced my functional fitness and the potential effectiveness of my communicative competence and performance in the target culture outside the classroom, it has also affected my internal attributes and self-identification, which changed from being cultural to being increasingly intercultural. Instead of binding my group membership to the Chinese culture, I have taken on a more fluid intercultural identity (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984) by observing and practicing different sets of social values, beliefs, and norms in different cultural communities. Such cognitive, affective, and behavioral flexibility allows me to adapt to a variety of situations and to creatively manage or avoid the conflicts that occur frequently in intercultural communi-

< previous page

page_xvi

next page >

< previous page

page_xvii

next page >

Page xvii cation settings. It is through this dynamic and continuous process of cultural adaptive transformation that I have developed an increasingly intercultural identity. My cultural adaptive transformation can also be illustrated by my writing experiences in two languages.2 Although I succeeded in publishing many papers and books in Chinese in China, I had trouble writing my papers in English during my first few quarters at Ohio State. I had a tendency to organize my thoughts in Chinese and then write the paper in English, thus creating some conflicts at discourse level. I learned to read English books and journal articles from a rhetorical perspective, noticing many differences between writing in English and writing in Chinese. As with my experiences in oral participation, I kept writing in English and constantly reflected on my writing with various foci on the form, the writer, the reader, the content, and the context. A few years later, I began publishing in English in professional journals, which I also consider a natural outgrowth of my cultural adaptive transformation. Cultural adaptive transformation requires the construction of an intercultural identity, which allows one to function across various cultural groups and communities within the target culture. I present myself as a different person in different social groups and communities. I was very quiet in class when I was in China as a sign of respect for my teachers, but my silence was gradually turned into active participation to fit the norm in American classrooms. I was not very talkative in Chinese communities in the United States because I preferred to keep my Chinese identity and did not want to show off, but I was very enthusiastic talking about China and Chinese cuisine among my American friends because I considered myself a cultural informant. However, constructing an intercultural identity is by no means easy; it takes constant adjustment and readjustment. During my first few months in the United States, I shared a two-bedroom apartment with a Chinese couple, and I felt quite comfortable having a place to maintain my Chinese self. But soon after I moved to a one-bedroom apartment a year later, I realized that the Chinese identity I maintained in that shared living environment did not help me function well in the larger intercultural environment where an intercultural identity is required for successful communication. Like many Asian students in the United States, I underwent quite an adjustment period in my cultural adaptive transformation. Now I am a professor in the Department of English at the University of Arizona, teaching both graduate and undergraduate courses in applied linguistics and second language (L2) pedagogy. Whenever I teach a class that contains some Asian students, they always remind me of myself when I first came to the United States. Although I understand that these students are new to the culture, I cannot help expecting them to take risks and to make efforts to adapt themselves effectively to this culture. I want them to know

< previous page

page_xvii

next page >

< previous page

page_xviii

next page >

Page xviii that they should not cling to their Asian self-image in classrooms, on campus, or in other social settings in this target culture. An encounter with another culture can lead to openness only if these students can suspend the assumption of difference by not seeing the culture as strange or alien but, instead, as a new culture to learn about, adjust to, and transform into. My growing sensitivity toward cross-cultural differences in classroom communication based on my own experiences enabled me to pay closer attention to Asian students’ classroom communication behaviors in different classes at Ohio State. A recurring observation was that these Asian students are likely to be quiet in class and prefer to ask questions of their professors after rather than during class. They also have a tendency to rely more on group discussions to share their ideas and exchange their opinions in their native language whenever possible. The impression I formed from observing and talking with many Asian students was that they usually prepare well for class by reading and doing what is expected. They believe that many questions that emerge from reading can be answered through rereading and thinking and through carefully listening to what the professor says in class. Therefore, they prepare questions not to ask them, but to purposefully listen with concentration. Therefore, many Asian students feel comfortable with the strategies they used in their home countries, as some of them have linguistic difficulties in participating in classroom discussion or feel socioculturally uncomfortable in speaking up in class. In academic content courses, where ESL students are usually a minority, their oral classroom participation is often, if not always, overshadowed by the outspokenness of their classmates. The differential but systematic variation in oral classroom participation modes of Asian graduate students has led some people to assume that the inactive role many non-native English-speaking students play in classes is related to their less proficient English or to cultural differences. However, I was not convinced by the linguistic explanation, which contradicted my own experience. In search of an explanation, I conducted a pilot survey among 51 Asian students enrolled in the ESL Composition Program at OSU as a course project. I collaborated with a classmate, and we analyzed the survey results, which indicated that a sociocultural perspective was needed to understand the issue. The survey also revealed that it was the Asian concept of showing respect for teachers coupled with the Confucian concept of face-saving by avoiding making mistakes in speaking that influenced the participation mode of the surveyed Asian students in their content courses. The findings of this pilot survey sparked my further interest in this issue. What other factors, besides sociocultural and linguistic variables, affected Asian students’ oral classroom participation? Would a mere survey be sufficient to support the conclusion? How could the interpretation of the data be valid without the researcher’s prolonged engagement in

< previous page

page_xviii

next page >

< previous page

page_xix

next page >

Page xix the field through continuing observation and multiple interviews? I started thinking more critically about these issues. My persistent observation, intercultural reflection, and critical thinking on this issue of Asian students in American classrooms enabled me to conduct a multiple-case ethnographic study, which is the main data source for this book. In the chapters that follow, I intend (1) to describe Asian graduate students’ communication patterns in American classrooms by describing their perceptions toward, and their oral classroom participation in, their content courses; (2) to explain and interpret from an emic perspective the interactions of multiple factors that affect students’ perceptions and classroom communication patterns; and (3) to offer suggestions for Asian students (as well as for those who have regular contact with Asian students in their classrooms, on campus, and in community settings) who are embarking on the journey of cultural adaptive transformation in this multicultural world. NOTES 1. Da Xia University was a private institute that merged with four other private institutes into what is now called East China Normal University in Shanghai, China, in 1951. 2. For a detailed account of my literacy-cultural transformation, please read my chapter in Belcher, D., and Connor, U. (Eds.) (2001). Reflections on Multiliterate Lives (pp. 121–131), Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

< previous page

page_xix

next page >

< previous page

page_xx

next page >

page_xx

next page >

Page xx This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_1

next page >

Page 1 1 Asian Students in U.S. Universities INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES1 For many years, students have gone abroad in search of opportunities to advance their knowledge. In the past few decades, the quality, scope, and sheer size of the higher education 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 on which this book is based was conducted, there were 452,635 international students enrolled at 2,758 accredited U.S. institutions, a record level. Among all the foreign students, about two-fifths (42%) were enrolled in graduate programs and more than half (57.8%) were from Asia (Desruisseaux, 1995). There are several reasons that the United States has increasingly attracted a large number of international students in general and Asian students in particular. First, U.S. higher education is considered a very important commodity for international students. They come to the United States to obtain advanced education or training that is not available at home and to gain prestige with a degree from a U.S. institution (Spaulding & Flack, 1976). Second, international students can bring much to the host university—new perspectives, diverse backgrounds, and enhancement of a multicultural environment. Besides helping to

< previous page

page_1

next page >

< previous page

page_2

next page >

Page 2 maintain desired levels of enrollment, they bring a diversity of perspectives that is academically and socially enriching. They offer the opportunity for an exchange of ideas and information; fostering this exchange, particularly in an open academic atmosphere, can further the cause of global understanding (Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S., 1991). Third, international students have an extremely important economic impact on the United States. One reason the United States embraces foreign students is that their education has become a form of foreign assistance in which all the money stays in the United States. According to a recent report released by the Institute of International Education, foreign students spend an estimated $7 billion a year in the United States, about $3 billion on tuition and fees and the balance on living expenses and entertainment (Desruisseaux, 1995). International students also play an important role in helping the United States forge international links in trade and industry. The high enrollment of international students in the United States has been recognized as being important in “the relationship between the higher education system, the economic competitiveness of the state, and its potential place in the larger global economy” (Davis, T. M., cited by Desruisseaux, 1995). Another factor is the scarcity of Americans in the natural science fields, such as physics and chemistry. International students fill the spots in many graduate programs created by a lack of American students entering into graduate study in these fields. Without foreign students, these programs would not survive. For example, in a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education , Wilson (1999) reported that only 1,200 U.S. students entered graduate programs in physics in the fall of 1997, fewer than at any time in the last 30 years. Although the total number of students enrolling in physics is down by 26 percent compared to a decade ago, the number of foreign students entering graduate physics programs has been on the rise. In the 1997–1998 academic year, the American Institute of Physics estimates that, for the first time, the majority of first-year doctoral students in physics were foreign, and the majority of these foreign students were from Asia. Among the enrolled foreign students, 20 percent of those studying physics in the United States came from China alone. Unlike their American counterparts, who generally are keener on theoretical research that will help them land academic jobs, international students are more attracted to applied research and careers in the business world. The increase in international students in the United States has given rise to considerable research addressing their various needs. Studies on U.S. university campuses have explored international students’ perceived needs (Manese, Sedlacek, & Leong, 1988), academic needs (Leong & Sedlacek, 1989), adjustment (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992), acculturation (Sodowsky, 1991), emotional well-being (Parr, Bradley, & Bingi, 1992; Ying & Liese, 1990, 1991), stress precipitators (Oropeza, Fitzgibbon,

< previous page

page_2

next page >

< previous page

page_3

next page >

Page 3 & Baron, 1991), adjustment to stress (Leong, Mallinckrodt, & Kralj, 1990), help-seeking sources (Leong & Sedlacek, 1986), counseling style preferences (Exum & Lau, 1988; Merta, Ponterroto, & Brown, 1992; Yau, Sue, & Hayden, 1992), perception of counselor credibility, and worldviews about international students (Sodowsky, 1991). Although these research studies cover a broad spectrum of the diverse needs of international students, some of the findings are problematic. The reason is threefold: First, many studies tend to treat international students as one undifferentiated cultural group, rather than as members of specific ethnic groups with distinct characteristics, so the results are not easy to interpret because overgeneralizing and stereotyping often occur. Second, because most of the research studies are done using a survey format, differences among groups are reported only as group means, thus minimizing individual differences. 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 (Atkinson, 1983; Ibrahim, 1983; Sue, 1988). Last but not least, there is a scarcity of literature on the particular problems and needs of specific populations. The situation of Asian students in U.S. higher education, for instance, is an area that needs special attention, given that the majority of international students are from Asia (Desruisseaux, 1995). Although international students contribute much to the cultural and intellectual life of a university, they also provide challenges for administrators, faculty, and students alike (Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S., 1991). International students in general, and Asian students in particular, experience many difficulties in adjusting to American culture in the process of completing their degrees. In addition to being far from home (Leong, 1984; Stafford, Marison, & Salter, 1980), they must learn to function in a totally different environment with limited English proficiency (Abadzi, 1980; Agarwal & Winkler, 1985; Miller & Winston, 1990) and experience transitional difficulties and culture shock (Coelho, 1982; De Armond & Stevenson, 1992). These difficulties can be grouped into three categories: (1) academic problems; (2) social problems; and (3) financial problems (Adelegan & Parks, 1985; Boyer & Sedlacek, 1986; Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Lee, Abd-Ella, & Burke, 1981; Meloni, 1986; Pederson, 1991; Reinick, 1986), each of which is discussed in the following sections. Academic Problems International students usually experience psychological stress, which is compounded by being plunged into an unfamiliar culture and surrounded by a language they can comprehend only to a limited extent (Huntly, 1993). Although an unfamiliarity with the larger university cul-

< previous page

page_3

next page >

< previous page

page_4

next page >

Page 4 ture and its academic subcultures, including accepted interaction patterns, is responsible for many difficulties (Schneider & Fujishima, 1994), a lack of English language proficiency is viewed by faculty and the public alike as one of the greatest problems of international students, particularly those from Asian countries, who often have had little practice in using English in their home countries (Heikinhermo & Shute, 1986). In fact, educators have long recognized the importance of adequate English language proficiency for successful academic performance (Dunnett, 1985; Gibson, 1985). International students’ problems with the English language can have an adverse effect on their academic performance, social interactions, and general adjustment (Spaulding & Flack, 1976). Reinick concluded that English language proficiency was one of the key elements in international students’ academic development (1986), and Chapman, Wan, and Xu (1988) found English language proficiency to be one of the two most important factors affecting international students’ academic success in American graduate programs. One of the most widely used tools to measure the English language skills necessary for successful advanced study is the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) (Light, Xu, & Mossop, 1987). Although evidence has shown a relationship between TOEFL scores and academic success (Hale, Stansfield, & Duran, 1983), the complexity of the concept of language proficiency (Canale, 1983), as well as the difficulty in measuring the variety of English language skills necessary for academic success (Cummins, 1980), has complicated the issue, resulting in many inconsistent findings. Although studies by Burgess and Greis (1970), Heil and Aleamoni (1974), and Ho and Spinks (1985) all seem to suggest significant correlations between TOEFL scores and academic success, other studies indicate a lack of any such relationship (Hwang & Dizney, 1970; Mestre, 1981; Mulligan, 1966; Stover, 1982). Once international students start their academic study in U.S. universities, they become involved in an ongoing process of communication in terms of negotiation and evaluation. As Canale (1983) posits, there are four major components in the communication process: grammatical competence (knowledge of vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling, and syntax); sociolinguistic competence (rules of appropriateness governing the use of forms and meanings in different contexts); discourse competence (the knowledge required to combine forms and meanings to achieve unified spoken and written discourse); and strategic competence (knowledge of verbal and nonverbal communication strategies). To be successful in U.S. higher education, international students need all these competencies, which can be very challenging to acquire. Merely having grammatical competence, as most international students do, is far from sufficient for success in an American academic environment. Xu (1991) conducted a survey of 450 international students in three large universities on the east coast. Instead of relying on standardized

< previous page

page_4

next page >

< previous page

page_5

next page >

Page 5 tests like TOEFL, this survey measured international students’ self-perception of the level of academic difficulty that they encountered in performing their required academic tasks. The results indicated that students who believed that their English was adequate (based on their self-estimates of their English competence in dealing with the required academic tasks) encountered fewer academic difficulties than those who believed it to be inadequate. Of the two language proficiency variables, TOEFL and self-perceived language proficiency, TOEFL was found to be a nonsignificant predictor of the level of academic difficulties the students encountered, while self-perceived English proficiency was found to be a major predictor of perceived academic difficulty. One of the implications of this study is that international students’ academic coping skills can be conceptualized as the combination of their ability to use English and their ability to handle their academic tasks. In other words, English proficiency is necessary but not sufficient for academic success. The lack of communicative competence, which is not fully reflected in TOEFL or other standardized tests, often causes international students academic stress once they are in the United States. To investigate factors associated with the academic stress of international students at U.S. universities and to show how this has a strong negative impact on their ability to transfer the knowledge and skills learned in U.S. classrooms to their home countries, Wan, Chapman, and Biggs (1992) conducted a survey of 689 international graduate students enrolled in three major upstate New York universities. Using a cognitive framework in which academic stress is understood as the consequence of students’ appraisal of the stress of role demands and their perception of their ability to cope with those demands, Wan and associates found that the students who perceived themselves as having better English language skills were less likely to view academic situations as stressful and believed they were able to cope with the stress they experienced. The students who perceived themselves as having weak language skills found those same situations more stressful and believed they were unable to cope with the stress they experienced. The contributions of perceived English language skills in reducing stress outranked all other variables combined. Results of this study suggest that academic adjustment for international graduate students is closely related to their perceived language skills, especially in terms of note-taking, conversing with faculty, and participating in class discussions. Social Problems In addition to academic problems, most international students face social problems related to social integration, daily life tasks, homesickness, and role conflicts. They often feel overwhelmed by cultural differences (Constantinides, 1992) and frequently express concern about the

< previous page

page_5

next page >

< previous page

page_6

next page >

Page 6 competitiveness, individualism, and assertiveness of American culture (Parr, Bradley & Bingi, 1992). Some even feel that American culture is somewhat offensive (Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986). The strain of adjusting to American culture has a negative effect on their self-confidence and self-esteem. Conversely, a student’s self-concept and selfesteem can often be validated by the communication of social support from people within the community. Communication of support usually depends on culturally specified rules of role behavior (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). When they first come to the United States, international students often feel the absence of their own traditional sources of social support and the familiar means by which such support is expressed (Pederson, 1991). Social support is, therefore, important not only for self-esteem and self-confidence, but also for helping to reduce stress in social adjustment (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). According to the results of several surveys, international students try to seek social support from their American peers, but the relationships between international students and their American peers rarely go beyond the most superficial contact, and many international students quickly abandon the hope of establishing deep cross-cultural friendships (Bulthuis, 1986; Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Miller, 1971). Interestingly, when confronted with an educational-vocational problem, international students are more likely than their American counterparts to seek help from faculty members (Leong & Sedlacek, 1986). It also was reported that international students preferred to seek social support either from their immediate families or their conationals when they encountered personal problems (Bulthuis, 1986). International students are likely to have fewer opportunities to establish social support networks among peers other than their conationals, which also causes distress and discomfort in social adjustment (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). Some studies also reveal a gender difference in terms of social support. In many cultures, women provide their partners with significantly more social support than women receive from men (Vanfossen, 1986), resulting in higher levels of marital stress, role conflict, and depression in women (Aneshensel, 1986). It is also interesting to note that married male students were reported to suffer from less stress than were married women, probably because female students have significantly greater role conflicts stemming from their responsibilities as wives and mothers in addition to their obligations as students (Gilbert & Holahan, 1982). To investigate international students’ perceptions of their own adaptation to a new academic and social milieu and to analyze their interactions in the host culture, Heikinheimo and Shute (1986) conducted a study using both structured and unstructured interviews and participant observation at a Canadian university. Results covered four aspects: language skills, academic concerns, family support and expectations, and cultural differences. As far as language skills were concerned, to

< previous page

page_6

next page >

< previous page

page_7

next page >

Page 7 adapt successfully to North American culture the students had to master both conversational and formal English, the former for everyday and social communication and the latter for academic work. In terms of academic concerns, the students experienced heavy academic pressure. Family support and expectations seemed to be an important factor in students’ attempts to perform well. As for cultural differences, most students interviewed believed that the differences between their own culture and the target culture often presented barriers to interacting with native speakers of English. Unfortunately, some international students believed they were discriminated against, leading to feelings of insecurity and a sensation of being unwelcome. In sum, almost all international students have experienced potential inhibitors and stimulators of interaction within the host society. Obviously, language barriers may cause international students to shy away from mixing with local people, but at the same time, they might stimulate interaction. A heavy academic load, conversely, might reduce the time available for international students to interact and make friends with native speakers in the target culture. To identify the types of social support most helpful to international graduate students, a survey was conducted among 440 international graduate students at a large eastern university (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). Meaningful relationships with faculty, faculty interest in students’ professional development, and the quality of instruction have a strong protective effect against the development of depression in international students undergoing stress. This finding is in agreement with those of several earlier studies that found that the quality of faculty relationships may be especially important for international students, given their preference for formal sources of help (Leong & Sedlacek, 1986) and the difficulties they face in establishing social relationships with their American counterparts (Furnham & Bochner, 1982; Leong, 1984). Gender differences were also evident in this survey. For women, a flexible curriculum, departmental support services, financial aid, and good relations with other students helped reduce stress and anxiety. Although these were significant for men also, they were of somewhat lesser magnitude. Female international students must often deal with the compound problems of being both a female and an international student (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). To help international students develop strong social support, it was suggested that programs should enhance faculty mentoring, more adequately train academic advisers, and promote support among program peers (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992). To study intercultural contact and adjustment on a more individual basis, Surdam and Collins (1984) used interviews and a questionnaire to study the possible relationships between adaptation and certain independent variables for more than 140 international students in a U.S. university. The results suggest that students who spend more of their leisure

< previous page

page_7

next page >

< previous page

page_8

next page >

Page 8 time with Americans are significantly better adapted than those who spend more leisure time with their countrymen, a finding that is consistent with previous research (Antler, 1970; Selltiz, Hopson, & Cook, 1956). Several studies have investigated the interpersonal relationships of college roommates living with someone from the same culture versus an individual from a different culture (Saidla, 1982; Saidla & Grant, 1993; Saidla & Parodi, 1991). In their survey study, Saidla and Grant (1993) compared residents from traditional male and female residence halls (n_22) with residents from an international theme hall housing international-American roommate pairs (n_55) on roommate rapport and roommate understanding. It was found that American-American roommate pairs did not enjoy greater rapport than international-American pairs, although international-American roommates were lower than culturally similar pairs on trust, intimacy, and understanding, a finding contradictory to that of an earlier study (Saidla & Parodi, 1991). However, in both studies, the international-American roommates had moderate to high levels of rapport and understanding. Liu and Kuo (1996) also conducted a survey of international graduate students to understand their perception of oral participation in their content courses in a major midwestern university. One of the suggestions made to enhance better acculturation was that international students have American roommates. In an earlier study, Quinn (1975) pointed out that most international undergraduate students were more successfully adjusted if they lived in dormitories, but because graduate students often have to find their own housing and often end up living with students from their own countries, they are further detached from American culture. Financial Problems Most international students expect to be sponsored by their school or supported by their families or government, and this dependence can generate heavy academic pressure. To fail or to perform poorly might result in shame not only to the individual student but also to the family (Huntly, 1993). It was reported that students with sponsorships or government grants generally performed better than those without such assistance (El-Lakany, 1970). International students in the United States know that they must keep their sponsoring professors happy by performing well not only in the courses they take but also in their research or teaching assignments or they risk losing their financial support. As a result, they have a reputation of being more diligent and less likely to protest assignments than their American counterparts (Wilson, 1999). Because many international students have limited financial resources and few employment opportunities in the United States because of visa restrictions, they tend to take as many courses as possible in a short peri-

< previous page

page_8

next page >

< previous page

page_9

next page >

Page 9 od of time, leading to stress and overwork (Huntly, 1993). In fact, when asked to rank the problems they face, international students usually put finances at the top of the list, followed by lack of friends, lack of English proficiency, homesickness, and separation from family (Guglielmino & Perkins, 1975). In summary, given their multiple goals and diverse backgrounds and values, international students in general, and Asian students in particular, face many academic, social, and financial problems in the process of adapting themselves to this society. More in-depth studies are needed to understand these problems and to come up with ideas and suggestions to help these students adapt to their new lifestyle and to adjust to their academic environment. CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION Cross-cultural adaptation is an increasingly important issue with the growing numbers of international students in general, and Asian students in particular, coming to pursue their degrees in the United States. Many of these students struggle with feelings of inadequacy and frustration in the changed environment. Some students resist change and cling to their old habits; others desperately try to fit into the target community and yet experience a sense of failure or despair. Whether here for the short term (e.g., staying only for the time necessary to finish degrees) or the long term (e.g., planning to find a job in the United States upon graduation), these students all have to deal with substantial cultural transitions or changes, though in varying degrees. Although for some Asian students, contact with the new culture is only peripheral because they do not intend to stay in the United States upon graduation and thus they may require less overall commitment to the target culture, they still need to meet the demands of life in the United States both on and off campus. Even though it is on a temporary basis, they still face numerous contrasts between the familiar milieu of their home culture and their new locus in the target culture. Therefore, cross-cultural adaptation is inevitable for Asian students studying in the United States. Adaptation , by definition, means ‘‘the internal transformation of an individual challenged by a new cultural environment in the direction of increasing fitness and compatibility in that environment” (Kim, 1988, p. 9). Because of its multiple facets and dimensions, cross-cultural adaptation has been viewed from several conceptual perspectives and measured in various categories, such as changes in perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral patterns; changes in linguistic proficiency and communicative competence; and changes in social, ethnic, or cultural identities. To understand Asian students’ cross-cultural adaptation process, which is complex and diverse, I will review some of the main approaches and theoretical perspectives in studying the process of cross-cultural adaptation.

< previous page

page_9

next page >

< previous page

page_10

next page >

Page 10 Anthropological and Sociological Approaches The study of cross-cultural adaptation began as a field of inquiry within the domain of cultural anthropology in the 1930s. American anthropologists (e.g., Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, 1936) adopted acculturation as a legitimate new area of study that dealt with “those phenomena which result when groups of individuals have different cultures and come into first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original pattern of either or both groups” (p. 139). Acculturation refers to “those changes set in motion by the coming together of societies with different cultural traditions” (Spicer, 1968, p. 21). Obviously, acculturation is treated primarily as a group phenomenon in the discipline of anthropology. Along with studies of ethnic communities and cultural groups, anthropologists have showed interest in immigrant acculturation by examining the ‘‘ideal type” of personality or “dominant” values and life patterns of a certain cultural group. The studies in this area focus on assessing the learning and internalization of new personality traits or new values of a cultural group that replace those of the original culture (Spindler, 1955). However, establishing an “ideal type” is difficult, if not impossible, because it is hard to gauge the extent of acculturation without a precise notion about the culture to which the acculturated have supposedly acculturated themselves (Hsu, 1971). While anthropological studies have been primarily interested in describing the dynamics of cultural change in various societies resulting from continuous contact with another culture, studies in sociology have attempted to explain the socioeconomic and political dynamics among immigrant-ethnic and dominant groups within societies. In other words, sociological studies focus on issues pertaining to social stratification, namely, the hierarchical classification of the members of society based on unequal distribution of resources, power, and prestige (Parrillo, 1966). Many sociological studies also investigate minority-majority relations in terms of the patterns and processes by which minority groups are integrated into the political, social, and economic structure of the host society. For example, after examining changes in the sociological meaning of ethnicity in the United States, Gordon (1964) categorized social science definitions of assimilation into Anglo-conformity, melting pot, and pluralistic variants based on structural pluralism, ideological orientation, and psychological conditions. Based on his melting-pot view of the nature and direction of immigrant adaptation, Gordon conceptualized the adaptation process in his progressive model of assimilation, which includes seven subprocesses (i.e., cultural or behavioral assimilation, structural assimilation, material assimilation, identificational assimilation, attitude receptional assimilation, behavior receptional assimilation, and civic assimilation). In this model, acculturation is considered as “the first of the types of assimilation to occur when a

< previous page

page_10

next page >

< previous page

page_11

next page >

Page 11 minority group arrives on the scene” (Gordon, 1964, p. 71) and may take place regardless of either simultaneous or later occurrence of the other types of assimilation. What is implied in this model is that incoming minority groups, such as Asian students in the United States, should strive to achieve all seven subprocesses of assimilation to a certain extent, although it might be impossible to complete such a process. This vision of assimilation as the final goal of cross-cultural adaptation (the melting-pot view) has been challenged by numerous scholars and social scientists as the result of the “new ethnicity” movement that began in the early 1970s in the United States. Novak (1971), for instance, argued against cultural assimilation and advocated equal ethnicity for all, and many social scientists are focusing on the ethnicity of immigrants and their communities rather than on assimilation. Taking a more pluralistic perspective, Teske and Nelson (1974) argued that assimilation is a special case of changes that are involved in the acculturation process. According to these researchers, acculturation is a bidirectional process and does not require changes in values within the acculturating group, whereas assimilation is a unidirectional process toward the dominant host culture only and requires value changes within the assimilating group. As Kim (1988) posits, while Gordon’s assimilation model focuses on the adaptive change toward complete assimilation, Teske and Nelson’s acculturation model considers such assimilation as neither necessary nor inevitable. Social Psychological Approaches In parallel with the group approaches to cross-cultural adaptation in anthropology and sociology, researchers in communication, social psychology, sociolinguistics, and cultural anthropology have also examined the experiences of individuals adapting to the target culture by focusing on their psychological reactions and social integration while living in the target country for varied lengths of time. These studies tend to focus on the adaptation of either longterm residents, such as immigrants and refugees, or short-term sojourners, such as international students or overseas visiting scholars. Studies of individual immigrants tend to investigate their cross-cultural adaptation by identifying the key variables considered to influence the level of acculturation and adjustment. For instance, Taft (1957) identified concepts such as attitudes, frames of reference, social motivation, ego involvement, beliefs, reference groups, role expectations, and role behavior as key aspects of immigrants’ adaptation in the new culture. Taft later proposed a four-faceted adaptation schema including cultural adjustment, national and ethnic identity, cultural competence, and role acculturation. Stonequist (1964) investigated immigrant adaptation by focusing on an individual’s inner strain or malaise, a feeling of isolation Stonequist refers to as “marginality,” and

< previous page

page_11

next page >

< previous page

page_12

next page >

Page 12 he viewed the process of cross-cultural adaptation of individual immigrants as following one of three major directions: assimilation into the dominant group, assimilation into subordinate groups, or some form of accommodation between the two societies. As mentioned, implicit ideological positions in social psychological approaches to cross-cultural adaptation appear to have shifted from the earlier assimilationist view to the more recent pluralistic view. Such a pluralistic view is also reflected in the work of Padilla (1980), who emphasized the significance of an immigrant’s awareness and ethnic loyalty, and in the work of Tajfel (1978) and Turner (1987), who in their social identity theory argued that individuals seek positive social identities in cross-cultural encounters, and that their communication behaviors are influenced by the salience of the interactants’ group memberships and the “threat’’ that such perceptions of group membership present to one’s social identity. Within the research domain of social identity theory, Giles and Johnson (1981) examined individuals’ language behavior and found that second language competence, along with other factors in interethnic situations, is negatively related to the strength of identification with one’s own ethnic group. Research on “ethnolinguistic vitality” has also shown that the perceived strength or potency of the language of an ethnic group influences the degree to which its members emphasize their ethnic identity in intercultural communication settings (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977). Studies of sojourners and their relatively short-term cross-cultural adaptation mainly focus on three areas: culture shock, psychological adjustment phases and curves, and effectiveness. Culture shock was first defined by Oberg (1960) as the “anxiety that results from losing all of our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse” (p. 177). Taft (1977) identified several common reactions to cultural dislocation: “cultural fatigue” as manifested by irritability, insomnia, and other psychosomatic disorders; a sense of loss arising from being uprooted from one’s familiar surroundings; rejection by the individual of members of the new society; and a feeling of impotence from being unable to competently deal with an unfamiliar environment. The concept of culture shock was later expanded to include “re-entry shock,” the emotional and psychological difficulties an individual may experience on returning home from overseas (Adler, 1981). Relevant to the studies of culture shock are studies of the trends in sojourners’ psychological adjustment in a foreign cultural environment. In a study of Indian students in the United States, Coelho (1958) examined how they perceived Americans and how their images affected their interactions with Americans. There was a positive correlation between these students’ perceptions about Americans and the extent to which they associated with Americans. In a study investigating the attitudes and social relations of foreign students in the United States, Selltiz and associates (1963) found that certain orig-

< previous page

page_12

next page >

< previous page

page_13

next page >

Page 13 inal characteristics of the students, along with certain conditions of their stay, strongly influenced the extent and nature of their association with citizens of the host country. In a large-scale study of university exchange students among eleven countries focusing on the level of satisfaction as the indicator of adjustment, Klineberg and Hull (1979) found that prior foreign experiences and social contact with members of the host culture had the greatest effect on the students’ adjustment. The third area of research in sojourner cross-cultural adaptation is the effectiveness of sojourners while they are in foreign cultural environments. In considering this issue, researchers (e.g., Kealey & Ruben, 1983) have looked at an array of factors that promote effectiveness, ranging from personality characteristics (e.g., patience, honesty) to communication behavior characteristics (e.g., interaction management, communicative competence, communication strategies). Anthropological, sociological, and social psychological studies of cross-cultural adaptation have provided us with considerable information and insights, but there is a lack of coherence in definitions, viewpoints, and conceptualizations of cross-cultural adaptation because of its complex nature. Kim (1988) pointed out that there have been “four main areas of concern in the existing approaches to study cross-cultural adaptation: inconsistent use of concepts; lack of coordination between group-and individual-level approaches; lack of integration between the studies of immigrants and of sojourners; and the narrowness of perspectives that view cross-cultural adaptation as either a positive (desirable) or a negative (undesirable) phenomenon” (p. 27). A synthesis of the various academic perspectives is needed to explain the cross-cultural adaptation process with accuracy, clarity, coherence, and comprehensiveness. Integrative Theory of Cross-Cultural Adaptation To consolidate the diverse viewpoints and approaches available in the literature into a coherent theoretical system that can adequately accommodate all the crucial elements and their interrelationships operating in the process by which individuals come to grips with a new and unfamiliar cultural environment, Kim (1988) proposed an integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation. With a systems perspective and a communication focus, this theory explicates a set of explanatory schema linking personal and social communication patterns of individual immigrants and sojourners, their adaptive disposition, and host environment characteristics. This theory includes in its domain all individuals who move to another culture after their socialization in the original culture has been more or less completed. The cross-cultural move refers to “physical relocation of individuals into a societal/national linguistic environment that is dif-

< previous page

page_13

next page >

< previous page

page_14

next page >

Page 14 ferent from the childhood” (Kim, 1988, p. 36). In this theory, the cross-cultural adaptation is viewed as common to both long-term immigrants and refugees and short-term sojourners. Regardless of the length of residency in the target culture, all are expected to go through at least some of the same adaptive experiences, although they may vary in intensity and extent. Based on this boundary condition, the term “cross-cultural adaptation” as used in this theory refers to “the process of change over time that takes place within individuals who have completed their primary socialization process in one culture and then come into continuous, prolonged first-hand contact with a new and unfamiliar culture” (Kim, 1988, pp. 37–38). To establish a set of foundational notions about the cross-cultural adaptation process, a number of assumptions are made based on some of the basic concepts and principles of General Systems Theory. According to Kim (1988), a person is assumed to be an open communication system that interacts with the environment through input and output of information. A person has an inherent drive to maintain his or her internal equilibrium in the face of changes in environmental conditions. Such equilibrium is distributed when the person-environment symmetry is broken. Therefore, to regain internal equilibrium and reduce stress, a person adapts by altering his or her internal conditions. This theory also assumes that stress and growth are inseparable and that both are necessary for successful adaptation. However, the stress-adaptation-growth dynamic lies at the center of the human system’s response to environmental challenges. Each culture sanctions a system of communication for its members, and through communication, an individual adapts to a given cultural environment and gradually forms a cultural identity. However, a person’s level of cultural adaptation is facilitated by, as well as facilitates, his or her communication competence. To summarize, cross-cultural adaptation, which occurs in and through communication, necessitates at least a minimum level of acculturation to the host culture and deculturation from the native culture. Influencing this process are the adaptive predisposition of those who come to the target culture for various purposes and the characteristics of the host environment. Increased functional fitness, psychological health, and intercultural identity are identified in this theory as three direct consequences of adaptation experiences in the target culture (Kim, 1988). The central concept of this theory is the stress-adaptation-growth dynamic of intercultural communication experiences of individuals coming to an unfamiliar cultural environment for a long or short period of time. Most of these individuals follow the process of adaptation as articulated in this theory, demonstrating an impressive capacity to successfully cope with cross-cultural challenges without compromising their overall psychological health and integrity. This theory emphasizes

< previous page

page_14

next page >

< previous page

page_15

next page >

Page 15 an understanding of the communication patterns and activities in and through which individuals from other cultures experience the host environment. Moreover, it incorporates those individuals’ adaptive potential prior to migration and the receptivity and conformity pressure of the host environment as factors that influence their communication processes. In essence, this theory describes and explains (1) how and why individuals from other cultural backgrounds adapt and change in a different cultural environment, (2) what happens to their internal systems as a result of cumulative adaptive communication experiences, and (3) how their adaptive potential and the host environment influence the communication-adaptation process and outcome. This theory clarifies the interrelatedness of personal and social communication processes of individuals from different cultural backgrounds, taking into consideration adaptive predispositional factors, host environmental conditions, and the resultant internal transformation of these individuals (Kim, 1988). Several inferences can be made from Kim’s integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation, a conceptual framework that is both comprehensive and integrative. It offers a culture-general system of description and explanation that helps to clarify the meaning of cross-cultural adaptation experiences and predict the specific relationship between its dimensions and constructs. This theory implies that if individuals from other cultures are to become successfully adapted, they must enhance their communication competence and actively participate in the interpersonal and mass communication processes of the host society. This theory can be applied to the cross-cultural adaptation process of Asian students in U.S. universities. Regardless of their intended length of stay in the United States, Asian students must improve their communicative competence by actively participating in the intercultural communication processes in various social settings, on and off campus, if they want to adapt to the target culture. More specifically, if Asian students want to adapt to the American classroom culture, for example, they need to recognize the differences between classroom communication patterns in their home cultures and the target culture, understand the expectations for classroom participation, and be active participants. In sum, the anthropological, sociological, and sociopsychological approaches, as well as the integrative theory of cross-cultural adaptation, discussed in this section provide us with not only the rationale for why the cross-cultural adaptation process is necessary and important in intercultural encounters, but also the conceptual framework with which we can understand, describe, and explain multiple dimensions and constructs of cross-cultural adaptation. However, given that people from diverse cultural backgrounds coming to the United States for various purposes are usually willing to adapt to the target culture, they still need to know what actually happens when they interact with people

< previous page

page_15

next page >

< previous page

page_16

next page >

Page 16 with different belief systems, values, and norms. We also need to know what strategies, communication patterns, and communicative competencies are necessary for people with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds to communicate successfully in different communities and social settings in the target culture. In the following section, I will examine these issues with a particular focus on Asian cultures encountering American culture. INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION As we advance into the 21st century, “there is a growing sense of urgency that we need to increase our understanding of people from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds’’ (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 3). Intercultural communication2 is inevitable with the rapid development of technology, increased globalization of the economy, widespread population growth, and rapid development of multiculturalism. As Chen and Starosta (1998) pointed out, only through an understanding of intercultural communication can people develop a global mind-set in the interdependent global village that is our world today and live more harmoniously and productively with one another. Intercultural communication is a very complex sociocultural construct. The formal study of intercultural communication began in the 1950s as the result of Hall’s work The Silent Language (1959), and since then, this field has developed both theoretically and pragmatically. Theoretically speaking, studies focus on purposive interactions between people of different cultures, different languages, and different ethnic backgrounds. Pragmatically, intercultural communication has been applied in different kinds of intercultural and interethnic training programs to help people from diverse cultural backgrounds understand and accept each other in academic, business, government settings. The content of intercultural communication was classified by Rich (1974) into five forms: intercultural communication (i.e., the study of interaction between people from different cultural backgrounds), international communication (i.e., the study of interaction between representations of different nations), interracial3 communication (i.e., the study of interaction between members of the numerically or politically dominant culture and coculture in the same nation), interethnic or minority communication (i.e., the study of interaction among cocultures in the same nation), and contracultural communication (i.e., the study of the developmental process linking intercultural communication to interracial communication). Although scholars differ as to the scope of intercultural communication as a field of study, they seem to agree that its purpose is to understand the influence of culture on our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in an effort to reduce misunderstandings that result from cultural differences.

< previous page

page_16

next page >

< previous page

page_17

next page >

Page 17 When people from different cultures communicate, their discourse can take three forms: self-centered dialogue, dominant dialogue, and equal dialogue (Guan, 1995). In the first scenario, people are driven by ethnocentrism and use only their own cultural standards to judge and interact with each other, which often leads to misunderstanding and communication breakdown. In the second case, a person who is well aware of the cultural traits and differences of another person takes advantages of the cultural differences and controls or manipulates the entire communication. It is in the third scenario that mutual respect and understanding of each other’s cultural similarities and differences are achieved and reflected in communication. Whatever the scenario, the focus of intercultural communication is on the interpersonal dimensions as they appear in a variety of contexts (Samovar & Porter, 1991). Scollon and Scollon (1995) define intercultural communication as communication between people who are members of different groups. It is assumed that when people from various cultures communicate, understanding is greatly facilitated when cultural experiences are similar; conversely, cultural differences affect interpersonal interactions in ways that often lead to communication problems (Argyle, 1991). These problem areas can be grouped into six categories: language, nonverbal communication, rules of social behavior, social relationships, motivation, and religious and political beliefs. To deal with these problems, an understanding of the connection between culture and human communicative behaviors is essential. As Hall (1991) noted, culture provides a highly selective screen between people and their outside world. This cultural filter determines not only what people attend to but what they choose to ignore as well. Because the way we behave is determined by the way we perceive the world, it is important for us to understand the nature of perception and how our cultural experiences influence our perceptions. Also important is the concept of values, which fundamentally influence our behavior in society. Although values do not describe how we act in a culture, they influence our sense of what we ought or ought not to do. There is a close relationship between the values we hold and the way we communicate in intercultural communication settings. Cultural Perception Cultural perception is a fundamental concept in intercultural communication. Perception is a process by which we turn external stimuli into meaningful experiences. Three stages characterize the process of perception: selection, organization, and selective attention. Selection is a major part of the process of turning environmental stimuli into meaningful experience. Although we encounter a variety of stimuli every day, we are able to perceive only some of them as a result of this selective process, which includes selective exposure, selective attention, and

< previous page

page_17

next page >

< previous page

page_18

next page >

Page 18 selective retention (Klopf, 1995). Organization refers to the way in which we arrange what we perceive into meaningful patterns; interpretation is the process whereby we assign meanings to what we perceive (Chen & Starosta, 1998). Culture plays a vital role in perception. It not only provides the foundation for the meanings we give to our perceptions, but it also directs us to formulate specific kind of messages and events. The influence of culture on perception is often reflected in the attributional process by which we interpret the meaning of others’ behaviors based on our past experience or history. Because culture provides an environment that allows us to develop our own meanings and interpretations, people from different cultures tend to perceive and interpret others’ behaviors in different ways. Because of the subjective nature of our perceptual framework, our perception is often incomplete and insufficient, which can lead to stereotyping and prejudice. Because stereotypes and prejudice are based on our beliefs and attitude systems, they often affect the way we communicate in intercultural encounters and may prevent us from interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds, produce negative feelings, and lead to unnecessary tensions and conflicts in communication. Cultural Values Cultural perception has a direct impact on the development of a belief system, and it also helps to establish the value systems that influence our behavior in society. Because values are strong guiding forces in human behavior, they are directly related to the way we communicate. Sitaram and Haapanen (1979) offer a useful summary of the relationship between values and human communication. First, values are communicated both explicitly and implicitly through symbolic behavior. Although our words and actions are indications of our personal motives in a given situation, they often reflect the cultural values we have learned through socialization. Second, because values determine what is desirable and what is not, they influence the way we engage in the process of communication. For instance, harmony or conformity is a key Chinese cultural value that often causes Chinese students to refrain from voicing opposing views in class. To investigate the relationship between cultural values and communication behaviors, several models have been developed to study cultural value orientations, the basic lenses through which we view our own actions and the actions of others. In Kluckhohn and Strodbeck’s (1961) classic model of cultural value orientations, five universal problems faced by all human societies are considered, along with their related cultural value orientations and possible solutions (Table 1.1).

< previous page

page_18

next page >

< previous page

page_19

next page >

Page 19 Although Kluckhohn and Strodbeck’s model is precise and heuristic, the five categories of value orientations are far too simple to capture the complex nature of human society. In an effort to expand this model, Condon and Yousef (1975) listed six spheres of universal problems that all human societies must face: the self, the family, society, human nature, nature, and the supernatural. These six spheres intersect and are interdependent. Each sphere has three to five orientations with three variations for each orientation. For example, under the Self sphere, four orientations with three variations for each are listed: individual-interdependence (individualism, individuality, and interdependence); age (youth, the middle years, and old age); sex (equality of sexes, female superiority, and male superiority); and activity (doing, being-in-becoming, and being). For the Society sphere, five orientations are given with three variations for each: social reciprocity (independence, symmetrical-obligatory, and complementaryobligatory); group membership (many groups, brief identification, subordination of group to individual versus few people, prolonged identification, subordination of the member to the group); intermediaries (no intermediaries, specialist intermediaries only, essential intermediaries); formality (informality, selective formality, pervasive Table 1.1 Kluckhohn and Strodbeck’s Model Universal Problems Cultural Value Possible Variations Orientations What is the character of innate human The human nature Evil, mixture of good and evil, and good nature? orientation What is the relationship of people to nature The man-nature Subjugation to nature, harmony with nature, and and super nature? orientation mastery over nature What is the temporal focus of human life? The time orientation Past, present, and future What is the modality of a person’s The relational Being, being-in-becoming, and doing relationship to other persons? orientation What is the modality of a person’s The relational Linearity, collaternity, and individualism relationship to other persons? orientation

< previous page

page_19

next page >

< previous page

page_20

next page >

Page 20 formality); and property (private, utilitarian, community). According to Condon and Yousef, this model offers a comprehensive list of cultural value orientations that may exist in any one society at the same time although the degree of preference for a given response to the problem may differ. However, this model is too ambitious, and the exhaustive list of cultural value orientations is impossible to study as a whole. Hall (1976) divided cultural differences into two major categories: low-context culture and high-context culture. According to Hall and Hall (1987), the point of departure between low-context culture and high-context culture depends on how much the listener knows about the subject matter under discussion. In low-context communication, the listener knows very little and needs to be informed about virtually everything, and in high-context communication, the listener knows what is expected in the given context and therefore little background information is needed to facilitate communication. Based on this distinction, people from low-context cultures tend to use a direct verbal-expression style that emphasizes situational context, explicitness, self-expression, verbal fluency, eloquent speech, direct expression of ones’ opinions, and persuasiveness. On the other hand, people from high-context cultures often use an indirect verbal-expression style that puts less emphasis on explicit verbal messages, relies heavily on contextual cues in conveying important information, values harmony, uses ambiguous language and silence in interactions, and favors a “beat-around-the-bush” approach to avoid saying “no” directly (Hall, 1976). Although Hall’s culture context model has significantly influenced the study of intercultural communication, its dichotomous classification of high-context and low-context cultures tends to oversimplify the complex nature of culture and can lead to stereotyping. In fact, many universal values such as achievement are emphasized in both high-context and low-context cultures. The similarities between both groups suggest that people from different cultures do share similar values, and variations of cultural values exist on a continuum in any given society. Perhaps the most influential theory of cultural value orientation is Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model. Moving beyond the classical approaches to value orientation, Hofstede (1980, 1991) has empirically generated four cultural variability dimensions from his large-scale study of a U.S. multinational business corporation. These dimensions are individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. The most important of these is individualism-collectivism. This dimension encompasses the relationship between the individual and the group to which he or she belongs. Individualistic cultures stress the self and personal achievement, and personal goals supersede group goals. Attention is paid to people’s self-concept in terms of self-identity, self-awareness, selfimage, and self-expression. On the con-

< previous page

page_20

next page >

< previous page

page_21

next page >

Page 21 trary, collectivist cultures endorse a more rigid social framework in which self-concept plays a less significant role in social interactions. In-group and out-group members are clearly differentiated, and only in-group needs and views are emphasized. In these cultures, people are expected to maintain group cohesion and to conform to the group’s norms and values. There is a strong social network through which people help each other and seek social support. The concept of individualism-collectivism as a major dimension of cultural variation in intercultural communication has recently received much attention (Hui, 1988; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Ting-Toomey, 1999; Triandis, 1995; Triandis et al., 1986; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asia, & Lucca, 1988; Triandis, Brislin and Hui, 1988). According to Triandis (1995), collectivists are closely linked individuals who view themselves primarily as part of a whole, be it a family, a network of coworkers, a tribe, or a nation. Such people are chiefly motivated by the norms and duties imposed by the collectivist entity. Individualists, on the other hand, are motivated by their own preferences, needs, and rights, giving priority to personal rather than group goals. Drawing examples from Japan, Sweden, China, Greece, Russia, the United States, and other countries, Triandis also points out the wide-ranging implications of individualism and collectivism for the appreciation of both perspectives. Power distance, another cultural value dimension, is defined by Hofstede and Bond (1984) as the “extent to which the less powerful members of institutions … accept that power is distributed unequally” (p. 419). This dimension specifies to what extent a culture adapts to inequalities of power distribution in relationships and organizations. In high-power-distance cultures, people tend to obey authority, because the structure of social relationships is hierarchical and vertical and people are assumed to be unequal yet complementary in social interactions. In lowpower-distance cultures, social relationships are horizontal, and people tend to minimize differences of age, sex, status, and roles and are less formal and more direct in social interactions. For instance, in low-power-distance cultures such as the United States, students can contradict their teachers and speak their own minds, but in highpower-distance cultures such as China, students are expected to respect their teachers as authorities and accept what is taught without question. The dimension of uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which “the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain and unknown situations and the extent to which they try to avoid these situations” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 71). People of high-uncertainty-avoidance cultures (e.g., Japan) try to reduce the level of ambiguity and uncertainty in social and organizational life. They value security, avoid risk-taking, resist change, and fear failure. On the contrary, in low-uncertainty-avoidance cultures (e.g., the United States) people are willing to deal

< previous page

page_21

next page >

< previous page

page_22

next page >

Page 22 with the stress and anxiety caused by ambiguous and uncertain situations. They are more comfortable with risk, take more initiative, are more flexible, and feel more relaxed in interpersonal situations. The last dimension in Hofstede’s model is that of masculinity and femininity, which refers to the extent to which stereotypically masculine and feminine traits prevail in the culture. Hofstede (1998) finds distinctive male and female organizational behavior differences on the masculinity-femininity dimension. In more masculine societies (e.g., Japan, Korea), social gender roles are distinct, with men being more assertive, tough, and outspoken and women more modest, tender, and shy in public. In more feminine cultures (e.g., Sweden, Denmark) social gender roles overlap and there is greater equality in social interaction and participation. According to Chen and Starosta (1998), Hofstede’s model suffers from three major weaknesses. First, since the questionnaire respondents were middle managers in multinational companies, the dimensions derived from this data set are based on work-related values. Second, of the four dimensions, only individualism-collectivism has been widely studied and validated. Third, the concepts of nation and culture in this dimension are not clearly distinguished. In addition to these criticisms, we should also be mindful of the impact of globalization and mobility. Many people in the world are multilingual and multicultural, and there will always be persons in individualistic societies who are collectively oriented and collectivists in individualistic societies, so these dichotomies should not be applied too strictly. Bond (1991, 1996) uses a separate cultural value dimension, Confucian dynamism, to explain some of the distinctive behavioral patterns in East Asian cultures (e.g., China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea). The Confucian dynamism dimension, which is reflective of the collectivism and large power-distance dimensions, is characterized by its long-term orientation, which emphasizes social order, hierarchical respect, collective face-saving, and long-term planning and long-term outcomes, as opposed to the short-term orientation characteristics found in countries like the United States that stress personal security, respect and dignity, individual face-saving, and short-term planning and outcomes (Hofstede, 1991). Although there are multiple organizational value dimensions cross-culturally, it is apparent that self-concept and behavior in particular interaction scenes are influenced by individualist and collectivist values. We have all learned culturally appropriate patterns of communicative behavior for the various social contexts in which we normally find ourselves. However, communication problems can arise when we find ourselves in unfamiliar contexts without an internalized set of rules to govern our behavior or when we are interacting with someone who has

< previous page

page_22

next page >

< previous page

page_23

next page >

Page 23 internalized a different set of rules. The study of intercultural communication is about learning which cultural differences really ‘‘make a difference” in intercultural encounters, and it is also about acquiring the conceptual tools and skills to manage such differences creatively (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Research in intercultural communication is carried out in various disciplines and with a variety of methods. In the field of social psychology, much work has been done by Asante and Gudykunst (1989), Gudykunst (1986, 1987), Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988), and Kim and Gudykunst (1988). Anthropologists have argued for the importance of understanding the culture within which they conduct their fieldwork (Hanson 1975; Liberman, 1984). Students in foreign language programs have recognized that they must learn not only different languages but also different cultures (House & Blum-Kulka, 1986). Linguists and social scientists have also joined the field of discourse analysis to study international communication (Ulijn & Gorter, 1989). Berlo (1960) asserts that reciprocal role-taking is always present in successful intercultural communication. Knowing about your own culture and the culture of the person with whom you are communicating is not enough: the other person must also know about his or her own culture and about your culture as well. Berlo maintains that intercultural communication cannot reach its highest level without mutual acknowledgment of each other’s cultures and a willingness to accept those cultures as a reality governing communicative interactions. To help improve the overall quality of intercultural communication, Barna (1991) listed six important causes of communication breakdown across cultural boundaries: “assuming similarity instead of difference, language problems, nonverbal misunderstanding, the presence of preconceptions and stereotypes, the tendency to evaluate, and the high anxiety that often exists in intercultural encounters” (p. 343). Spitzberg (1989) made some suggestions to resolve intercultural communication problems, and he believed that our intercultural communication competence will be greatly enhanced if we are motivated, knowledgeable, and equipped with interpersonal skills. In the following section, I focus on one particular intercultural communication setting—the American classroom—by reviewing several major studies in this area with reference to some of the theories and concepts in cross-cultural adaptation and intercultural communication previously discussed. CLASSROOM COMMUNICATION The classroom environment provides a lens to observe and investigate intercultural communication. The assumptions, values, rules, customs,

< previous page

page_23

next page >

< previous page

page_24

next page >

Page 24 practices, and procedures that students from different backgrounds bring with them to classroom settings strongly affect classroom communication. In their article “Intercultural Communication and the Classroom,” Andersen and Powell (1991) stated that learning environments are culturally diverse and that they alter the communication patterns of people within them. In American classrooms, students from diverse backgrounds may appear to approach teamwork and problem-solving differently, or they may appear to have different time and spatial orientations, or they may hold different attitudes toward oral classroom participation. Some students may feel more comfortable being with classmates from similar cultural backgrounds, because they can experience greater predictability of interaction and emotional security. Others may find it more stimulating to exchange ideas with those from different cultural backgrounds. The diverse nature of American classrooms offers many opportunities for exploring and understanding cultural differences and complexities. As Ting-Toomey (1999) posited, “It is through the mirror of others that we learn to know ourselves, and it is through facing our own discomfort and anxiety that we learn to stretch and grow” (p. 8). For successful intercultural communication to happen, everyone in the classroom must become responsible for creating an environment in which the constant adjustment of communication patterns is a norm. Familiarity with some of the unique characteristics of Asian cultures is helpful in studying intercultural communication in the classroom setting. Asian students often view teachers as having a parental role, and they expect teachers to tell them what to do and to impart ‘‘truths.” They are not expected to speak in class, and they memorize what they are taught. These students are easily frustrated when applying their memorization skills to the extensive materials presented in American classrooms and therefore are often reluctant to engage in class discussion (Sheehan & Pearson, 1995). Mead (1970) differentiated postfigurative from cofigurative and prefigurative societies. In postfigurative societies, older people disseminate their knowledge to younger, less experienced, and less knowledgeable individuals; cofigurative cultures adopt primarily peer learning patterns; and prefigurative societies learn from their younger members who are more up to date. In traditional Asian cultures, wisdom comes with age and all important learning is postfigurative. In some Asian societies, the teacher is viewed as someone who hands down sacred truths, and students would seldom disagree with such a revered figure. The task of the student is to absorb knowledge, and self-disclosure is not central to the development of intimacy between the teacher and the students. The feeling of intimacy is not explicitly communicated but understood (Mead, 1970). In terms of group work, Hyde (1993) conducted an action research study on pair work, looking for different modes of classroom interaction (e.g., group work, individual work, teacher with whole class work) in a

< previous page

page_24

next page >

< previous page

page_25

next page >

Page 25 mixed-nationality ESL (English as a second language) classroom. Finding that students who complained of domineering partners were generally Japanese, Hyde speculated that Japanese students may well hold different cultural and behavioral expectations in relation to turn-taking and conversation management that were not met in these interactions. For the Japanese “it may be impolite to disagree to another person’s face or to interrupt someone; but many pair work tasks are set up by teachers in order to make students argue from different points of view to achieve a negotiated result” (p. 345). To be assertive when working with a partner is seen as domineering or rude by Japanese students, whereas in Western cultures it may be considered dynamic and positive. As Nemetz Robinson (1988) states, “Misunderstandings between Japanese and American speakers are also influenced by different ways of structuring information. The American value of directness is contrasted with the Japanese value of maintaining harmony. Japanese use a variety of conventions to avoid direct disagreement” (p. 57). It is commonly assumed that some Asian cultures are heavily influenced by Buddhism, which holds that knowledge, truth, and wisdom come to those whose silence allows the spirit to enter (Andersen & Powell, 1991). In an attempt to explain why Asian people tend to avoid public argument and debate, Becker (1991) suggested that we should look at three areas of Asian cultures: social history, linguistics, and philosophy and religion. As far as social history is concerned, Asian people such as the Chinese and Japanese depend largely on peaceful cooperation within a community. Age and rank become the unquestioned basis for distinction of inferior and superior. Taking the opposing view in an argument usually means becoming a personal rival and antagonist of the one on the other side. In considering language, Becker (1991) noted that the “telegraphic terseness and consequent ambiguities [of Chinese and Japanese]; their many homonyms; and the use of language in non-communicative ways and of intuition for communication” could account for the Asian tendency to withdraw from public debate and argument. In addition to social history and language features, philosophy and religion (e.g., Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism) in Asian culture also seem to frown on direct speech and explicit language (Becker, 1991). Free thought and individual expression are discouraged, giving way to the safer and surer domain of classical quotation. Classroom Interaction Classroom interaction is a complicated phenomenon that can take various forms, such as teacher-student, studentstudent, teacher-student-student, and student-teacher-student. Chaudron (1998) identified four major areas of interaction and their possible effects on target language learning in second language classrooms: (1) selectivity of teachers’

< previous page

page_25

next page >

< previous page

page_26

next page >

Page 26 speech to L2 learners in mixed native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) classes; (2) the variability in teachers’ choice of language in addressing learners; (3) the pattern of questioning behavior; and (4) characteristics of feedback to learners following errors in 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 toward classroom interaction. One teacher preferred that his students not to speak unless they were spoken to, but the other teacher allowed his students to say whatever they wanted to in class. As a result, student interaction patterns varied significantly. Classroom research has shown that teachers may be less likely to address L2 learners when they are mixed with native speakers (Chaudron, 1988). The results of many research studies (e.g., Philips, 1972; Laosa, 1979; Duff, 1986; Malcolm, 1986, Bailey & Nunan, 1996) 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 and found that the teachers tended to call on more non-Asian students (60%) than Asian students (48%), suggesting that the teachers believed that non-Asian students were more willing 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 her study of ESL classes in six secondary schools in Karachi, Pakistan, Shamim (1996) found that the physical factors—in this case the seating arrangement—had a powerful impact on classroom interaction as well as on the quality of learners’ educational experience. Studies on classroom interactions in non-ESL classrooms have also been instructive. For instance, quite a few studies of gender influence on student-faculty interaction in the college classroom, which were originally intended to gather evidence of discrimination against female students, have instead revealed a number of important determinants of classroom interaction. In their observational study designed to test Hall’s (1982) assertions regarding the role male professors play in inhibiting the performance of female students, Constantinople, Cornelius, and Gray (1988) found that it was not the sex of the student, the sex of the instructor, or their interaction, but rather the curriculum (e.g., science vs. liberal arts), class size, and time (i.e., early vs. late in the semester) that had a significant effect on patterns of student classroom interaction. Likewise, in a retrospective study of students’ experiences in male and female instructors’ classes, Heller, Puff, and Mills (1985) found that seniority had a relatively large effect on student classroom participation. Characteristics unique to the particular college or university under study were also of great importance (Cornelius, Gray & Constantinople, 1990).

< previous page

page_26

next page >

< previous page

page_27

next page >

Page 27 In an attempt to test the validity of the findings of Constantinople and colleagues (1988) and to explore in more detail the influence of factors other than gender on interaction in the classroom, Cornelius, Gray, and Constantinople (1990) carried out classroom observations at three college sites twice during one semester in both male and female instructors’ classes in the natural sciences, fine arts, and social sciences. Trained observers within each class collected data on the frequency of a variety of both instructor and student behaviors. Verbatim records of the content of all interactions between students and instructors and among students at two college sites were also made. Analysis of the data revealed that academic discipline, class size, and elapsed time in the semester, and to a lesser extent, college, were important variables in determining the type and amount of student-faculty interaction in the classroom. In agreement with the earlier study by Constantinople and colleagues (1988), gender was not a significant variable. However, Davis (1992), in her action research in a two-year community college, found that teachers’ authority and gender roles influence classroom interaction. As she states, “By researching their own classroom discourse, students can learn about the authority they must assume to participate in classroom discussion” (p. 113). To record and analyze behaviors of teachers and students as they interact in the classroom, various instruments have been developed. The Educational Testing Service collected 95 instruments on classroom interaction (1990), covering preschool grades through higher education. In the realm of higher education, about 20 instruments have been developed; however, only three are directly related to classroom interaction. The Classroom Interaction Rating Form, developed by Knox (1973), describes and evaluates the classroom environment. It is used after a classroom observation and covers teacher planning, student participation, teaching style, and behaviors in adult basic education classes. The Profile of Interaction in the Classroom (Crispin, 1969), an in-service and preservice training device used to improve the quality of instruction, analyzes a teacher’s interaction with students in the classroom. A coding system was developed by Spaulding (1978) for evaluating teacher behavior and teacher student interaction in the classroom. Much of the research on classroom interaction has focused mainly on children; the dynamics of classroom settings for young adults and adults have been less extensively researched (Fassinger, 1995). Moreover, research on multicultural classroom interaction other than ESL classrooms is relatively scarce, and only a few researchers have examined the college classroom as a special social context. Of the available empirical and nonempirical research reports on classroom interaction in college and graduate school academic classes, many have focused on nonverbal communication.

< previous page

page_27

next page >

< previous page

page_28

next page >

Page 28 Classroom Nonverbal Communication Intercultural communication requires both verbal and nonverbal interaction, and both are greatly influenced by the culture of each speaker. Culture tends to determine the specific nonverbal behaviors that represent or symbolize specific thoughts, feelings, or states of the communicator. Culture also determines when it is appropriate to display or communicate various thoughts, feelings, or internal states (Samovar & Porter, 1991). Although certain nonverbal messages can be communicated interculturally, nonverbal cues are not universal. Even if some expressions of nonverbal behaviors are universal and governed by biological necessity, the meanings attached to them vary greatly across cultures (Chen & Starosta, 1998). Researchers have found that gender differences in values, attitudes, and communication patterns are expressed through nonverbal behavior. For example, Eakins and Eakins (1991) noticed that male-female differences in nonverbal communication are reflected in eye contact, facial expressions, posture and bearing, gestures, clothing, grooming and physical appearance, use of space, and touch. They further pointed out that being aware of and knowing how these sex differences in nonverbal behavior operate during interaction should be helpful to both women and men as they attempt to exchange ideas, information, and feelings with one another. Silence is of crucial importance in Asian cultures. Silence is the mode of communication for the contemplative throughout the world, but it is more practical in some cultural and social groupings than in others (Ishii & Bruneau, 1991). Silence can mean different things depending on social contexts (Jaworsky, 1997). We silence others “to gain attention, to maintain control, to protect, to teach, to attempt to eliminate distractions, to induce reverence for authority or tradition, and to point to something greater than ourselves or our groups” (Ishii & Bruneau, 1991, p. 315). Rather than seeing silence as indicating a problem to be avoided or even as a weapon of resistance (Rudduck, 1978, pp. 15, 18), Rowland (1991) views it as ‘‘a way of interacting” (p. 97). In an attempt to explore the power relationships between the tutor and participants in an in-service course, Rowland explored the meaning of silence during the reflective discussions of the group. It was found that silence was of particular significance in its dynamic setting and in the changing awareness of both the tutor and participants. Rowland began to suspect “that the preparedness of the group to entertain silence was an indication of its achievement as an ‘ideal speech’ community” (p. 97). Silence as a sign of respect for the wisdom and expertise of others is valued and rewarded in Asian cultures. According to Ishii and Bruneau (1991), the elderly expect signs of respect, one of which is the silence of the young and of

< previous page

page_28

next page >

< previous page

page_29

next page >

Page 29 less authoritative family members. Moreover, many women in Asian countries view their silent roles as very powerful and natural. Another aspect to be observed in nonverbal communication is silence in class. As we know, many international students come from academic environments in their own countries that discourage active participation and speaking for any reason in class. Those students, generally Asians, find adaptation to the American classroom especially difficult and experience great stress when forced to give presentations, participate in group activities, or simply ask questions (Heikenheimo, 1986). However, the Western tradition often holds negative attitudes toward silence, especially in social and public relations. According to Wayne (1974), the U.S. interpretations of silence are (1) sorrow, (2) critique, (3) obligation, (4) regret, and (5) embarrassment. People tend to ignore the fact that silence has linking, affecting, revelational, judgmental, and activating communicative functions in Western cultures (Jensen, 1973). It should be pointed out that the intercultural implications of silent behaviors are diverse because the value and use of silence as communication vary a great deal across cultures. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the cultural views of silence and the interpretations given to silence in communication interactions (Tannen & SavilleTroike, 1985). Viewing the interdependence between silence and speech from an Asian perspective, Ishii and Bruneau (1991) posit that “silence is not the ‘empty’ absence of speech sound; silence creates speech and speech creates silence; yin and yang are, in this view, counter-dependent as well as dynamically concomitant” (p. 316). From a Gestalt perspective, silence can be regarded as the ground against which the figures of speech are perceived and valued and also as a figure against which the ground of speech functions. Ishii and Bruneau (1991) suggest that the notion and significance of silent communication competence should be positively introduced and researched along with verbal communication competence. Whereas verbal communication plays an important role in promoting intercultural and interpersonal understanding, “the ultimate goal-stage of communication—interpersonally and interculturally—may be communication through silence” (Ishii & Bruneau, 1991, p. 318). Nonverbal communication is an important aspect of teacher-student and student-student interactions in classrooms (O’Hair & Rope, 1994). In the classroom setting, nonverbal communication refers to the manner in which teachers and students send various signals to each other about their feelings about and reactions and attitudes to the teaching and learning process. Nonverbal communication is important for two reasons, according to Neill (1991). The first is the complexity of classroom life, especially for the teacher who has to communicate with a group of students who are different in many ways. In some cases, some messages

< previous page

page_29

next page >

< previous page

page_30

next page >

Page 30 can be conveyed implicitly by nonverbal means that would be unacceptable if they were sent through more explicit channels. The second reason is that nonverbal communication is more ambiguous than speech. Unlike the verbal communication process, which is usually controllable and intentional, nonverbal behavior is often difficult to manage and control, especially in multicultural classrooms where students from different cultural backgrounds tend to differ in their interpretations of diverse nonverbal behaviors. Nonverbal signals differ from words in that several can be emitted spontaneously with the same signal having different meanings according to what signals are combined with it. In many instances, people are not aware of the nonverbal signals they give and cannot describe them or name them accurately (Bull, 1987). Nonverbal communication has several functions in the classroom, including expressing emotions, conveying interpersonal attitudes, presenting personality, and amplifying verbal communication (Argyle, 1975). In a classroom setting, nonverbal communication has five major components: paralanguage, facial expression, eye contact and visual behavior, gesture and body movement, and space (O’Hair & Rope, 1994). These nonverbal communication components function differently depending on the educational communication context and the ethnic composition of the class. Facial expressions, for instance, are most reliable in determining the emotional state of an individual. Research indicates that there are more than 1,000 different facial expressions (Ekman, Friesen & Ellsworth, 1972). A teacher who is sensitive to students’ various facial expressions in class and uses appropriate feedback strategies will facilitate greater cognitive (Gorham, 1988; Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney & Plax, 1985) and affective (Gorham, 1988; Plax, McCroskey & Richmond, 1986) learning. Although facial expressions are in many ways universal, cultural differences do exist. Each culture differs in regard to what facial expressions should or should not be shown when and to whom and what objects or events trigger an expression (Burgoon et al., 1989; Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Pitton et al., 1993). For instance, Japanese individuals usually refrain from expressing negative emotions, while Africans reveal these expressions easily (Argyle, 1988). Burgoon and colleagues (1989) further point out that cultures define certain facial expressions whose meanings are recognizable only by other members of those cultures. Although this is not always true, because some cultural interpretations of facial expressions are universal, it does imply that teachers who are unaware of the nuances of facial expressions of diverse students will be unable to evaluate their nonverbal behavior accurately and empathetically. Communication avoidance is another commonly observed classroom behavior. Students’ avoidance, both intentional and unintentional, communicates certain meanings to the teacher. Students might avoid direct

< previous page

page_30

next page >

< previous page

page_31

next page >

Page 31 eye contact because they are underprepared or busy thinking of something else, or too tired, and so forth. Emotional arousal may also reduce eye contact (O’Hair & Rope, 1994). However, cultural differences play an important role in eye contact. In Japan, students are taught to avoid eye contact when listening by focusing on the speaker’s neck (Ting-Toomey, 1986), whereas in the United States, students are socialized to gaze directly at the speaker’s face when they are listening (O’Hair & Rope, 1994). To summarize, nonverbal communication is an integral part of classroom communication and functions to express emotion, convey interpersonal attitudes, present personality, and amplify verbal communication. Students’ diverse cultural backgrounds and prior educational experiences have great impact on their nonverbal communication behaviors. Communication Strategies Unlike native speakers, second-language learners sometimes lack necessary resources and linguistic competence to express a particular communicative intention in the L2. When linguistic resources are limited, second-language speakers tend to rely on communication strategies for linguistic compensation. Among second-language acquisition researchers, there is general agreement as to the various kinds of communication strategies that are observable in non-native performance (Kasper & Kellerman, 1997). Identifying Communication Strategies When communication strategies are studied in a second-language context, their definitions vary according to different theoretical stances, and researchers in this area have not reached a universally accepted set of definitions. Communication strategies of second-language learners, according to Corder (1977), are systematic techniques employed by speakers to express their meaning when faced with difficulties. There are two options for secondlanguage learners in communication: one is to tailor the message to be in agreement with the linguistic resources of the speaker (message adjustment strategies). The second option is to increase, extend, or manipulate the available linguistic system to realize the intended message (resource expansion strategies) (Corder, 1983). When message adjustment strategies are used, the extent to which the speaker compromises the intended meaning or goal is scaled on a dimension of globalness ranging from topic avoidance as the most global, to topic abandonment, semantic avoidance, and finally message reduction as the least global. Resource expansion strategies, on the other hand, can be evaluated by the extent to which the speaker is risking

< previous page

page_31

next page >

< previous page

page_32

next page >

Page 32 communication failure. The following strategies are ranked from the most to the least risky: switching, borrowing, inventing, paraphrasing, and paralinguistic strategies (Corder, 1983). Tarone, Cohen and Dumas (1976) conducted one of the earliest studies of communication strategies in interlanguage production. Nine subjects with intermediate language proficiency from three different language backgrounds were shown two simple drawings and a complex illustration and asked to describe all three in both their native language and English. The approaches used by different learners to solve specific communication problems were recorded and compared. The findings of this study prompted Tarone to form her topology of conscious communication strategies, which consists of five major categories or strategies, with each reflecting a different sort of decision in communication problem solving. These five categories are avoidance, including both topic avoidance and message abandonment; paraphrase, including approximation, word change, and circumlocution; conscious transfer by way of literal transfer and language switch; appeal for assistance; and mime. According to Tarone (1980), communication strategies are a mutual attempt by two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures are not shared. Closely related to Tarone’s topology is Varadi’s distinction between adjusting the meaning and adjusting the form of expression in terms of communication strategies. In ordinary communication, the speaker’s goal is to convey the optimal meaning, but when this is impossible because of lack of vocabulary or knowledge of appropriate forms, the speaker has to adapt his or her meaning to the available forms of expression. The expressed outcome of this adjustment, according to Varadi (1980), is the adjusted meaning. Adjusted form refers to the constraints on choices made for meanings to be expressed. When the speaker fails to express an intended meaning, she or he has to decide whether expression of that message will be based on reduction or replacement of the usual forms. Faerch and Kasper (1983a), on the other hand, posit that communication strategies are potentially conscious plans for reaching a particular communicative goal. Somewhat in agreement with Corder, Faerch and Kasper proposed a system for classifying communication strategies. They thought that learners, when encountering a communication problem, have two options: they can dismiss the problem by circumventing the difficulty, thus avoiding the obstacle (i.e., message adjustment strategies), or they can confront the problem by developing an alternative plan, thus achieving a solution (i.e., resource expansion strategies). The former are called reduction strategies, and the latter are called achievement strategies. The choice between these two approaches depends on whether the learner’s underlying behavior is avoidance-

< previous page

page_32

next page >

< previous page

page_33

next page >

Page 33 oriented or achievement-oriented and on the nature of the encountered problem (Bialystok, 1990). Reduction strategies can be subdivided into two types: formal reduction strategies, in which the learner attempts to avoid errors (phonological, morphological, syntactic, and lexical) by generating speech production from a reduced system; and functional reduction strategies, in which the learner attempts to reduce his or her communicative goal to avoid a problem. As Bialystok (1990) points out, what makes Faerch and Kasper’s classification distinctive is the achievement strategies, which are “developed in the planning phase to overcome the lack of an available route to the communicative goal” (p. 32). Paribakht (1985) developed her own taxonomy, proposing that there are four possible approaches to communication problems: the linguistic approach (exploiting linguistic knowledge surrounding the referent object), the contextual approach (dealing with the contextual knowledge surrounding the referent object), the conceptual approach, (tackling the speaker’s general knowledge of the world), and mime (utilizing knowledge of meaningful gestures). The first three approaches are displayed on a continuum of knowledge span from narrow to wide, but the last approach seems to stand by itself. These definitions and taxonomies, although incomplete and different in organization and criterion, all share three features of communication strategies: problematicity, consciousness, and intentionality (Bialystok, 1990). Problematicity is the idea that strategies are used only when a speaker perceives that there is a problem that may interrupt communication. Consciousness means that speakers, while using communication strategies, are aware of doing so. Intentionality refers to learners having many strategies at their disposal and choosing the one that best meets their communication purposes. Selecting Communication Strategies The choice of communication strategy is of utmost importance. Are there predictable ways in which learners choose strategies? To answer this question, Bialystok (1990) looked at potential factors affecting the selection of communication strategies. The hypothesized factors include proficiency of the learner, elicitation task, L1 (first language) influence, and speaking in a second language. Several studies have looked at the relationship between the learner’s second-language proficiency and the choice of strategies in communication. Tarone (1977) rank-ordered her subjects based on a rough estimation of their proficiency levels and tabulated the frequency with which each strategy was used. The results showed that each of the subjects had his or her own strategy selection pattern, which was accounted for by personality differences. Tarone also claimed that “strategy preference

< previous page

page_33

next page >

< previous page

page_34

next page >

Page 34 and second-language proficiency level may prove to be related” (p. 202). This hypothesis was tested by Bialystok (1983) in her study of a French-as-a-second-language class comprising a group of 17-year-old students whose French proficiency levels were classified as advanced or average. Interestingly, Bialystok found that the advanced students used relatively more L2-based strategies than did the regular students, who relied more on L1-based strategies (i.e., more proficient speakers relied more on L2 strategies). To develop a communication strategy taxonomy, Paribakht (1985) examined the precise relationship between speaker proficiency and strategy choice among a group of native speakers of Persian who were advanced and intermediate learners of English and a group of native speakers of English. These two groups completed a set of communication tasks, and their strategic choices were examined in terms of the four approaches in her taxonomy, namely, linguistic, contextual, conceptual, and mime. She found some differences in the use of three of the four approaches (with the exception of mime), but no consistent pattern was identified. Therefore, the relationship between language proficiency and strategy choice was ambiguous. It has also been asserted that a language learner’s selection of a specific communication strategy may be influenced by various elicitation tasks, such as picture description, picture reconstruction, translation, sentence completion, conversation, narration, instruction, word transmission, and interview (Bialystok, 1990). However, in their analysis of communication strategies occurring in a conversation between a native speaker and a language learner, Haastrup and Phillipson (1983) noted that speakers used the same strategies in informal settings and controlled laboratory studies. This result implies that there is little systematic variation in the patterns of selection that can be attributed to the types of elicitation tasks. To test the effect of elicitation task, Bialystok and Frohlich (1980) conducted a study in a French class. Students were randomly assigned to three groups with three different treatments. In one group, subjects were shown a complex picture and asked to write a description of it. In the second group, subjects were shown the same picture but asked to describe it orally. In the third group, subjects were shown a picture and asked to describe it so that another student could recreate it on a felt board from a group of constituent pieces that were provided. The results showed that the three treatments generated quantitative differences in the amount of elicited speech, whereas the qualitative features of speech—the classification of strategic choices—were equivalent in all cases. In other words, regardless of the elicitation method used, the students repeatedly adopted the same set of strategies. Acknowledging that the elicitation task has no generalized effect on the choice of a strategy, Faerch and Kasper (1983a) suggested that the choice of a strategy might be related to the nature of the communication

< previous page

page_34

next page >

< previous page

page_35

next page >

Page 35 problem. They claimed that “problems that relate to fluency and correctness constitute a special class in that they frequently cause the language user not to use the most ‘obvious’ parts of IL [interlanguage] system because he expects that there will be problems in realizing them’’ (p. 37). In these cases, the learners might choose reduction strategies to avoid exceeding their linguistic competence. Conversely, some students might make different choices if they were willing to take risks by perceiving a problem to be a test of fluency. In fact, the discovery of avoidance strategy was one of the results of comparing contrastive analysis and error analysis. We might wonder whether learners who speak different L1s select different communication strategies. To address this question, Tarone (1977) conducted a study on three learners from three language backgrounds and found that there was no tendency for different language backgrounds to lead to different patterns of strategy selection. Even though the concept of language transfer, or cross-linguistic influence, has been used to study the conscious transfer of L1 strategies to L2 communication problems (Kellerman, 1978, 1984; Kellerman & Sharwood Smith, 1986; Odlin, 1989), no systematic research seems to allow for direct comparison of strategy selection by subjects who differ in their L1. Interestingly, many studies base the results on language learners with the same L1 learning the same L2. For example, Varadi (1980) studied Hungarian-speaking learners of English, Bialystok and Frohlich (1980) studied English-speaking learners of French, Faerch and Kasper (1983a, 1983b) studied Danish-speaking learners of English, and Ringbom (1987) studied Swedish-speaking learners and Finnish-speaking learners of English. Unfortunately, these studies did not give us information about how the native languages of the subjects influenced the selection patterns observed. Is it true that the strategy selection patterns the second language learner usually uses are genuinely distinct from those of native speakers? Several research studies have addressed this question. Research in referential communication (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986; Krauss & Weinheimer, 1964) as reviewed by Dickson (1982), who defines it as “that type of communication involved in such activities as giving directions on a map, telling someone how to assemble a piece of equipment, or how to select a specific object from a larger set of objects” (p. 1), suggests that the problem-solving strategies native speakers use in speaking are similar to those used by secondlanguage learners. In eliciting native and second-language descriptions, Tarone (1977), as a result of her casual transcription of the native-speaker data, did not offer much comparison of the strategies used and the ways in which they were selected. Paribakht (1982), however, systematically compared the strategies used by Persian-speaking learners of English with those of native

< previous page

page_35

next page >

< previous page

page_36

next page >

Page 36 speakers of English in the same communication task, namely, to convey the name of an object that was pictured on a card. The results did not show many qualitative differences in the selection of strategies. To compare native and non-native data, a large-scale study, called the Nijmegen project, was undertaken to examine the communication strategies of Dutch learners of English (Bongaerts, Kellerman, & Bentlage, 1987; Kellerman, Bongaerts, & Poulisse, 1987; Poulisse, 1987). It found that the subjects consistently used the same methods to complete a description task in their first and second languages, which was not surprising since Dutch is so close to English both culturally and linguistically. Also, the nature of the task may so narrowly constrain possible strategies that certain universal discourse factors may determine the outcome. This is a problem with experimental studies, as well as with the globalization of certain middle-class behaviors, that may affect choice of strategies. This is why naturalistic (ethnographic) studies are more revealing (Troike, 2000, personal communication). Researchers have looked at other factors that relate to the way learners select communication strategies. The effect of the target concept, for instance, was considered by Bialystok (1983) and Paribakht (1982) in determining the correspondence between certain concepts and certain strategy types; they found that different concrete items tended to elicit a type of description most appropriate to that item. Tarone (1977) examined the personality of the speaker in selecting particular strategies and suggested that certain personality types might prefer avoidance strategies or appeal-for-assistance strategies. Beebe (1983) asserted that the learner’s comfort with risk-taking is relevant to the style of strategy use. However, these studies have established few systematic links between specific factors and the selection of communication strategies (Bialystok, 1990). Although the communication strategies these language learners selected are all within the range of the identified communication strategy taxonomies, no single factor could predict the use of a particular communication strategy. Research has shown that second-language learners use a number of strategies when communicating within an insufficient linguistic system. However, some language learners communicate more effectively and efficiently than others, which might be explained by their level of strategic competence as well as their cognitive strategies and linguistic abilities. The question emerging here is twofold: whether communication strategies are teachable, and, if so, whether they should be formally taught. This twofold question can be examined through two different approaches identified by Poulisse, Bongaerts and Kellerman (1990) as “strong” and “moderate” views of instruction. In the strong view, language learners are taught how to solve communication problems,

< previous page

page_36

next page >

< previous page

page_37

next page >

Page 37 whereas in the moderate view, they are taught only that communication problems can be solved. As Bialystok states (1990), “the strong view follows accepting the taxonomic classifications as explanations of communication strategies [while] the moderate view follows placing communication strategies in a processing framework” (p. 140). Simply put, in the strong view of instruction, students need to learn a range of communication strategies, and they also need to learn to recognize on what occasions and under what conditions these strategies can be effectively applied. Nevertheless, the strong view of instruction has two weaknesses: one is the nature of the taxonomies and their basis in language use, and the other is the lack of empirical evidence for the successful teaching of specific strategies (Bialystok, 1990). Unlike the strong view of instruction, which conceptualizes strategies in a taxonomic approach, the moderate view of instruction conceptualizes strategies in a process approach in which learners need to learn how to analyze and control their linguistic systems. Studies of information processing (Ammon, 1981; Brown, Sharkey, & Brown 1987; Kahan & Richards, 1986; Shatz, 1978) indicate that there is little point in teaching strategies per se. Most L2 learners suffer from the lack of language processing skills, and it is the processing that must be taught. Most L2 learners do not lack communication strategies, but rather the means to deploy these strategies. Therefore, what needs to be taught in class is content-free metacognitive strategies aiming to enhance the executive information-processing skills that are required to solve communication problems (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Mananares, Kupper, & Russo, 1985a, 1985b). The reason these metacognitive strategies work is that they make the learners more aware of strategies already in their repertoire and make them realize that they could work (O’Malley et al., 1985b). As observed, the point of departure for both approaches is whether communication strategies can and should be taught directly or indirectly. A compromise could be reached if communication strategies could be taught as part of instruction aimed at improving mastery of analysis and control over the target language (Bialystok, 1990). In summary, communication strategies have been reviewed with reference to second-language learners. A number of definitions of communication strategies were given, and different taxonomies within each stance were described. Three features common to all the strategies reviewed were identified: problematicity, consciousness, and intentionality. Although no single factor can predict a particular communication strategy, some potential factors affecting the selection of communication strategies can be identified, including learner proficiency, elicitation task, L1 influence, and speaking ability in a second language. Concerning the pedagogical issue of communication strategies, both “strong’’

< previous page

page_37

next page >

< previous page

page_38

next page >

Page 38 and “moderate” views of instruction have been proposed to address the twofold question of the advisability and effectiveness of teaching communication strategies. In the following chapters, I will describe, explain, and interpret Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities based on a multicase ethnographic study in which 20 Asian students enrolled in a U.S. university participated. By observing what they did in their content courses in a major U.S. university, by seeking their own interpretations of how they perceived themselves in American classrooms, and by exploring the deeply embedded cultural values and beliefs these students brought with them into American classrooms, I hope to generate more interest in and foster a better understanding of Asian students in American classrooms. I also want to contribute to the general understanding of why and how Asian students construct their identities in this target culture, the challenges they face in the process of their cross-cultural adaptation and intercultural communication, and the challenges faced by both ESL and content classroom instructors in trying to understand Asian students’ classroom communication patterns and facilitate their adaptive cultural transformation process. NOTES 1. Because the total number of Asian students in U.S. higher education accounts for more than half of the total U.S. international student population, the term “international students” in the first part of this chapter is used to refer to Asian students as well as students from other non–English-speaking countries. Cross-cultural adaptation, intercultural communication, and classroom communication, however, are discussed with specific reference to Asian students. 2. Intercultural communication in this book is defined as communication between people from different cultures at personal levels. It is distinct from cross-cultural communication, which is defined as communication between different cultural groups. 3. Interracial here is distinct from interethnic.

< previous page

page_38

next page >

< previous page

page_39

next page >

Page 39 2 Studying Asian Students’ Participation in American Classrooms In virtually every classroom setting, one can see a great variety of student participation behaviors. Some eagerly participate at every opportunity, some listen attentively and nod their heads intermittently, others maintain enough attention to laugh at the appropriate juncture, some appear committed enough to not alienate the teacher without at the same time showing much involvement, and a few remain silent most of the time. However, when students are from multilingual and multicultural backgrounds, certain classroom participation patterns seem to be more commonly observed in certain culture groups. One example is the silence of Asian students in most courses. Some professors have tried to encourage these students to speak up in class. Others, impressed by the excellent academic performance of these students in their written assignments and examinations, tend to consider oral classroom participation as less essential to Asian students’ academic achievement and have stopped trying to get these students to participate in class. One possible explanation for Asian students’ silence in class is that most learned English primarily as an academic subject. Even though they have a fairly good command of English, as evidenced by their successful performance in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and

< previous page

page_39

next page >

< previous page

page_40

next page >

Page 40 the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), their command of English does not match their overall competence in highly demanding academic content courses in which English is the medium of instruction. While this linguistic explanation sounds plausible, it fails to account for the fact that many Asian students who have lived in the United States for some time and have obtained a fairly high level of communicative competence remain quiet. Whether their lack of classroom participation is due to unwillingness or inability to speak up in class, or a combination of both, remains controversial. In the past few decades, a significant amount of research has been conducted to explore and explain the possible relationships between second language learners’ linguistic knowledge and their communicative performance. Researchers such as Brown (1987), Canale and Swain (1980), Ellis (1985, 1994), and Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) agree that the complex nature of second language acquisition requires multiple explanations. Ellis (1994), for example, discussed five key issues related to second language acquisition: learner language, external factors, internal factors, individual learner differences, and classroom second language acquisition. Of these, external factors (e.g., social factors, settings, input and interaction, second language acquisition [SLA]) and internal factors (e.g., language transfer, linguistic universals, cognitive processes, and individual learner differences) seem to be of crucial importance. However, Asian students in the United States are labeled as English as a second language (ESL) learners only when they are placed in ESL classes (e.g., ESL composition or spoken English courses); they are not treated as second language learners in their academic courses. Therefore, students’ classroom communication patterns and participation behaviors are not the same in their language classes and their content courses, and Asian students are held to the same standard as everyone else in academic courses. Active oral classroom participation is highly encouraged in U.S. universities, but the fact that many Asian students tend to be quiet in their content classrooms causes many professors to wonder what is going on in their minds. Often, misunderstandings occur between professors and Asian students because of their different interpretations of silence in class. Just as native-born individuals acquire their cultural communication patterns through interaction with others of the same cultural background, Asian students in the United States acquire the cultural communication patterns of the host society and develop relationships within the new social environment through communicative experiences. Influencing this communication-adaptation process are the adaptive predisposition of Asian students and the characteristics of the host environment. As mentioned in the introduction, my own adaptive cultural transformation began with my adaptation to American classroom par-

< previous page

page_40

next page >

< previous page

page_41

next page >

Page 41 ticipation, which facilitated my communicative competence in a variety of intercultural communication encounters. Studying Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in terms of their oral participation in American classrooms is not only important but also necessary for intercultural communication in academic settings. Classroom participation offers a lens through which we can understand the process of adaptive cultural transformation. There are many reasons why classroom participation warrants investigation. As discussed in the previous chapter, regardless of their required length of stay and their motivation for studying in the United States or other Englishspeaking countries, Asian students must go through the cross-cultural adaptation process, although the rate and level of adaptation will vary from person to person (Adler, 1975). The successful completion of such a cultural adaptation process requires, and increases, functional fitness, psychological health, and intercultural identity. Although there is no causal relationship between these attributes and students’ active classroom participation, the lack of the latter will negatively affect cultural adaptation outcomes. Increased classroom participation helps Asian students to better communicate their ideas and to more effectively engage in spontaneous social transactions, as well as enhancing their confidence. Such improved personal and social communication also has nonacademic benefits, such as maintaining and enhancing social skills necessary in global communication. In many cases, Asian students attempt to satisfy their social needs mainly in inner groups or ethnic communities where they can speak their own languages and communicate in the familiar ways of their own culture. New students, in particular, tend to rely heavily on others from their home country for social support. When questions arise, instead of asking their professors during class, these students seek answers from their co-nationals or other classmates after class. Their dependence on ethnic communication channels and their inner group inhibits their adaptation to the target culture. Increased classroom participation is an effective way to get these Asian students to venture out of their inner social network. Adaptive cultural transformation in classroom settings occurs naturally as long as Asian students continue to actively participate. Adaptive changes occur as a natural outgrowth of classroom participation and interaction. Increased involvement in the classroom naturally leads to increased involvement in the larger culture. Another reason that Asian students’ classroom participation in their content courses deserves research attention is its interdisciplinary nature. As noted earlier, Asian students have often been the subject of research as a specific group of second language learners in the field of second language acquisition (e.g., Brown, 1987; Ellis, 1994). Pedagogical methods suggested by SLA researchers have been applied in language classrooms at various levels in both ESL and EFL (English as a foreign

< previous page

page_41

next page >

< previous page

page_42

next page >

Page 42 language) settings. However, studies of Asian students in the academic setting in English-speaking countries such as the United States, where they are considered not as language learners but as an ethnic group studying various academic subjects, are relatively few. Because all matriculated Asian students in U.S. colleges have to take content courses and experience intercultural communication in classroom settings, classroom participation becomes a legitimate lens through which we can observe their participation modes, understand their perceptions about participation, study their classroom communication patterns, make connections between their communication patterns inside and outside the classroom, and eventually help and support them in their adaptive cultural transformation. It can be argued that students’ learning and academic success are not dependent on classroom participation, and so long as they achieve good grades, they should not have to compete with their American counterparts in their weakest area (speaking). However, such traditional views of learning and academic success need amplification in this multicultural world. Learning is less meaningful if the knowledge obtained cannot be used in resolving a problem or be applied to a real situation. Likewise, academic success is less valuable if it does not bear fruit. That is to say, measuring one’s learning and academic success is not a one-time thing, nor is the measurement quantifiable as so many variables must be taken into consideration. By themselves, good grades are not a reliable measure of basic learning and potential academic success. For example, a Korean friend of mine at Ohio State had a very high level of linguistic competence as evidenced by excellent scores on the GRE and TOEFL. But due to his lack of comparable levels of sociocultural, pragmatic, and strategic competencies as a result of his limited communication both in and outside classes, he made a poor showing (e.g., appeared nervous, failed to answer questions, and spoke unclearly) at his doctoral defense. Likewise, a female student from China studying chemistry in a U.S. university received straight A’s in all her academic courses, but she was always quiet in class and felt uncomfortable communicating with people outside her own home culture community. However, due to her impressive grade point average, she was hired by a chemical company in the United States, but her contract was not renewed the following year because of her inability to communicate with her fellow workers and her supervisors. Over the past few years, I have encountered many Asian students who can write excellent papers, but when it comes to oral presentations, they are usually nervous and avoid eye contact with the audience as much as possible. As mentioned, grades are a useful but limited indicator of academic success, which has cognitive, affective, and sociocultural components. While active classroom participation does not lead

< previous page

page_42

next page >

< previous page

page_43

next page >

Page 43 directly to academic success, it can have a positive impact on adaptive cultural transformation. In the following section, I review some general research studies on student classroom participation before introducing a multicase ethnographic study I conducted on Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities. CLASSROOM PARTICIPATION RESEARCH Research findings have shown some beneficial effects of student participation in class. Raising questions and offering comments in class helps students explore knowledge and develop critical thinking skills (Smith, 1977; Morgenstern, 1992) and enhances their intellectual development (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; McKeachie, 1990). To explore the problems many teachers face in dealing with ESL students’ silence in the classroom, Tsui (1996) examined 38 teachers’ perceptions of the factors that contribute to student silence in secondary schools in Hong Kong and identified five factors contributing to the lack of student 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 allowed students only a short time to think about a question and come up with an answer; (4) unequal speaking opportunities afforded each student by the teacher; and (5) overly difficult teacher language input. The results of her study seem to suggest that it is the multiple interactions among these factors rather than any single factor that contributes to lack of participation in class. To explore the meaning of student participation in the college classroom, Karp and Yoels (1976) conducted an exploratory study of classroom behavior in 10 classes in an urban private university in the north-western United States. Data were gathered throughout the semester on the interactions occurring in these selected classes, and both students and teachers answered questionnaires at the end of the semester dealing with the factors influencing a student’s decision of whether or not to talk in class. The observational data indicated that the number of students participating in a given class was not affected by the class size and that a small number of students accounted for the majority of interactions in both small and large classes. Student responses to questionnaire items inquiring about inhibiting factors indicated a high degree of concern with preparation and competence (e.g., “not having done the assigned reading,” “not knowing enough about the subject matter”). Conversely, instructors emphasized items such as ‘‘students appearing unintelligent in the eyes of other students,” and “the possibility that student comments might negatively affect their grades.” Based on these data, Karp and Yoels attributed the students’ noninvolvement in class to “organizational features” (p. 435) of the college classroom. These included: (1) the “consolidation of responsibility”—students know that a small

< previous page

page_43

next page >

< previous page

page_44

next page >

Page 44 number of students can be relied on to do most of the talking; (2) instructors are very unlikely to call on certain students; and (3) students are tested infrequently and the tests that are given are usually announced in advance (p. 421). Karp and Yoels’ “consolidation of responsibility” theory was confirmed by Morgenstern’s ethnographic study of a linguistics class in a Midwestern university (1992). Morgenstern observed 15 classroom sessions and conducted four out-of-class interviews with two female and two male students. In the class studied, there were many opportunities for class participation, but a core of five to six students seemed to monopolize these opportunities. However, both observation and interview data suggested four tacit rules for student class participation: (1) do not ask stupid questions; (2) do not waste the teacher’s time; (3) do not waste class time; and (4) try to find the answer before asking the teacher. It was also pointed out that some students operated under the assumption that only those with the most knowledge should speak, thus assuming a hierarchy of knowledge. This study also revealed a gap between student and teacher perceptions of the value of participation. It was recommended that instructors reserve time at the beginning of each term and throughout the term to explain the rationale behind student speech. One of the strengths of Morgenstern’s study is that it asked students directly why they did or did not speak in class rather than relying solely on questionnaires and observation. One facet of classroom participation—gender discrimination—has received a great deal of attention, beginning in the early 1970s. Most influential in this regard has been Hall and Sandler’s (1982) chilly classroom climate hypotheses (Cornelius, Gray, & Constantinople, 1990), according to which instructors may ignore or interrupt female students more than male students, and they may recall male students’ names more often or give them more eye contact. Two types of research (i.e., observation and survey) have been conducted to address five research questions stemming from Hall and Sandler’s hypothesis that professors discriminate in their treatment of male and female students. These questions are: (1) Are there gender differences in professors’ behavior? (2) Do faculty treat male and female students similarly? (3) Do students perceive gender differences in professors? (4) Are there gender differences in students’ classroom behavior? (5) Does faculty gender affect students’ actions? (Fassinger, 1995). The results of a number of observational studies showed that there were no gender differences in professors’ tendency to call on (Sternglanz & Lyberger-Ficek, 1977) or to praise students, the number of interactions with students, the likelihood of responding to students, or the number of questions asked of students (Boersma, Gay, Jones, Morrison, & Remick, 1981). However, a few gender differences were found in Statham, Richardson, and Cook’s study (1991) in which female profes-

< previous page

page_44

next page >

< previous page

page_45

next page >

Page 45 sors were found to encourage more class participation by soliciting student responses, to provide more positive and negative feedback, and to more often acknowledge students’ comments. As to whether faculty treat male and female students similarly, studies have shown professors to be equally likely to give positive or neutral responses to male and female students (Wingate, 1984) and to recognize and continue interactions with male and female students (Sternglanz & Lyberger-Ficek, 1977). Survey studies on students’ perceptions of gender differences in professors’ behaviors reveal that students believe that female professors encourage more classroom interaction (Banks, 1988; Crawford & MacLeod, 1990); female professors more often know students and call them by name (Crawford & MacLeod, 1990); and male professors are thought to use more offensive humor and make more offensive comments (Crawford & MacLeod, 1990). It is commonly thought that male students participate in classes more than female students (Banks, 1998; Brooks, 1982; Constantinople, Cornelius, & Gray, 1988; Crawford & MacLeod, 1990; Karp & Yoels, 1976; O’Keefe & Faupel, 1987; and Wingate, 1984). Women students also perceive themselves as less involved in class interaction (Banks, 1988; Crawford & MacLeod, 1990; Karp & Yoels, 1976; Kramarae & Treichler, 1990). In a survey of 761 college students, Crawford and MacLeod (1990) found that although male and female students similarly rank their reasons for not speaking, female students are significantly more likely to attribute their silence in classes to poorly formulated ideas, ignorance about a subject, and fear of appearing unintelligent to peers. However, male students generally remain silent in class for two reasons: unpreparedness and fear of negative effects on grades. At the graduate level, Kramarae and Treichler (1990) used open-ended questionnaires with 19 students who also were interviewed. Men and women offered different responses to the question, “Under what conditions are you most comfortable talking in class?” Men indicated more concern with their own preparation and feeling of control, whereas women showed more concern with the behavior of the teacher. Similar differences occurred in answer to the question “Under what conditions are you least comfortable talking in class?” Again, the women were more likely to show concern with the teacher’s behavior. Male students may remain silent when they feel unfamiliar with a topic, whereas female students’ silence may stem from their reaction to the classroom atmosphere in terms of tension and competition. Research also shows that there are some differences in student participation behavior in classes taught by male versus female professors. Males have been found to participate more (Boersma, Gay, Jones, Morrison, & Remick, 1981; Brooks, 1982; Constantinople, Cornelius, & Gray, 1988) and interrupt other students more often in female-taught classes (Brooks, 1982). Moreover, in female professors’ classes, students of both genders tend to volunteer more, make more

< previous page

page_45

next page >

< previous page

page_46

next page >

Page 46 follow-up comments, and respond more to other students (Constantinople et al., 1988). Taking into consideration multiple factors affecting college students’ classroom participation, Fassinger (1995) conducted a survey of 1,069 students in a small private college to assess why students offer comments or raise questions in class. Participation (defined as any student comments offered or questions raised in class) was the main dependent variable; independent variables included class traits (size, gender distribution, emotional climate, interaction norms, participation grade, and interaction type), student traits (confidence, preparation, comprehension, and interest), and professor traits (inclusiveness, approachability, feedback style, supportiveness, discussion style, and expertise). Findings revealed that student gender is a significant component in class participation. Male and female students seemed to have contrasting self-perceptions. The males saw themselves as more confident and more involved in classroom interaction, whereas females saw themselves as more prepared for class, more interested in the subject matter, and more interested in peers’ comments and questions. Results also indicated that professors’ gender had minimal impact on males’ self-perceptions, but having female professors seemed to affect female students positively. Examination of correlations between class participation and the three types of variables (class traits, student traits, and professor traits) revealed that class traits and student traits explained the most variance. Neither professors’ gender nor professors’ interpersonal style played a central role in class participation. The study implied that class activities designed by professors have the greatest impact on classroom participation in fostering positive emotional climates and helping enhance interaction. Several suggestions were made to promote class participation. First, professors might consider starting a semester with discussions and exercises that encourage students’ participation and help strengthen their confidence. Second, professors might invite classes to design their own norms of class interaction by discussing their ideas in small groups, becoming aware of others’ insecurities, and developing empathy for their classmates. Third, professors may consider reinforcing classroom participation by offering bonus credits that can supplement a student’s grade. Fourth, professors can encourage students interaction by arranging seats in a circle or semicircle and having students directly address and call on other students when they speak. Finally, professors can create a positive emotional climate to enhance the likelihood of class participation, particularly for females (Fassinger, 1995). Fassinger’s study is one of the primary attempts to shift the focus of research on college classroom participation from the professors’ perspective to the students’ perspective. It suggests that professors’ interpersonal style may not play a central role in classroom interaction and that what really affects students’ silence or involvement are class traits and student traits.

< previous page

page_46

next page >

< previous page

page_47

next page >

Page 47 Although these studies on student classroom participation are informative and interesting, they have several limitations. When the focus is on how professors shape students’ participation, peers’ roles tend to be ignored. The majority of the studies conducted in class used observation or survey formats. Seldom did researchers solicit students’ own perceptions and interpretations of their classroom participation via in-depth interviews. Furthermore, the studies tended to focus on behavioral aspect of students’ participation in classrooms; the sociocultural, linguistic, and affective aspects seemed to be ignored. In addition, none of the instruments was designed to address the multicultural and diverse population in courses at graduate levels. Since students’ participation is determined by multiple factors (e.g., class traits, student traits, professor traits, and gender of students and of professors), studies that attempt to reduce student participation to one or two factors, such as gender of the student and gender of the instructor, most likely will misinterpret the complex nature of student-faculty interaction and student classroom participation. As we know, classroom participation can be both verbal and nonverbal. Lack of classroom participation by students is not equivalent to lack of attention or active thinking. Therefore, it is crucial for us to understand the nature of silence in classroom settings (Tannen & Saville-Troike, 1985). A MULTICASE ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY There are many theories about Asian students’ reticence in their content classrooms in the United States, but such speculation is too often based on stereotypes rather than research. Obviously, not all Asian students in American classrooms are silent. One of the most effective ways to test these theories is to conduct an ethnographic study of Asian students’ classroom communication patterns. In a well-designed study, students are selected based on common characteristics other than their classroom communication patterns and are placed on a continuum from most quiet to least quiet based on consistent observations followed by interviews and questionnaires. The ultimate purpose of this kind of study is to understand why some Asian students are quiet in their content courses and some not. As mentioned earlier, there is no literature to date on whether Asian students’ silence in classrooms is due to their being unable to participate, unwilling to participate, or a combination of both. Likewise, no study has looked closely at Asian students’ perceptions of their oral classroom participation with reference to their participation modes in their content courses and their levels of communicative competence. Part of the reason is the lack of collaborative research effort between ESL teachers and content teachers. While ESL instructors try hard to improve their students’ language skills in their ESL classrooms, it is seldom feasible for them to observe their students in their content courses. Content instructors, on the other hand, concentrate on

< previous page

page_47

next page >

< previous page

page_48

next page >

Page 48 teaching the subject matter to students, who are usually a mixed group of native and non-native English speakers. Asian students’ tendency to withdraw from classroom participation reduces the chances for their content instructors to know them personally, to understand their thoughts and ideas, to identify any difficulties in their English communication, and to modify their teaching styles and strategies to meet the individual needs of the students. We also do not know whether silence in content classes necessarily affects academic achievement, because these silent students are usually very conscientious in fulfilling their written tasks (Liu & Kuo, 1996). Nor do we know how those silent Asian students perceive their oral classroom participation in relation to their American counterparts who actively participate. The multicase ethnographic study on which this book is based is my attempt to address Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in their content courses. In focusing on Asian students’ classroom communication patterns 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 intelligent individuals who are as knowledgeable about the subject matter as anyone else in class. By means of interviews and observation, this study attempts to identify and increase the understanding of various classroom communication patterns of a group of Asian students with reference to their perception of classroom participation in American classrooms in U.S. higher education. The goal of this study is to help ESL instructors and content professors, as well as American students, understand Asian students’ classroom communication patterns and their perceptions of them and to create a supportive environment to help them build confidence and competence in the process of their adaptive cultural transformation. This, in turn, will promote harmonious classroom environments and strengthen intercultural communication. The major research questions addressed in this ethnographic study are the following: • What are the general perceptions of the Asian students in this study of their oral classroom participation in their content courses? • Are there any differences in perceptions of oral classroom participation among participants with different classroom communication patterns? • What are some salient factors affecting students’ perceptions of oral classroom participation in their content courses? • What possible roles might the participants’ gender, personality, area of concentration, content knowledge, prior experience, length of stay, and English communication skills play in their perceptions of oral classroom participation?

< previous page

page_48

next page >

< previous page

page_49

next page >

Page 49 • Are there cross-cultural differences and similarities in the perceptions of oral classroom participation among these Asian students? • Do students’ participation behaviors differ depending on the lesson type, class size, subject matter taught, and individual teaching methods? • How do the participants in the study view the active participation pattern of their American counterparts, and how do these perceptions affect their own classroom participation patterns? Methodological Framework To address a complicated issue such as Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in their content courses, a quantitatively oriented survey1 is not enough to provide in-depth data from the students. In this study, therefore, both interviews and classroom observations were used interchangeably to understand not only what the Asian students in the study do in their content courses, but also how they perceive what they do, and why they have those perceptions. I started investigating Asian students’ oral classroom participation in 1993 when I was a doctoral student at Ohio State. Without any predetermined ideas about what I would find (Strauss, 1987), I sat in on one graduate seminar in an educational program at Ohio State for a 10-week quarter with the permission of the instructor to observe the classroom communication of a few Asian students in the class. After five consecutive observations, I realized the complexities involved in the study of classroom interaction. The communication patterns in a class seemed to depend on many factors, such as the relevance of the topic under discussion, the instructor’s presentation of the material, the students’ familiarity with the subject, the students’ motivation to participate, the students’ anxiety and tolerance of risk-taking, and their speaking abilities and communicative competence. I did not videotape any class, fearing that it might be disruptive and anxiety-provoking (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). However, I tape recorded five consecutive classes and counted the number of times each Asian student participated in each class based on the following five categories: asking a question, answering a question asked by the instructor or peers, elaborating on a self-initiated question, making a comment, and engaging in other verbal class activities. Although the frequency count data was “thin” in nature, I found it somewhat helpful to determine whom I was going to interview and what interview schedule I was going to follow in order to make ‘‘educated guesses” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). After analyzing the audiotapes, I interviewed three out of the seven Asian students in the class using an interview schedule for each. I used one open-ended interview schedule to obtain the general attitude of the interviewee toward classroom participation in content courses, and one

< previous page

page_49

next page >

< previous page

page_50

next page >

Page 50 semistructured interview schedule with probes with another interviewee to get more focused answers. I used a structured interview schedule for the third student in the class. My purpose was to pilot test my observation notetaking skills and the interview schedules I came up with in order to develop more reliable instruments for a later study. Moreover, I wanted to learn about my research process, and myself as a researcher, an interviewer, and an observer (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Based on this initial experience of data collection, I revised my interview schedules to include more probes and code-switching strategies in case some interviewees preferred to use their native language. In the following quarter, I gathered more data outside my program area of language education. It was this open-field experience that convinced me to expand my research to include content courses in the natural sciences and social sciences, because the majority of Asian students in graduate programs are studying the natural sciences. I tried grounded surveys, focus group interviews, and follow-up interviews after class observations, and I also used several initial data analysis techniques in terms of coding and discovering salient patterns. These initial attempts provided a solid base for my study. The Design of the Study The study was conducted on the main campus of The Ohio State University (OSU) in the 1994–1995 academic year. Ohio State is one of the largest one-campus universities in the United States and ranks among the top 10 U.S. universities in terms of both the diversity of the international graduate students and the total number of Asian graduate students. As an in-group member familiar with Asian culture, I felt comfortable in building rapport with the Asian students in the study, and my initial attempts at developing instruments and gaining field experiences in classroom observation and interviews enabled me to treat every step of the study with confidence. To describe the central themes or principal outcomes that cut across a great deal of participant variation, I used maximum variation sampling in this study (Patton, 1990). Employing this strategy allowed me to select my participants from different program areas and from different cultural backgrounds. I selected the participants majoring in both the natural sciences and social sciences from among those Asian students who were concurrently enrolled in the ESL Composition Programs at the Ohio State University. Due to the nature of the study, the validity of which depends on familiarity with the participants as well as the comfort level between the researcher and the participants, I invited all the Asian students (n = 30) enrolled in my graduate ESL Composition classes in two consecutive quarters to participate in the study on a voluntary basis. My

< previous page

page_50

next page >

< previous page

page_51

next page >

Page 51 focus was not on these students’ oral classroom participation modes in my composition classes; however, having them in my classes allowed me to know them better, which facilitated my data analysis. I conducted an informal interview with each of the 30 students to inform them of the nature of the study and the commitment it required. After the initial interview, I narrowed down the group to 20 participants. Among the 10 students who did not wish 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 nontraditional students. The 20 participants who stayed in the study were from the six biggest Asian groups at Ohio State. They were Chinese (Taiwanese, mainland Chinese, and Hong Kong Chinese), Korean, Japanese, and Indonesian, and they were enrolled in either natural science programs (e.g., exercise physiology, geodetic science, pharmacy, chemistry, mechanical engineering, or biophysics) or social science programs (educational policy and leadership, music, social work, counseling education, agricultural education, or early and middle childhood education). These participants were almost evenly divided by gender (55% male and 45% female), and the intended degree (40% were Ph.D. students and 60% master’s degree students). At the time of this study, they were all first- or second-year full-time graduate students who had had comparable experience in their program areas. Everything has the potential to be data, but nothing becomes data without the intervention of a researcher who describes, analyzes, and interprets what has been seen and heard consistently and persistently (Wolcott, 1994). Because data collection and data analysis are interwoven, the observation field notes and interview transcripts became the formative products of my data collection and the dependent source for my data analysis. The theoretical framework of the data analysis in this study was influenced by the approaches advocated by both Wolcott (1994) and Miles and Huberman (1994). Following Wolcott’s lead, I tried to incorporate logic in differentiating data description, data analysis, and data interpretation. Interview Process Different interview schedules are shaped by different theoretical frameworks. In the conventional one-on-one interview, the researcher or interviewer asks the participant questions that may be predetermined (closed-ended interviews) or developed during the interview process (open-ended interviews) (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 136). Answers are recorded and transcribed as a text, and the text is then analyzed and interpreted in order to support or develop some generalization or theory. From a postpositivist perspective, the researcher in an interview has

< previous page

page_51

next page >

< previous page

page_52

next page >

Page 52 multiple intentions and desires, some of which are consciously known and some of which are not. The language from which the questions are constructed is not bound or stable; it varies from person to person, from time to time, and from situation to situation. Therefore, the questions asked in an interview are “contextually grounded, unstable, ambiguous, and subject to endless reinterpretation” (Mishler, 1991, p. 260). In the process of designing and conducting the three different interview schedules, from wide-open to semistructured 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 use any predesigned questions and allowed the interviewee to express freely what was in his or her mind under the broad category “perceptions of participation.” In the semistructured 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?”) and rephrased some questions when necessary. I also probed issues with follow-up 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 discrepancy between the input from the structured interview and that from the previous wide-open as well as semistructured interviews. Immediately after each interview, I listened to the tape recording of the interview and transcribed it, taking into consideration some nonverbal communication behaviors I observed in the interview (e.g., anxiety, smiles, struggles with words, wait time, or long silence). After each transcription, I reviewed the entire interview process and kept field notes (Wolf, 1992) to reflect my concerns over and experience with both the interview and the methodology. I also showed parts of the interview transcripts to the participants for confirmation. The transcripts were then sorted and classified by the trends and patterns that became evident as the study progressed. Observation Field Notes 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 field notes immediately after each classroom observation to keep track of the development of the study, to consider how my research plan had been affected by the data collected, and to remain conscious of how I had been influenced by the data. If necessary, I asked the participant being observed in class as well as the class instructor some questions immediately after each visit. I also familiar-

< previous page

page_52

next page >

< previous page

page_53

next page >

Page 53 ized myself with the teaching materials and course syllabus of the class being observed. My observations were usually done between the second and the third interview with each participant, and I tried to obtain information about the class before and after the observation period to develop a broader picture. I took detailed notes during each observation and wrote down my thoughts and reflections on the observation immediately afterward. I then synthesized my thoughts and wrote them down as observation field notes, which were both descriptive and reflective in nature. My descriptive field notes contained short verbal sketches of all the students in the class under observation and more detailed portraits of the observed Asian students; descriptions of the physical setting of the classroom; summaries of teacher-student and student-student interactions (particularly between the study participants and other students); and an account of the student’s participation mode and the conditions under which it took place. My reflective field notes centered on the analysis, themes, and patterns that might be emerging, connections between pieces of data, and reflections on methods and the strategies I had employed in observation. Because the students I observed came from different countries and sociocultural backgrounds, I tried to associate their classroom participation modes with their cultural values, beliefs, and social identities as revealed in interviews. While reflecting on my own mind-set, I tried to observe a class without any predetermined assumptions. 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 reflected on my description in terms of objectivity, authenticity, and clarity of the language. Establishing Trustworthiness (Validity) According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), criteria defined from one perspective may not be appropriate for judging actions taken from another perspective. Criteria that work quite well in a positivist inquiry might not be useful in postpositivist inquiries because the assumptions and beliefs underlying each approach are fundamentally different. In qualitative research, ‘‘validity” is replaced by “trustworthiness.” Lincoln and Guba propose four relevant criteria for trustworthiness, the major criterion in postpositivist research and parallel with generalizability in positivist research: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, which are analogous to internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity in positivist research. Lincoln and Guba further posit that (1) whether the research is trustworthy is up to the consumer of the research; (2) naturalistic criteria of trustworthiness are open-ended and assailable; (3) there is a gap between the theory and the

< previous page

page_53

next page >

< previous page

page_54

next page >

Page 54 practice of trustworthiness; and (4) the criteria have multiple utilities (pp. 328–331). As Lincoln and Guba (1985) surmise, the essential meaning of validity came to be the warrant of trustworthiness. To maintain trustworthiness in this study, I functioned as a participant-observer for an extended period of time as I moved from being an Asian student myself to being an Asian professor in a U.S. university. I tried to maintain persistent introspection and observation throughout the study by constantly reflecting on my own changing classroom communication patterns, my own perceptions toward class participation as an Asian student, and the classroom communication patterns of the participants in my study. To maintain awareness of my progressive subjectivity, “a personal encounter with self in the course of research” (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 101), I recorded my research activities and reflections in a journal. The journal allowed me to have frequent personal encounters with my own constructions and expectations regarding all facets of the inquiry process and my own development as a researcher. Throughout the process of data collection and analysis, I relied on the perspective of an Asian student who was not involved in the study. Her educational background resembles those of the other study participants. She was pursuing her M.A. in the field of social science and was usually very quiet in class. She debriefed both my initial research design and my interview schedules and offered invaluable insights and comments in helping me to be aware of the sociocultural, affective, and cognitive influences on my potential interviewees in designing the questions. Transferability of the Study Classroom communication patterns are complex and are often affected by the subject matter under study, the teacher’s instructional style, the size of the class, the traits of both the students and the instructor, and the interaction between native and non-native speakers of English and between non-native speakers in the classroom. In regard to instructional style, for instance, the instructor’s cultural sensitivity and linguistic tolerance of non-native English speakers’ oral participation and encouragement or discouragement of classroom participation have an impact on the classroom interaction patterns of Asian students. As for American students, who are relatively outspoken in class, their active participation and their attitude toward Asian students’ less active participation modes also affect their non-native counterparts. Indeed, I believe that it would be valuable to triangulate the perspectives of both instructors and American peers toward Asian students’ silence in their content

< previous page

page_54

next page >

< previous page

page_55

next page >

Page 55 courses with the Asian students’ own views of their oral classroom participation. However, I also believe that understanding Asian students’ classroom communication patterns from their own perspectives should be the primary focus of the investigation without which the other two perspectives would be less significant. Admittedly, the sample size of this study is relatively small, with only 20 participants in the study. Despite the fact that they represent various majors and disciplines, 20 participants obviously cannot represent the whole population of Asian students in U.S. universities. Furthermore, all the participants were from one large U.S. institution, and, therefore, the findings might not be relevant to other types of institutions, such as private universities, community colleges, and universities with few Asian students. Nevertheless, I believe that the findings of the study and the cultural analysis of the salient patterns and themes delineated from the study will help elucidate how Asian students’ cultural beliefs, values, and educational backgrounds influence their classroom communication patterns. PARTICIPANT PROFILES In designing this study, I assigned a pseudonym and a code to each participant to denote their major, gender, nationality, and rank order among participants from the same country. For instance, The Physiologist is a student whose major is physiology. MPHDC1 refers to a male Ph.D. student who is from China and is listed as the first participant among four Chinese students in this study. To introduce these participants to the reader, their major characteristics and other relevant information are displayed in the following tables: pseudonyms and codes (Table 2.1); nationality and gender (Table 2.2); major fields of study (Table 2.3); majors and lesson types (Table 2.4); prior experiences in years (Table 2.5); length of stay in the United States (Table 2.6); personality traits (Table 2.7); holistic assessment of oral communication skills in English (Table 2.8), and oral classroom participation modes in content courses (Table 2.9). All the 20 participants were students in either intermediate or upper-intermediate level ESL composition classes I taught in two consecutive quarters. They were at the same time taking content courses in their own disciplinary areas. I had daily contact with each of these students for at least 3 months, and weekly or biweekly contact in the subsequent months for data collection in different settings (e.g., in the ESL composition classroom as their instructor, in their content courses as an observer, in the interviewing process as their peer, and in some social situations (e.g., having coffee or lunch together) as their friend.

< previous page

page_55

next page >

< previous page

Page 56 Table 2.1 Pseudonyms and Codes of the Participants2 Gender Intended Nationality Major Degree M Ph.D. China Exercise physiology M M.A. Geodetic science F Ph.D. Pharmacy M Ph.D. Family resource management F M.A. Hong Kong Educational Administration M M.A. Taiwan Chemical Engineering F M.A. Music M M.A. Korea Mechanical engineering F Ph.D. Consumer science M Ph.D. Geography F M.A. Textile and clothing F Ph.D. Human nutrition M Ph.D. Geodetic science M Ph.D. Japan Biophysics F M.A. Social work F M.A. Counseling education F M.A. Indonesia Agricultural education M M.A. Early childhood education M M.A. Early childhood education M

M.A.

< previous page

next page >

page_56

Early and middle childhood education

page_56

In-group Order 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

Pseudonym

Code

The Ex. Physiologist MPHDC1 The Geo Scholar MMAC2 The Pharmacist FPHDC3 The Ecologist MPHDC4 The Ed. Administrator FMAHK1 The Chemical Engineer MMAT1 The Musician FMAT2 The Mechanical EngineerMMAK1 The Consumer Scientist FPHDK2 The Geologist MPHDK3 The Fashion Designer FMAK4 The Nutritionist FPHDK5 The Geodetic Scientist MPHDK6 The Biophysicist MPHDJ1 The Social Worker FMAJ2 Counselor FMAJ3 The Ag. Specialist MMAI1 The English Teacher FMAI2 The Political Science MMAI3 Teacher The Social Studies MMAI4 Teacher

next page >

< previous page

page_57

next page >

Page 57 Table 2.2 Nationality and Gender Nationality Female Male Total Number Percentage China 1 3 4 35% Hong Kong 1 1 Taiwan 1 1 2 Korea 3 3 6 30% Japan 2 1 3 15% Indonesia 1 3 4 20% Total 9 11 20 Percentage 45% 55% 100% As Table 2.2 shows, among the 20 participants of the study, there were slightly fewer female (45%) than male participants (55%). Four linguistic communities were represented by six nationalities: Chinese (China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong), Korea, Japanese, and Indonesia. Table 2.3 Major Fields of Study Field Major Field of Study Participants (Codes) % Social Sciences Educational administration FMAHK1 40 Music FMAT2 Social work FMAJ2 Counseling education FMAJ3 Agricultural education MMAI1 Early childhood education FMAI2 Early childhood education MMAI3 Early and middle childhood education MMAI4 Natural Sciences Exercise physiology MPHDC1 60 Geodetic science MMAC2 Pharmacy FPHDC3 Family resource management MPHDC4 Chemical engineering MMAT1 Mechanical engineering MMAK1 Consumer science FPHDK2 Geography MPHDK3 Textile and clothing FMAK4 Human nutrition FPHDK5 Geodetic science MPHDK6 Biophysics MPHSJ1

< previous page

page_57

next page >

< previous page

page_58

next page >

Page 58 Forty percent of the participants were studying the social sciences, and 60 percent, the natural sciences. However, more female participants (62.5%) than male participants (37.5%) were majoring in the social sciences, and fewer female participants (33.3%) than male participants (66.7%) were majoring in the natural sciences. Table 2.4 Majors and Lesson Types Lesson Type* Major Lecture Seminar Group Discussion Individual Study Pharmacy 3 0 0 0 Chemical engineering 1 3 0 0 Mechanical engineering 3 1 0 0 Geography 3 2 0 0 Geodetic science 3 1 0 0 Textile and clothing 2 2 0 0 Consumer science 2 2 0 0 Family resource management 2 2 0 0 Exercise physiology 0 2 2 0 Human nutrition 3 1 0 0 Biophysics 3 0 0 0 Educational administration 3 2 3 0 Counseling education 0 2 2 0 Agricultural education 2 2 1 0 Early childhood education 0 3 2 0 Early and middle childhood education 0 3 2 0 Music 3 0 0 0 Social work 0 3 2 0 * 3 = most often; 2 = often; 1 = seldom; 0 = almost never An analysis of lesson types in participants’ majors found in the student questionnaire (see Table 2.4) shows that lectures, as a lesson type, are used in all disciplines. However, lecturing is more common in the natural sciences, and seminars and discussions are more common in the social sciences. However, small group discussions, a more specific category within the class discussion category, are rare in many majors. A combination of lectures and discussions seems to be more commonly practiced across fields. Due to the unique nature of music pedagogy, individual coaching and instruction are more common in this field.

< previous page

page_58

next page >

< previous page

Page 59 Table 2.5 Prior Experiences of the Participants in Years Participants Teacher The Ex. Physiologist (MPHDC1) The Geo Scholar (MMAC2) 7 The Pharmacist (FPHDC3) The Ecologist (MPHDC4) The Ed. Administrator (FMAHK1) 2 The Chemical Engineer (MMAT1) The Musician (FMAT2) 2 The Mechanical Engineer (MMAK1) The Consumer Scientist (FPHDK2) The Geologist (MPHDK3) The Fashion Designer (FMAK4) The Nutritionist (FPHDK5) The Geodetic Scientist (MPHDK6) The Biophysicist (MPHDJ1) 5 The Social Worker (FMAJ2) The Counselor (FMAJ3) The Ag. Specialist (MMAI1) The English Teacher (FMAI2) 6 The Political Science Teacher (MMAI3) 6 The Social Studies Teacher (MMAI4) 4

< previous page

next page >

page_59

Assistant 3

page_59

Service Worker Doctor 1

2

2

1

3

3 1.5

Housewife 3

3

3

4

next page >

< previous page

page_60

next page >

Page 60 Many participants had had prior experiences other than being students: seven participants (35%) had prior teaching experience, four (20%) had prior work experience, three (15%) had served in the military, two (10%) had been laboratory assistants, two (10%) had been housewives, and one (5%) used to be a doctor (Table 2.5). Interestingly, one-fourth (25%) of the participants had no prior work experience whatsoever; they came to the United States directly from colleges or universities in their home countries. The length of prior work experience varied from 1 to 7 years. Table 2.6 Length of Stay in the United States Participants Length of Stay Purpose Place MPHDC1 0.5 Ph.D. Ohio MMAC2 0.5 M.A. Ohio FPHDC3 3.5 Wife of Ph.D. candidate Ohio MPHDC4 0.5 Ph.D. Ohio FMAHK1 0.5 M.A. Ohio MMAT1 0.5 M.A. Ohio FMAT2 0.5 M.A. Ohio MMAK1 3.5 M.A. West Virginia/Ohio FPHDK2 0.5 Ph.D. Ohio MPHDK3 5 Ph.D. Colorado/Ohio FMAK4 7 Wife of M.A. candidate Ohio FPHDK5 2 ESL to M.A. Maryland/Ohio MPHDK6 0.5 Ph.D. Ohio MPHDJ1 4.5 B.A. to Ph.D. Alabama/Ohio FMAJ2 1 ESL to M.A. Ohio FMAJ3 2 B.A. to M.A. Ohio MMAI1 0.5 M.A. Michigan/Ohio FMAI2 0.5 M.A. Ohio MMAI3 0.5 M.A. Ohio MMAI4 0.5 M.A. Ohio All of the participants in the study had been in the United States for at least 6 months (Table 2.6). The longest length of stay was 7 years (The Fashion Designer [FMAK4] who accompanied her husband to the United States). Nine of the participants (45%) came to the United States specifically to study for M.A. degrees in their majors; four others (20%) did not come for that purpose, but ended up pursuing an M.A. Five participants (25%) came to obtain a Ph.D. degree. Four participants (20%) who began their stay as housewives (e.g., The Pharmacist [FPHDC3]) subsequently enrolled in master’s or doctoral programs. Two partici-

< previous page

page_60

next page >

< previous page

page_61

next page >

Page 61 pants (10%), The Nutritionist (FPHDK5) and The Social Worker (FMAJ2), began ESL courses in language programs when they first arrived and ended up taking M.A. courses. Five of the participants (25%) had lived in states other than Ohio. Table 2.7 Personality Traits Participants Direct Quotes Personality Description The Ex. “I think I am outgoing. I like sports and social dancing.” Sociable, easy-going, and Physiologist extroverted (MPHDC1) The Geo ‘‘I can talk a lot when I want to, but I don’t like asking simple questions.” Expressive, persistent, but Scholar reserved and argumentative (MMAC2) The “I seldom talk in class. One of the reasons is that I am shy in nature. I Shy in public, but talkative Pharmacist mean, in character.” in private (FPHDC3) The Ecologist “I don’t view myself very much introversive, but I do want to communicate Extroverted in comfortable (MPHDC4) with people and make friends, yet I will not feel very comfortable when situations and introverted in facing the public, only when I am willing and ready to speak.” unfamiliar environments The Ed. “I am pretty quick in absorbing new stuff and I didn’t have difficulty in Harmonious, agreeable, Administrator adjusting myself to the lifestyle here.” quiet, and easy-going (FMAHK1) The Chemical “I think I am neither introverted nor extroverted, something in between.” Stubborn, tenacious, Engineer meditative, and a man of (MMAT1) few words The Musician “I like to listen to others talking. I feel especially comfortable talking to Quiet, cautious, and risk (FMAT2) other Taiwanese people about our classes.” avoidant The “It’s hard for me to open my mind to strangers. But once I know them Distractible, tenacious, and Mechanical well, I am very open-minded.” inquisitive Engineer (MMAK1)

< previous page

page_61

next page >

< previous page

page_62

next page >

Page 62 Participants Direct Quotes Personality Description The “I am not outgoing, nor extroverted. I am reluctant in the Study-only type, conscientious, Consumer communication with Americans and other students.” introverted, dislikes communication, Scientist rather reserved (FPHDK2) The Geologist “I am generally very positive about participating in all kinds of Group leader, responsible, sincere, (MPHDK3) activities and group work.” studious, and understanding The Fashion “If I have an idea, I will just think about it to myself, and not Reluctant to speak up in class, Designer speak up.” anxious, dutiful housewife, lacking (FMAK4) enthusiasm The “I don’t think I am very active and also not very quiet. I think I Amiable, agreeable, respectful, hardNutritionist tend to be more active, because I don’t think being quiet is good working (FPHDK5) to study abroad.” The Geodetic “Although I cannot speak well, but I always speak up.’’ Highly motivated and self-confident, Scientist determined, willing to be acculturated (MPHDK6) The “I am not very outgoing, but I think a lot. I am a slow learner.” Somewhat introverted, but a careful Biophysicist observer; lacks self-confidence, but (MPHDJ1) motivated to learn The Social “I think I am open, but I am the only non-experienced student Shy and not talkative in class; Worker in my field. I feel I am isolated.” intimidated by her lack of language (FMAJ2) ability and experience The “I like to spend time by myself, and I enjoy reading or watching Quiet but an active thinker, Counselor movies by myself. But I also like socializing. I like to have good harmonious but not very sociable, (FMAJ3) interpersonal relationship.” very attentive in class

< previous page

page_62

next page >

< previous page

page_63

next page >

Page 63 Participants Direct Quotes Personality Description The Ag. “Actually I speak a lot, like to have friends, but I have Outgoing but reserved, friendly but Specialist disability in Columbus. My disability is language.” anxious, motivated to learn, and yet (MMAI1) dissatisfied with his progress The English “I think I’m kind of talkative (laughs) and friendly, Very extroverted and high-spirited, Teacher sometimes maybe easy-going and hard-working. I enthusiastic and talkative, courageous and (FMAI2) sometimes may be workaholic, and adventurous because I inquisitive, a perfectionist, ambitious, like traveling by driving. highly motivated The Political “Yeah, introverted, maybe. Although I sometimes Self-disciplined, reserved but polite; quiet Science participate in discussion in daily life, I do not talk a lot.” but inquisitive, highly meditative Teacher (MMAI3) The Social “I think I am outgoing and entertaining in class. I like to Extroverted but seriously handicapped by Studies make people understand through jokes.” lack of language skills, good-natured and Teacher ultrafriendly (MMAI4) I used direct quotes (see Table 2.7) from the interviews I conducted with each of the participants. These quotes were taken verbatim to maintain the authenticity of the tone and to reflect the speaking abilities of the participants. The personality profiles were based on my regular contact with the participants over the months of teaching (daily contact) as well as classroom observations, interviews, and social activities (weekly or biweekly contact). Attempts were made to use a personality scale (i.e., the Keirsey Temperament Sorter), but they were abandoned because the majority of the participants had trouble understanding the words and expressions used in the scale (e.g., Item 3: Is it worse to [a] have your “head in the clouds,” [b] be ‘‘in a rut”; Item 11: In judging others are you more swayed by [a] laws than circumstances, [b] circumstances than laws), and therefore its validity was questionable. My

< previous page

page_63

next page >

< previous page

page_64

next page >

Page 64 growing belief that personality scales are more useful when the researcher is unable to get to know the participant through other means (e.g., observation, talking, or socializing over an extended period of time) was confirmed in the data collection process. I tended not to assess the personality traits of my participants via numerical scales but instead listened to what they said and observed what they did. Although the personality descriptions for the participants could be considered subjective, they are not based on a single encounter. Table 2.8 Holistic Assessment of the Participants’ Oral Communication Skills in English Communication Effectiveness Skills Participants Percentage Communication almost always effective 60 The Ed. Administrator (FMAHK1) 30% The Geologist (MPHDK3) The Nutritionist (FPHDK5) The Geodetic Scientist (MPHDK6) The Biophysicist (MPHDJ1) The Political Science Teacher (MMAI3) Communication generally effective 50 The Ex. Physiologist (MPHDC1) 35% The Geo Scholar (MMAC2) The Ecologist (MPHDC4) The Mechanical Engineer (MMAK1) The Consumer Scientist (FPHDK2) The Fashion Designer (FMAK4) The Counselor (FMAJ3) Communication somewhat effective 40 The Pharmacist (FPHDC3) 20% The Chemical Engineer (MMAT1) The Social Worker (FMAJ2) The Political Science Teacher (MMAI3) Communication generally not effective 30 The Musician (FMAT2) 15% The Ag. Specialist (MMAI1) The Social Studies Teacher (MMAI4) No effective communication 20 and below The participants’ communication effectiveness was assessed holistically based upon a modified version of the Test of Spoken English (TSE)

< previous page

page_64

next page >

< previous page

page_65

next page >

Page 65 scoring scales of the Educational Testing Service (1995). The scores were reported on a continuum from “Communication almost always effective” (60), “Communication generally effective” (50), “Communication somewhat effective” (40), “Communication generally not effective” (30), to ‘‘No effective communication” (20 and below). However, I used these scales only as a reference criterion with which to evaluate my participants holistically based on (1) oral communication skills demonstrated in ESL composition classes in which I served as their instructor for one to two quarters; (2) conferences to discuss their assignments in ESL composition classes; and (3) nonclassroom interactions among themselves and with me in various social gatherings. As seen in Table 2.8, the English communication abilities of the participants at the time of data collection varied from 30 (communication generally not effective) to 60 (communication generally effective). Among all the participants in this study, six (30%) communicated in English almost always effectively; seven (35%) communicated in English generally effectively; four (20%) communicated in English somewhat effectively; and three (15%) communicated in English generally not effectively. None of the participants fell into the category of “no effective communication” because they had learned English at college before they enrolled in their graduate programs at Ohio State, and these programs required a TOEFL score of at least 550. While their TOEFL score did not directly reflect their oral proficiency levels, their knowledge of English as demonstrated through the TOEFL (i.e., listening, vocabulary and grammar, reading comprehension, and sometimes the Test of Written English section) had equipped them with at least survival oral communication skills. However, the extent to which each participant’s communication effectiveness in English affected his or her oral classroom participation mode remains a question. Those students who were very fluent in English were not always the ones who participated most actively in their content classes. Likewise, students who were weak in oral communication skills were not necessarily quiet in their content classes. Table 2.9 presents oral classroom participation modes on a four-point scale, ranging from very active (1) to extremely inactive (4). The holistic placement of the individual participants on the scale was based on (1) their self-assessment of their oral classroom participation modes in their content courses as revealed in interviews; (2) my subjective professional judgment as a trained language teacher based on at least three interviews with each participant; (3) my informal communication with each one in settings other than classrooms and my office, and (4) my classroom observations in their content courses as well as my prolonged classroom observations in the ESL composition classes I taught.

< previous page

page_65

next page >

< previous page

page_66

next page >

Page 66 Table 2.9 Participation Modes of the Participants Participation Number Participants Quotes Modes of Students 1. Very active 3 The Geologist “I participate very actively in class.” (MPHDK3) The Geodetic “Actually I am one of those who participate actively in class.” Scientist (MPHDK6) The English “I participated actively in my classes, especially when there are many Teacher (FMAI2) other nonnative English speakers.” 2. Somewhat 5 The Geo Scholar ‘‘I ask questions selectively. I ask questions when I think they can active (MMAC2) engage further discussion.” The Ecologist “In some of the classes I am very active, but some not.” (MPHDC4) The Mechanical “I am very active participating in some courses from my own major, Engineer (MMAK1) but so so in other ones.” The Biophysicist “I think I participate, depending on many factors.” (MPHDJ1) 3. Not active 5 The Political “I asked questions and sometimes I gave my opinions, sometimes I Science Teacher answer ed questions from professors. But itdepended on courses.” (MMAI3) The Ex. Physiologist “I seldom participated in classroom discussion.” (MPHDC1) The Chemical “I do not talk a lot in class, but sometimes I ask questions.” Engineer (MMAT1)

< previous page

page_66

next page >

< previous page

page_67

next page >

Page 67 Participation Number Participants Quotes Modes of Students The Consumer “The 1st quarter I did not ask any questions, but the sec- ond quarter I Scientist feel better. If I have question, I’d like to ask.” (FPHDK2) The Nutritionist “If I were more active, maybe the time to adjust would be quicker and (FPHDK5) shorter.” The Counselor “I think if the teacher asks us opinions, I will not volun- teer to speak up (FMAJ3) immediately.” 4. Extremely 7 The Pharmacist “I think I am very inactive one. I seldom talk in class, and usually I just inactive (FPHDC3) keep silent. I don’t want to speak too much in class.” The ‘‘I usually talk in small group, but never in big classes before.” Ed.Administrator (FMAHK1) The Musician “I am afraid that I do not participate in courses in my area a lot.” (FMAT2) The Fashion “Because I am a shy person and I have no confidence in speaking English Designer and my English is still poor , so yeah, I hesitate to speak and I am not a (FMAK4) participating person.” The Social “I never talk in class.” Worker (FMAJ2) The Ag. “I am not participating very much in my major class.” Specialist (MMAI1) The Social “I don’t speak up in class or talk a lot in class.” Studies Teacher (MMAI4)

< previous page

page_67

next page >

< previous page

page_68

next page >

Page 68 As seen from this table, the participants can be classified into four clusters according to their participation modes. Three participants—two male Korean Ph.D. students (MPHDK3 and MPHDK6), and one female Indonesian M.A. student (FMAI2)—are very active in classroom participation in their content area courses. All five participants who belong to the second cluster (somewhat active) are male students. Two are Chinese (MMAC2 and MPHDC4), one is Korean (MMAK1), one is Japanese (MPHDJ1), and one is Indonesian (MMAI3). However, twelve participants (60% of all the participants in this study) fell into the not active or extremely inactive clusters. Of those five (two males and three females) one is from China (MPHDC1), one is from Taiwan (MMAT1), two are from Korea (FPHDK2 and FPHDK5), and one is from Japan (FMAJ3). Not surprisingly, seven participants (five females and two males) were placed in the extremely silent group due to their reticence in class. They represented all the countries and ethnic groups in the study, coming from China (FPHD3), Hong Kong (FMAHK1), Taiwan (FMAT2), Korea (FMAK4), Japan (FMAJ2), and Indonesia (MMAI1 and MMAI4). In Chapter 3, I give a full account of each participant within the context of the classroom communication patterns that emerged in this study. These patterns are derived from the participants’ classroom participation modes in their content courses as revealed in their own words and by observation in their classes and other communicative events. Intralearner as well as interlearner analyses within each communication pattern are made to reveal the connections between each student’s participation mode and his or her perceptions. NOTES 1. My initial research addressing international graduate students’ classroom participation (Liu & Kuo, 1996) was coconducted in the winter quarter of 1992. A survey of 51 international graduate students enrolled at different levels in both the Spoken English Program and the Composition Program at The Ohio State 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). Participants were randomly selected, reflecting different levels of both spoken and written English proficiency. Students’ responses to the questionnaire were based on their opinions of their classroom participation in academic content courses. 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 Composition Programs, seemed to be highly motivated to improve their

< previous page

page_68

next page >

< previous page

page_69

next page >

Page 69 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, however, suggested the need for further study of the problem. As an example, to distribute the questionnaire to the selected students with the affective variables already predetermined was a limitation in itself in that it prevented some other variables from coming into play. Therefore, it was necessary to design and implement a follow-up study that addressed the same problem yet approached it as a naturalistic inquiry—not only “what,” but also “why.” 2. The pseudonyms in Table 2.1 are used throughout this book to help readers identify participants who appear in different parts of the discussion.

< previous page

page_69

next page >

< previous page

page_70

next page >

page_70

next page >

Page 70 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_71

next page >

Page 71 3 Understanding Asian Students’ Classroom Communication Patterns In this book, “classroom communication patterns” refers to the normal ways in which students communicate their thoughts in the classroom setting. These patterns are related to both students’ perceptions of classroom communication and their participation behaviors in classroom interaction. For example, a Chinese graduate student in philosophy realized that only by speaking up in her classes could she refine her own ideas through the feedback from her classmates and the teacher. Therefore, in spite of her heavy accent, she actively engaged in class discussions. However, one’s participation behavior in class is not always determined or driven by perception of participation. For example, a female Indonesian student believed that classroom participation is important for learning, but because of her introverted personality and her poor English speaking ability, she remained silent in class most of the time. Likewise, a Korean male student acknowledged the cognitive benefits of classroom participation, but he spoke up in class mainly to show that he had done the assigned readings. Because the main classroom communication channel is interaction among students and between the teacher and students, student participation behaviors are strong indicators of their communication patterns.1

< previous page

page_71

next page >

< previous page

page_72

next page >

Page 72 CLASSROOM COMMUNICATION PATTERNS Four classroom participation patterns emerged from the study: total integration, conditional participation, marginal interaction, and silent observation. These patterns reflect a decreased level of involvement in classroom communication from total integration to silent observation. Total integration means that Asian students are active participants in American classrooms. They follow the flow of the class, knowing exactly when to speak up and what to say. Their classroom participation is usually spontaneous, appropriate, and natural. Total integration can be considered as a high level of acculturation in classroom settings. Asian students with this pattern understand what constitutes normal classroom behavior in this culture, what is considered an appropriate role in class discussion, and what a student should do to contribute to the success of a class. Moreover, they have adapted themselves to the classroom participation modes this culture encourages. In a way, total integration liberates Asian students from being stereotypically considered as reticent in class. It also indicates high motivation to achieve adaptive cultural transformation. Conditional participation means that Asian students’ classroom participation is constrained by a number of factors, such as sociocultural, cognitive, affective, linguistic, or environmental (see the detailed discussion of these factors in Chapter 4). They might be highly motivated, but their actual participation and interaction with classmates and the teacher are limited. These students are still figuring out when to speak up in class and what to say. Their own social identities and their perceptions of what is appropriate classroom behavior in their home cultures often inhibit them. They carefully reflect on their classroom participation after each attempt, and slowly but surely find their way into their comfort zone in classroom communication. Marginal interaction refers to students who are very attentive listeners but seldom speak up in class. Their peripheral participation is compensated for by listening, note-taking, and group discussion after class. These students are less adventurous and usually rely on their own familiar classroom communication strategies used in their home countries to fit into the target classroom culture. When they occasionally speak up in classes, they are usually poised and confident, because each attempt is usually the result of careful thinking and internal rehearsal. Silent observation , considered the prototypical Asian classroom communication pattern, is characterized by students’ withdrawal from oral classroom participation and their seemingly unconditional acceptance of what is discussed in class. These students use various sorts of compensation strategies (e.g., tape recording, note-taking, or small group discussion after class) to help digest and confirm what has been communicated in class. The factors underlying their silence in class are

< previous page

page_72

next page >

< previous page

page_73

next page >

Page 73 extremely complicated and often cause misinterpretation and misunderstanding. As mentioned, the classroom communication patterns summarized previously can be placed on a continuum from the most acive to the least active according to the classroom participation behaviors. However, individual participation patterns are not always static. As the result of their changing perceptions of classroom communication and interaction due to such factors as increased or decreased self-confidence and positive or negative feedback, Asian students dance along the continuum with various degrees of certainty and effort on their journey of adaptive cultural transformation. This chapter gives a detailed account of the characteristics of each participant based on the classroom communication pattern he or she is identified with via both observations and interviews (in both formal settings and social gatherings), and each participant’s experience of classroom communication. The Asian participants’ overall perceptions are then classified into five major categories (i.e., sociocultural, cognitive, affective, pedagogical/environmental, and linguistic), and the interconnections among these categories are displayed in a chart. The detailed descriptions of the participants, their classroom participation modes in each identified pattern, and their feelings about participation demonstrate the complexities of Asian students’ classroom communication patterns. Classifying the participants in the study according to their classroom communication patterns was an extremely complicated task, because their participation modes gradually changed over time. Patterns emerged as a result of data triangulation through prolonged contact, constant observation, and numerous interviews. Whereas the general participation mode characterized in each of the four patterns can help us understand the participants’ classroom communication behavior, studying the participants within each pattern will enable us to understand their perceptions of oral classroom participation in their content courses and the possible factors that contribute to them. Examination of each student’s classroom communication pattern revealed some shared characteristics and some marked differences. To help us understand the overall perceptions of the participants within each pattern and the multiple factors that contributed to their formation, each participant is profiled in the following sections. Pattern 1: Total Integration Three Asian students in the study were classified into this pattern: The Geologist from Korea (MPHDK3), The Geodetic Scientist from Korea (MPHDK6), and The English Teacher from Indonesia (FMAI2). These three participants are considered very active in oral classroom participation in their content courses. Although individual differences

< previous page

page_73

next page >

< previous page

page_74

next page >

Page 74 exist, these students have similar attitudes toward American classroom communication. The Geologist (MPHDK3) The Geologist is a serious and conscientious student who respects his teachers and always greeted me with a bow when he saw me in or outside of class. He speaks English very fluently although with occasional grammatical mistakes. He started his undergraduate studies in geography in a college in South Korea but later transferred to the University of Denver as a junior and completed his B.A. there in geography in 1993. He enrolled in an M.A. geography program at Ohio State soon. He took a year of absence to go back to Korea due to some personal problems and resumed his study in the winter of 1995. Upon receiving his master’s degree in the summer of 1995, he enrolled in the Ph.D. program in the same department. Therefore, he had had 5 years of experience studying in the United States when this study was conducted and this extensive exposure to an English-speaking environment obviously influenced his attitude toward classroom participation: My general attitude is surely positive to participating all class activities and group work, such as study groups. So I’m thinking myself as really very positive in the attitude, and I like participating in class. But that really depends on the class characteristics.1 By ‘‘characteristics,” he means the classroom atmosphere, the composition of the class, the subject matter under discussion, and above all, the professor’s style of teaching. If the class is nothing but a lecture, every student just kept listening and taking notes. But sometimes the professor, I mean, actually, the professors are also really like active to ask the students to participate in his or her classes, such as seminars and like the group activity work and such as in my major area there is like the forecasting of the weather, so we all work together in the computer room and analyzing the forecasting data, so I think it really depends on the classes. If the professor encourages classroom participation either in lectures or seminars, The Geologist will definitely participate. If he prepares for the lesson well, he will probably participate more, and if not so well, probably less. He is not confident if he is not prepared, so good preparation before class has become his goal. He sees the value of classroom participation from the perspective of self-checking or self-evaluation. He regards speaking up in class, even if only a little, as a way to discover

< previous page

page_74

next page >

< previous page

page_75

next page >

Page 75 and correct his own mistakes in his preparation for his classroom speech. The Geologist also thinks that constantly participating in class will help him gain self-confidence and help others form the right attitude toward him. His main concern about participation is whether he can communicate his ideas well enough to be understood by others. To him, pronunciation and grammar are two important aspects affecting his communication quality. Given the choice of asking questions in class or after class, he prefers the latter even though he likes participating in class because Sometimes I feel like I’m asking wrong and stupid questions in the middle of class. If I don’t know or do not really understand what is taught in class, I would wait until after class, and then I am going to the professor or the instructor asking what I really don’t understand particularly, so I do not bother the whole class. In class, you know, they also need time to listen to the professors, so I do not want to disturb even if I have a question. On many occasions, however, like many of his classmates, he is very active in asking questions in class and is not afraid of asking questions when he feels it is necessary. In the geology class I observed, the professor spent the first half hour explaining the concept of hurricanes. There were about 20 students in the class, and at least 5 or 6 were from Asia. The Geologist listened attentively while taking notes. The professor began his lecture with a question: “Have you ever thought about the functions of the supercomputer and the weather satellite in space?” “People are able to forecast hurricanes’ paths and their intensity levels.” This answer came from an American student who sat in the front row. The rest of the class did not seem appreciative because the answer came directly from the assigned reading as I later learned. The professor continued explaining that by using supercomputers, scientists can input a hurricane’s atmospheric data into the several currently existing mathematical models and ultimately predict the ideal path of a hurricane. The professor went on by saying that it is possible for scientists to predict coastal landfall regions of a hurricane and to give warning advisories to the residents in those areas. At this point, I noticed that the class was very quiet, and all the students seemed very attentive. The professor stated that scientists are trying to go beyond such passive methods by funding ways to actively weaken a hurricane’s intensity and finally dissipate its force before it makes landfall. The professor paused and asked the class if they had any questions. Almost immediately, the hand of a student popped up, and it was The Geologist. “Well, I see that weakening or dissipating hurricanes is problematic because the amount of latent heat energy that one hurricane

< previous page

page_75

next page >

< previous page

page_76

next page >

Page 76 carries is so huge that even scientists have compared the amount of one hurricane’s latent energy to the amount of electrical energy that the entire U.S. can use for one day.” The class atmosphere began to change, and small discussions could be heard among the students. The professor seemed pleased with The Geologist’s participation, which helped make a smooth transition to the real issue of the class: the possible solutions to the inability to control a hurricane’s latent energy. The class went on into a semilecture and semidiscussion format intensely discussing two solutions. I noticed that The Geologist was very active in discussion. His classmates relied on him for his solid content knowledge and his good preparation for the class. In the follow-up interview, The Geologist told me that this was a pretty normal type of class. He would prepare questions from the reading assignments before class and he would ask them when there was an opportunity, or he would try to express his thoughts for clarification. To The Geologist, participation was a means of self-check or self-evaluation through which he could ascertain whether what he had in mind was right or wrong. Therefore, he seized opportunities to participate in class discussion or to ask and answer questions whenever he could. As he revealed: Sometimes, I feel like if I participate and speak up in the class, even though I am saying in a little bit wrong directions of the class topic, I correct myself if I speak up and find myself the wrong topic or the wrong subject matters at the time even though my professor agreed with me. But just like the self-evaluation process when I speak to the professor to the class and talk to everybody, so that’s a kind of benefit to me correcting myself when I speak to the class knowing I was wrong in the preparation on my classes. However, he does not regard participation as the only way to get feedback from his professor and peers for confirmation checks; rather, he sees it more as an effective method of self-modification. He has great confidence in his ability to judge his own output, which he regards as often imperfect or incorrect, and modifying his output, in return, helps strengthen his confidence in his ability. Confident and determined as he is, he also sees participation as a reflection of equality in the regular classroom from the perspective of a non-native speaker of English: Probably sometimes such as American students think that foreign students really cannot speak up in class, especially like the Oriental people like us who are very quiet and just keep smiling to the professor and to the students, and they think us we are just quiet. But we are not, because it’s kind of anxiety. If I say to the entire body of the classes, say, they really, really understand what I’m saying, that was my concern in all the stage of my study career and, well, if you

< previous page

page_76

next page >

< previous page

page_77

next page >

Page 77 keep repeating what you say several times again and again whether you don’t have the confidence or whatever, you still have, um, like attitude you have to speak up in the class and that’s kind of the benefit to me in terms of class participation. Interestingly, The Geologist also sees participation as a way to reduce anxiety that affects many Asian speakers. He sees the quiet classroom behavior of many Asian students not as passivity but rather as an indication of anxiety: Sometimes American students think that foreign students really cannot speak up in class, especially like the Oriental people like us [who are] usually very quiet and just kept smiling to the professor and to the students, and they think we are quiet. But we are not, because it’s a kind of degree of anxiety. According to The Geologist, to reduce anxiety, students need to develop a positive form and a good attitude about participation. Needless to say, The Geologist’s prior experience in the United States as an undergraduate student had a great impact on him. As he confessed, his first few undergraduate years were full of frustration because he could not express himself very well due to his poor English speaking skills and his low TOEFL score (below 515). Since he learned English in a Korean language environment, he had to struggle to speak English when he first arrived in the United States. What he learned while completing his B.A. degree was that he should be more aggressive in speaking in class to reduce his anxiety and gain confidence, and it was not surprising that he felt so strongly about the benefit of active classroom participation in reducing anxiety, achieving equality, and gaining confidence through selfmodification as a non-native speaker. His extensive stay in the host country has not only changed his classroom participation mode but also helped to shape his positive attitude toward oral classroom participation. In sum, The Geologist participated actively in his content classes because he viewed oral classroom participation as a way to express his opinions, to modify his speech, and to clarify his thoughts. He also believed that oral classroom participation could help reduce his anxiety so that eventually he could speak up in class without fear. The Geodetic Scientist (MPHDK6) The Geodetic Scientist is a man of confidence. Nothing seems difficult to him as he always has a smile on his face. With three years of military service experience between his B.A. and M.A. degrees in physics, he enrolled in the Department of Geodetic Science at OSU in the fall of

< previous page

page_77

next page >

< previous page

page_78

next page >

Page 78 1994. He was placed in a lower-level ESL composition course upon arrival because his TOEFL score was only 567, which he attributed to a lack of preparation. When he learned English in Korea, listening and speaking were not emphasized at all, so naturally many students were very weak in those skill areas. Although he admitted that he could not speak very well, he is, in fact, a very active participant in seminar type classes, which is not a new format for him. As he revealed: In my country, we always adopt the class like seminar, all of the courses are proceeded as a seminar, most of the students talk over the topic and we discuss about those topics and at the end of the class, the professor always comes to talk about our topic or what you did wrong or what is correct. That is our class type. And here it is that same, I mean, that if we want to talk about the topic to the professor and we want to discuss about that there is always a kind of class for the foreign students, we consider some of the questions to ask or to speak up. The Geodetic Scientist usually asks questions for clarification during class but prefers discussion after class. Like The Geologist, The Geodetic Scientist feels more ready to ask questions when he is well prepared for the lesson. “When I prepare well, I know the topic in class, and naturally I have something to contribute.” His listening comprehension skills at the time of this study were still not very well developed, and he admitted that he had communication problems, especially when he first arrived in the United States. However, he often tried to guess an answer to a problem and expected the professor to tell him whether it was correct or wrong. While speaking up in class, his major concern was clarity. I always concern about how can I express my opinion clearly, and that is the most important thing, usually, um … sometimes I asked something they could not understand, but the first quarter when I first came here I tried to ask a lot of things to the professor or students or classmates, but they could not understand me, and some classmates would laugh at me because of the communication problem. Due to his language problems, he chose to ask the professor questions after class in the first few courses he took. He felt more comfortable talking after class whether publicly or privately: “If I asked a question to the professor, it could bother the other students in class.’’ Awareness of his limited speaking skill was coupled with a concern for others in class, reflecting the importance of consideration for others, or other-centeredness in Asian culture. Needless to say, his lack of English speaking ability was quite disabling, but his high confidence motivated him to seek help. He did not take any spoken English courses at Ohio State, although

< previous page

page_78

next page >

< previous page

page_79

next page >

Page 79 he wanted to, simply because he did not have time. However, he took advantage of the student dormitory environment and practiced speaking English with native speakers at least one hour every day, which he found especially helpful. In fact, by living in a dorm and speaking with his roommates, he not only improved his listening and speaking abilities in English, but he was also able to understand American culture and values better. As a result of his constant practice in English in the dormitory environment, he gained confidence in participating in class, and by and by asking questions or discussing issues in class became more natural and intuitive to him. The Geodetic Scientist, however, thought of active classroom participation as a way to “get much knowledge.” He participated by asking a lot of questions in order to clarify what he did not understand. He also relied on guessing as a way to make up for his lack of listening comprehension: Actually professors’ lectures cannot concentrate me well because of my listening problem. I was wondering on that problem and I can guess right this thing or such things that I asked him to assure that. What was interesting was that The Geodetic Scientist’s realization of his weakness in speaking English led him to participate even more actively in class to overcome his linguistic deficiency, unlike many other Asian students who simply avoid oral classroom participation when they have problems in understanding and being understood. To The Geodetic Scientist, realizing his weakness in communication served as a trigger to motivate him to practice his English as much as he could. When I told The Geodetic Scientist that I would like to observe one of his content classes, he smiled and gave me his schedule for the quarter. He reminded me that in some classes students simply worked in the lab independently. He did not seem to care which class I would observe. After getting permission from one of his instructors, I quietly sat in the back row of the classroom without The Geodetic Scientist’s noticing me. The class was about compensating for atmospheric effects on the Global Positioning System (GPS). The professor introduced the topic briefly and identified the sources of bias in GPA measurement as the refraction of the GPS signals caused by dense atmosphere in the troposphere and polarity in the ionosphere. The lecture soon turned into a class discussion on ways to remove the atmospheric effect. The 30 or so students started talking among themselves. I noticed that The Geodetic Scientist was leading the discussion with seven classmates who were all American students. I could not hear what exactly The Geodetic Scientist said in the group discussion as multiple discussions went on, but he was obviously very animated and enthusiastic in persuading his peers to accept what he said. When the class lecture resumed, The Geodetic

< previous page

page_79

next page >

< previous page

page_80

next page >

Page 80 Scientist spoke on behalf of his group and raised some questions about other groups’ suggestions. In sum, The Geodetic Scientist thought of oral classroom participation as a way to enhance his understanding and gain knowledge through asking questions to clarify what was on his mind. He also believed that he could improve his listening and speaking abilities through active oral classroom participation. The English Teacher (FMAI2) After graduating in 1988 with a degree in English from a college in Indonesia, The English Teacher (FMAI2) taught college English in Indonesia for four years before she was sent by her government to study for a master’s degree in early childhood education at OSU in 1994. She taught English language skills and literature. She enjoyed teaching Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet to junior students, and she had fond memories of teaching. She seemed to possess all the good qualities a teacher should have: I am talkative, friendly, sometimes maybe easy-going, and hardworking. Sometimes maybe workaholic, and adventurous. I like sports. I like singing and dancing, which I think are related to my profession as a teacher. Sometimes some companies would contact me to arrange some entertainment, or recreational activities. An active participant in classes and an outgoing person, The English Teacher listened carefully, asked questions, and was willing to contribute to class discussion by utilizing her rich experiences and ideas. However, she did not consider herself a successful language learner. In her opinion, she was not solidly trained in listening and speaking abilities in English, although she could teach grammar rules and literature very well: I still have trouble in writing and in spoken English because I have a kind of, even though I am a kind of talkative person, I always feel, er … not good feeling. I don’t want to make a mistake if I want to speak another language, so that makes me trouble in expressing myself in that language, particularly in English. Coming to the United States with her teaching background, she seemed very appreciative of the opportunity to do her M.A. at OSU. She enjoyed campus life, and she liked her professors in particular due to her professional sensitivity. She thought that all her professors felt responsible for the progress of their students. She found them very approachable and felt very comfortable asking them questions; their

< previous page

page_80

next page >

< previous page

page_81

next page >

Page 81 answers always stimulated her thinking and motivated her to study harder. Her favorable impression of her professors and their teaching styles gave her great security and confidence in active classroom participation. She revealed in one of the interviews that she attributed her active class participation to the environmental support she received from both professors and peers, native and non-native speakers alike. The English Teacher firmly believed that participating in class gave her a chance to explain her ideas and to understand the subject matter under discussion, which would eventually help build her self-confidence. Based on her classroom experience in Indonesia both as a student and a teacher, she felt strongly that the encouraging and facilitative classroom climate generated by the teacher motivated her to participate actively in class: The professors like to give us the chances or the opportunities to express ourselves to think from our own angle and they let us to tell everybody in the class and they always encourage us to speak about the topic and see the topic from various perspectives, not like in Indonesia, if we talk about, for example, topic “A,” we much speak everything without anything else. The Indonesia teachers don’t care if the students see the topic from the simple or simplicity. So it seems that professors here really encourage us to speak more in depth and there is a kind of theoretical background if we want to speak a topic. Sometimes maybe from your own experience, at home, at your teaching field, everywhere. The English Teacher’s concept of participation was, however, slightly different from that of her American peers. She thought that American students usually “speak what they want,” but, coming from an Indonesian cultural background, she would speak only if she knew “more about the topic.” Therefore, in order to be actively involved in class discussion, she needed to do a really good job preparing for class. She resented people who ‘‘spoke without substance,” and obviously, she did not “want to speak something too superfluous.” She wanted to contribute to class as actively as many American peers, but she did not want to participate only for participation’s sake. She was highly motivated to acculturate herself to adapt to American classroom participation modes by being actively engaged in classroom participation, and yet she was also concerned about the quality of her contributions: I want to contribute in class like American people, and try to avoid my bad feeling because I see from Americans. They speak everything, but sometimes not in-depth, but they express themselves freely. So I try to learn from them —how to do that, and yet I want participation to be more in-depth.

< previous page

page_81

next page >

< previous page

page_82

next page >

Page 82 This internal conflict between the free speech style common in American classrooms and the formal substantive speech style Asian students are used to is, to a certain extent, a reflection of the interplay of different cultural value systems and practices. For American students, sharing spontaneous and improvised ideas, although they are sometimes incomplete or “superfluous,” is regarded as brainstorming, which is usually encouraged in class. Most Asian students, on the other hand, believe that shared ideas should be rule-governed, experience-based, or reference-based and should be carefully thought out before they are expressed. In U.S. higher education, Asian students, who take more time to process and convey information, are inhibited and silenced by the spontaneityoriented participation behavior of American students. In order to be active in class but not lower the quality of her contributions, The English Teacher often worked twice as hard as her American peers in terms of thorough preparation, as many Asian students do, so that she could make the most of the opportunity to participate. Her teaching background helped her in this adjustment, and her experience as an English teacher facilitated her participation as well. Needless to say, The English Teacher was an active participant in her content classes. But as she admitted, she did not participate as much as some American students in terms of frequency and overall quantity. She held to her own standard of the appropriateness of participation as a result of her dual social identities. On the one hand, she wanted to be accepted as an acculturated speaker of English as a second language. On the other hand, she wanted to be selective in what to talk about and when, based on her own judgment. As she reveals: I don’t want to speak as often as some Americans. Sometimes, they talk about their families, friends, something irrelevant to the topic in the class. I feel uncomfortable if I participate by bringing up the issue far from the topic exactly. The English Teacher was highly competitive with people coming from the same cultural background and felt bad if she did not participate in class as actively as other students from similar Asian backgrounds. She came to Ohio State with a group of Indonesian teachers in an exchange program, and she not only served as the group leader but also was considered by her peers as the person who had the best English speaking ability. Therefore, in the courses these Indonesian students took together, they usually relied on her to speak up as their representative when they had similar ideas or questions. Her assumed responsibility for the in-group and her confidence in her knowledge and ability increased her competitiveness in oral classroom participation:

< previous page

page_82

next page >

< previous page

page_83

next page >

Page 83 Sometimes although my friends speak aloud, or speak more in class, if that conversation seems there is no relation between their speaking and the topic, then I will feel OK. But if my friends can contribute their ideas really connected to the topic, and I cannot speak something. That makes me feel bad. The English Teacher would grab the chance to speak in class if there was one. If another student took the opportunity, she would feel uncomfortable but would vow that she would “be more active next time.” Her active participation mode in English was actually transferred from her L1. She traced it to her outgoing personality and her being a perfectionist both as a student and as a teacher: If I am in a class, I would tend to be the last speaker. I would see what others can contribute, and then I tend to conclude, not only my conclusion, but also try to add my idea, sort of synthesizing the ideas. The English Teacher participated very actively in an introductory Educational Research class I observed. There were about 30 students from various programs in the College of Education, and at least half of them were from Asia. I arrived early in the classroom and found that the instructor, a senior professor, was already there. After knowing what I was there for, he started talking about The English Teacher as one of the hardest working and brightest students in his class. He was impressed by her thirst for knowledge and her drive to understand not only the concepts but also their application in pedagogical situations. A minute later, students started coming in. I heard The English Teacher talking with a few fellow Indonesian students before I saw her entering the classroom. She noticed that I was there and took a seat close to me. What surprised me was that while two other Indonesian students continued talking in Indonesian, she codeswitched into English, and interestingly, they all began to use English in their small talk before the class began. The class, which was conducted in a lecture format overall, continued a discussion on survey research. Energetic and humorous, the professor used well-organized transparencies to lead the lecture and constantly used examples for explanation. While the majority of the students were busy taking notes, The English Teacher only jotted down some key points, but occasionally flipped through the textbook, which was full of notes and highlighting. As soon as the professor asked if they had any questions, The English Teacher raised her hand. Her question was related to the specific procedures in following up nonrespondents in a survey. She pointed out the page number in the textbook where the explanation differed from that of the professor’s. The class was immediately

< previous page

page_83

next page >

< previous page

page_84

next page >

Page 84 stimulated, and several other students who were native speakers of English participated in the discussion. The professor, delighted by lively discussion generated by The English Teacher’s question, continued his explanation and introduced a few more references to support his position. This time, only a few students took notes, and The English Teacher was one of them. The second half of the class consisted of group discussion. The English Teacher, together with two fellow Indonesian students, was grouped with two other Asian students and one American student. To shorten the distance between me as the observer and the students in the group as the observed, I joined the group discussion as a participant observer. The discussion went very well as everyone had a chance to express his or her opinion. I was amazed at the fine job The English Teacher did in organizing and synthesizing what others said in the discussion and that she volunteered to report to the whole class as requested by the professor. Impressed by her excellent synthesis, I asked her after class whether my presence in class was a motivating factor for her participation. She smiled without addressing my question, but I could tell that she was glad that I was there not only as a support, but also as a source of motivation for her active participation. In sum, The English Teacher viewed oral classroom participation as a great opportunity for her to explain her ideas formulated through thorough preparation and attentive listening in class. She also thought that it was a good opportunity to increase her self-confidence in speaking. Her prior teaching experience, the lively classroom atmosphere, the encouragement of the teachers, and her sense of competitiveness motivated her to participate actively in her content courses. The salient perceptions of the three participants in this pattern (total integration) are summarized in Table 3.1. As seen from this table, all three participants were positive about and enjoyed classroom participation, although they perceived the benefits of oral classroom participation from slightly different perspectives. While The Geologist saw oral classroom participation mainly as a way of self-modification, reducing anxiety, and maintaining equality between nonnative English speakers and their native English-speaking counterparts, The English Teacher perceived it as a way of building confidence, expressing ideas, and critical thinking. The Geodetic Scientist perceived oral classroom participation as a way to gain knowledge, to clarify his comprehension, and to overcome his weaknesses in listening and speaking. These participants’ differential views of classroom participation are further elaborated in Chart 3.1. Based on the seven salient perceptions shown in Chart 3.1, we can see the benefits extending from the cognitive, affective, linguistic, and sociocultural domains. The positive perceptions of oral classroom participation held by the three very active students (Table 3.1) are multiple (e.g., cognitive, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic), overlapping (1 and 7

< previous page

page_84

next page >

< previous page

page_85

next page >

Page 85 Table 3.1 Perceptions of Oral Classroom Participation in Pattern 1 Participants Perceptions Benefits The Geologist (MPHDK3) 1. A way to express one’s opinion for self-modification and comprehension Cognitive checks 2. A way to demonstrate equality with native English-speaking peers in class Sociocultural 3. A way to reduce anxiety Affective The Geodetic Scientist 4. A way to enhance one’s understanding of the subject matter and gain Cognitive (MPHDK6) knowledge through clarification 5. A way to get motivated to improve English speaking abilities Linguistic The English Teacher 6. An opportunity to build self-confidence Affective (FMAI2) 7. An opportunity to explain one’s ideas and improve logical thinking of the Cognitive subject matter as well as 3 and 6), and interrelated (e.g., confidence-building, because participation will increase one’s knowledge and improve one’s English speaking abilities). Pattern 2: Conditional Interaction The five participants in the study classified into this classroom communication pattern are The Geo Scholar from China (MMAC2), The Ecologist from China (MPHDC4), The Mechanical Engineer from Korea (MMAK1), The Biophysicist from Japan (MPHDJ1), and The Political Science Teacher from Indonesia (MMAI3). These students could speak English very well, but they were more selective in terms of when to speak and what to say. They have mixed feelings about oral participation in their classes. Interestingly, they were all male students.

< previous page

page_85

next page >

< previous page

page_86

next page >

Page 86 Chart 3.1 Perceptions of Classroom Participation Among Three Participants in Pattern 1: Total Integration

The Geo Scholar (MMAC2) The Geo Scholar has a round face that carries a mysterious smile almost all the time. He seems to agree with me no matter what I say, and yet in a few minutes he will disagree with me. His mind is always occupied while he is in class. With a heavy Shandong accent (a local dialect in China), he talks to me in Chinese in the tone of a teacher. His speaking style in English, however, is in some ways similar to his Chinese speech—persistent and inquisitive, though with a lot of stammering. Many times when I talked to him, he had a desperate look in his eyes. He searched for appropriate words from his GRE bank, knowing that the words he used were obviously not colloquial. The Geo Scholar came to the United States on his own from Germany where he had been a visiting professor for a year. Unlike other Chinese graduate students, he did not receive a scholarship, but he was willing to pay the tuition himself in order to learn “something new.” He

< previous page

page_86

next page >

< previous page

page_87

next page >

Page 87 received his bachelor’s degree from East China Normal University in Shanghai in 1983. Upon graduation, he worked as an assistant instructor in Shandong Institute of Mining and Technology for 2 years and pursued his M.A. in the same institute while teaching there. He is obviously a thinker, not a speaker, in his content classes, but he does participate occasionally. To him, asking questions in class often indicates that one does not understand the subject matter under discussion. He had no problems listening to other students’ talk or asking questions in class, but his high self-confidence and knowledge of the subject matter affected his perceptions about asking questions in class. Admittedly, The Geo Scholar’s prior college teaching experience in China as well as his experience as a visiting scholar in Germany before he came to the United States helped him a great deal in raising thought-provoking issues or questions that would sometimes spark heated discussions in class. To him, asking questions was one thing, and asking high-quality questions was another. He felt that participation should not be evaluated solely on the number of questions one asked or the frequency of participation. The level of difficulty as well as the degree of the depth of the questions or follow-up discussions should reflect one’s preparedness and idea synthesis. Therefore, The Geo Scholar had a reason to brag: The questions I raise will often initiate a heated discussion in class, sometimes, my classmates will say that the questions I ask in class will usually result in the related homework assignment. So they think high of my questions, and they think that my good-quality questions are often a step further of the class content. However, I won’t answer the questions the answers of which are obvious. The Geo Scholar’s view of asking questions in class also affected his attitude toward some questions asked by his classmates, which were relatively simple by his standards. He felt strongly that such “easy questions” should be asked after class to avoid wasting class time. He further elaborated: “I prefer to ask some questions only after class. The questions we should ask in class should only be those that benefit the majority of the students.’’ What he did not explain and the question he avoided answering in one of the interviews was: How could you possibly know the difficulty level of the question to other students in class before it was asked? A tough question for one student might be easy for another. Because it is hard to tell the difficulty level of the question in relation to others, excessive concern about asking only “good” questions might inhibit students in active participation. However, many Asian students tend to be cautious in asking questions or expressing opinions to save face or to avoid embarrassment. The Geo Scholar had his own experience:

< previous page

page_87

next page >

< previous page

page_88

next page >

Page 88 One course I am now taking is a prerequisite to another course I am required to take, and the content of this course is new to me. In this case, even I have a lot of difficulties in understanding, I prefer not to ask questions. Because if I ask, my classmates might think that this is too easy, you should understand. And I do think that some students in the class might face the same situation, yet they, like me, feel shy in asking. Obviously, The Geo Scholar’s concern about the difficulty level of the questions was related to his self-confidence coupled with the Asian concept of face-saving. He was known to his classmates as someone who had a lot of prior experience in working and teaching in the field. In addition, his prior experience as a visiting scholar in Germany gave him a lot of confidence. Naturally, he should either remain silent to conceal his lack of knowledge in some subjects, or he should be very aggressive to show his classmates how much he knew about the subject matter. Therefore, any lack of confidence due to unfamiliarity with the subject matter under discussion took the form of shyness, which in return sometimes resulted in his silence in class. Conversely, when the content knowledge under discussion was within his expertise, he would dominate the class discussion. I observed a class in Geodetic Science in which The Geo Scholar was quiet in the entire first period. In the second period, when his professor wrote a mathematics formula on the board inviting the class for comments, two students, one from India and the other from Taiwan, tried to offer their explanations, but neither satisfied the professor. It was at this moment that The Geo Scholar stood up. With a smile on his face, he went to the front and wrote the entire formula accompanied by a detailed explanation. Watching him speak with such confidence and fluidity, I could not help imagining him as a college professor back in China. In the follow-up interview, when I asked him why he was so quiet in the first class, he told me in Chinese that he was unfamiliar with the subject matter. But he reassured me that the mathematical formula he helped to illustrate in class was something he knew inside out. Needless to say, The Geo Scholar’s oral classroom participation mode varies, depending on his familiarity with the subject matter. Because The Geo Scholar was so concerned about the quality of his questions and what others in class would think of him, he asked questions or gave explanations only after giving some careful thought. Although this created a certain lack of spontaneity, it allowed him to gain confidence by producing grammatically correct sentences and to filter out the “low-quality” questions he did not want to ask. This kind of preparation phase is deeply rooted in the Chinese concept of “san si er xing,” meaning “think before you leap.” Meditation is encouraged

< previous page

page_88

next page >

< previous page

page_89

next page >

Page 89 and prompt speech is disdained as a bad and hasty action. Therefore, The Geo Scholar’s concern with asking only high-quality questions was shared by many Asian students. The caution he exercised in oral participation not only allowed him to modify his own participation behavior, but it also made him quite critical of his classmates’ oral participation modes: I would think that students should not ask a certain question of low quality. But I would say that some of my classmates, especially some American classmates would not care about other classmates’ feeling when they want to ask questions. Generally, international students will consider this aspect more than American students. It was implied that The Geo Scholar considered some American students’ active oral participation modes as casual on the one hand, and egocentric or inconsiderate on the other hand. In his view, some American students’ active participation in class intimidated many Asian students who, due to lack of fluency and accuracy in speaking English, often lost opportunities to demonstrate what they knew. However, some Asian students rely on the active participation modes of native English speakers to get answers to the questions they are afraid to ask: Sometimes, they [American classmates] ask questions which you also want to ask. For example, some American students once asked many questions regarding the mid-term examinations. I also want to know the answers and yet I feel shy to ask. So I feel very grateful to their asking. In other words, if you are willing to wait to see whether the question you have in mind is raised, you might end up getting the answer without asking the question yourself. This observation was confirmed by many Asian students in the study. As an old Chinese saying goes, “Qiang da chu tou niao ,’’ meaning that in a flock of birds, the one who sticks his head out of the woods first will get shot. Although this is a Chinese saying, the idea it conveys is found in other Asian cultures, such as Korea, Japan, and Indonesia. It is not uncommon to see many Asian students in class avoiding giving their opinions until someone else begins the discussion. In Asian culture, where collectivism is emphasized, people are afraid of being judged and criticized even though they realize that someone must stand up and ask questions. However, this pattern of passivity inherent in many Asian students’ behavior is often of benefit when they share the classroom with American students. The Geo Scholar sees the indirect benefits of others’ classroom participation as knowledge confirmation, mistake correction, and opinion exchange:

< previous page

page_89

next page >

< previous page

page_90

next page >

Page 90 First of all, when others ask questions, I can recall, and synthesize my knowledge relevant to the topic to see whether I know the answer or whether I have thought about that before. In this way, if I have an answer to the question raised in class, then I can compare mine with the teacher’s to check my comprehension or to pose further questions. This is a good chance to confirm my knowledge, and to correct my mistakes, which is more effective than I read from a book. Therefore, I benefit a lot from others’ questions. Based on The Geo Scholar’s logic, it was not surprising to find that he was sometimes very argumentative with classmates as well as instructors. He could not be convinced unless he found the logic in others’ opinions. This anecdote spoke for itself: Sometimes the teacher will misunderstand your question. For instance once I asked a question after class, the teacher said that it was a stupid one immediately after I asked. Then I elaborated my question immediately and then the teacher suddenly replied that my question was not stupid after all. Sometimes, you need clarify your questions because the way you ask might not be understood the same way as you intend. Therefore, communication between the teacher and the students is sometimes of concern. In fact, when we talk about classroom communication, we tend to look at it from the perspective of the international students’ difficulty in understanding the instructor. We seldom consider how difficult it can be for the professor to understand the student. Many Asian students like The Geo Scholar would either modify their questions before they spoke or hold their questions until after class either because it was more appropriate to ask after class or because of language barriers in forming the question. Those who choose the after-class option seldom participate actively. Although the benefits of participation were obvious to The Geo Scholar, he still felt that participation was not of paramount importance in terms of academic achievement: I think my achievement in attending a class does not depend on whether I participate or not. Sometimes I also benefit from listening to others’ questions and answers as long as I am active in thinking. The participation is not the only factor in evaluating one’s achievement. Understanding is the most important. To Asian students like The Geo Scholar, understanding the lecture is the goal; participating orally is secondary. Their culture, which trains

< previous page

page_90

next page >

< previous page

page_91

next page >

Page 91 them to be quiet and respectful in class from early on, seems to discourage their active role in classroom participation. The Geo Scholar’s participation behavior—sometimes active, and sometimes inactive—could also be explained by his perceptions of the appropriateness of question types and/or class/lesson types. To him, questions better asked in class might end up being asked after class for various reasons: I think there is not a clear line between the questions asked in class and those after class. But some questions related to you directly, like clarity about the assignment, I usually ask only after class. Sometimes you want to ask a question in class, but there is no chance in class, for instance, the teacher indicates in class that he or she has a lot to talk in class, or sometimes the teacher prefers to entertain all the questions after she finishes what is intended to be covered in class, so you have to ask it after class. According to The Geo Scholar, on many occasions, a student should have a very good sense of the appropriateness of asking and answering questions depending on the instructor’s intent and mood. It is true that sometimes even one off-topic question might destroy the class tempo, shift the students’ concentration, and disrupt the teaching plan. Conversely, a good question can motivate thinking, generate more focused questions, and stimulate discussion. Perhaps the key to The Geo Scholar’s mixed modes in classroom participation is his sensitivity. In sum, The Geo Scholar did not perceive oral classroom participation as absolutely necessary unless the questions asked or the issues raised were of a high quality. His college teaching experience in China and his experience as a visiting scholar in Germany prompted him to see the value of classroom participation as a reflection of one’s preparedness for class and readiness for improvised synthesis. Based on his value-driven criterion in asking questions, he participated very actively when he had something to ask or say that he believed was of value; other times he was passive. To him, the general benefits of oral classroom participation were knowledge confirmation, mistake correction, and opinion exchange. According to him, oral classroom participation did not reflect one’s academic achievement. What seemed to be the key factor affecting his participation mode was his sense of appropriateness in classroom communication. The Ecologist (MPHDC4) The Ecologist is taciturn, diligent, respectful, but reserved. He got his B.A. in 1992 in the Management College in Haerbin Institute of Technology, a well-known technical institute in northern China. He

< previous page

page_91

next page >

< previous page

page_92

next page >

Page 92 went directly to graduate school at the same institute, changing his major from Industrial Management Engineering to Measurement Information Systems. However, he came to the United States for his Ph.D. without finishing his master’s degree in China. The Ecologist had very good TOEFL (610) and GRE (2000) scores, and he was admitted into the Family Resource Management Program at Ohio State with a research scholarship. Like many other Chinese graduate students, The Ecologist did not have any work experience, having been in school continuously. He seems introverted but is very extroverted with people he knows well. He does not think of himself as a very good language learner. After taking both the TOEFL and GRE tests, he did not spend much time on improving his English at all, so his English was very rusty and caused him a lot of trouble when he first arrived in the United States. Due to the way English is usually taught in China, he felt that he was very good at reading and understanding, but weak in speaking and writing. When asked if he had any goals upon finishing his Ph.D., he seemed hesitant because he needed more time and experience in order to think about his future career. However, The Ecologist was very positive about his experience here in the United States. Compared with his experience in China, he felt that he was “at a much higher level here and the atmosphere here is also very supportive for the students.” His positive impression of American higher education, in a way, reflected his negative attitude toward Chinese higher education: I can learn some new things which I didn’t know, and that’s the big difference between here and what’s going on in China. In China, some of the professors are not familiar with the new things and new trends in the field and thus they cannot provide for the students who are eager to know new things in social science. Therefore, in China, some students know better than some professors who are not very confident in opening a new course in a new field or a field that contains some new content. His negative attitude toward higher education in China turned him into a very eager learner and receptive absorber. He is a serious student, and talks in class, although not a lot. Unlike The Geo Scholar, The Ecologist was more introverted and serious in class. Classroom participation had not been an issue in China; as he recalled, he never had a chance to speak in class while at college. At Ohio State, he felt he participated by expressing his opinion or asking questions only when he felt very confident and he preferred speaking in small group discussions: I feel free to talk among these students who I know well and even though I make some mistakes when speaking up, yet I will not hold

< previous page

page_92

next page >

< previous page

page_93

next page >

Page 93 back by mistakes. However, when I am with more students in a big classroom and when I am not familiar with the professor I will speak less. It was clear that his comfort level played a major role in his participation behavior. When he felt more comfortable in a group situation, he did not care too much about making mistakes, and as a result, he became more actively involved in classroom discussion. Conversely, he felt uncomfortable in a large class, and because he was concerned about making mistakes, he withdrew from participation and remained rather introverted. Therefore, his double role in classroom participation was circumstantial depending on whether he was in a small group discussion or a large class. He explained his active role in small groups this way: I like small groups. For one reason, it can stimulate my thinking, and another I can practice my English. On the other hand it also gives me a better understanding of the content. He was good at answering questions when he was in small groups. He found that having more non-native speakers made him feel more comfortable because of their common experiences and shared cultural backgrounds: Because I have intuition if we are from the same country and I say something he can understand but the native speaker may not understand well, so that is why if I am the only non-native speaker in the class, I may not participate a lot, but I will still participate. The Ecologist attributed his somewhat active participation to several factors: whether he was interested in the topic, whether he was conversant with the subject matter under discussion, and whether the instructor encouraged classroom participation, especially from non-native English-speaking students. He also felt that if there were a good discussion going on in class, he would be stimulated and encouraged to participate more actively. It was clear to him that he could benefit from active classroom participation in several ways, namely, exchanging opinions, enhancing comprehension, and improving his English: I think first of all, we can learn a lot of knowledge and also English through participation. I think the major idea is to get knowledge so I can exchange my opinions and share opinions with others, which can make us to have a better understanding of the course, and I think it is also a good way to improve our oral English. In fact, improving his English was his main goal in class. He did not have many opportunities to speak English outside the classroom as he

< previous page

page_93

next page >

< previous page

page_94

next page >

Page 94 shared an apartment with several other Chinese students. His concerns regarding class participation were related to his desire to maximize his language exposure. He preferred to have more American students in class so that he could have opportunities to interact with native English speakers in class. To him, one of the disadvantages of having many international students in class was the increased demands on the instructor’s attention and fewer opportunities to learn American English. Although it sounded somewhat selfish, he truly felt this, as did other students such as The Pharmacist (FPHDC3) and The English Teacher (FMAI2). There is a hidden factor at work here, too: competitiveness among Asian students. Because Asian students are non-native English speakers, they are very sensitive about participating in class discussion; at the same time, they are very competitive in getting good grades. However, his listening comprehension seemed to be an obstacle when he assumed a passive role in classroom participation. In his department, many faculty members were not native English speakers. Since The Ecologist had never been exposed to English other than British and American varieties, he had trouble understanding some of his professors whose accents were unfamiliar to him: In some classes I am not very active because I could not understand the teacher. There is always problems with me about what the teacher is saying. Some of the instructor’s pronunciation is not very standard so I cannot understand very well and thus can not catch the ideas and follow very closely. Because many Asian students learned English in their own countries where they were exposed to radio programs like the VOA (Voice of America) and BBC (British Broadcasting Company) and various audio and videotapes recorded by native English speakers, they usually felt comfortable with and expected that kind of “standard pronunciation.” They seldom had opportunities to hear other varieties of English. This created some problems in the linguistic adjustment of Asian students like The Ecologist. He often found himself walking out of a class having said little or nothing because he could not understand the professor’s accent, and this made The Ecologist very uncomfortable: In most of the cases when the class is most devoted to discussion and I did not say much, I usually will worry. That means I have not prepared well, and I do not have any opinion and I do not understand quite well. But if no one in class seemed to participate a lot because it was a lecture-type class that had many students, he would feel comfortable just taking

< previous page

page_94

next page >

< previous page

page_95

next page >

Page 95 notes and listening to the lecture. To him, asking questions and raising issues in a big class (sometimes exceeding 100 students) would be wasting class time. This led him to form a negative attitude toward some American students’ active participation: Some of the American students do not care about others. If they do not understand well, no matter whether it is a very basic question or a very difficult one, they will ask, and I will feel uncomfortable. The Ecologist was very textbook-dependent. He understood very well if the instructor talked only about the content based on the textbook and the questions he asked would usually be related to the textbook. However, most of the time he could not appreciate jokes or small talk that drew heavily on American culture. As he confessed: Sometimes I really cannot follow some instructors when they talk a lot of things beyond the textbook, so they will talk about daily life and some other things which I cannot understand. Sometimes, I will try to understand, and sometimes I will just read the textbook, I know it is not related to the textbook. The Ecologist considered himself very active compared with other Asian students and rather inactive compared to American students. In Asian culture, he noted, it would be considered somewhat impolite or disrespectful to the teacher if a student talked too much or asked too many questions. He believed that the students should be very polite in asking questions, and should not ask questions without the teacher’s permission. He was surprised that American students seemed to consider themselves as equal to their teachers—in Chinese culture, students usually see themselves as recipients of knowledge imparted from their teachers, not as partners in learning. Considering his background in traditional Chinese culture, The Ecologist felt that his participation modes had become much more active over the previous two quarters. One of the reasons for this change was the influence of the active participation modes of other students, especially the American students. In addition, he made a conscious effort to adjust to the American classroom climate. The Ecologist’s participation modes and his perceptions of oral participation were confirmed by my observation of one of his Family Resource Management classes. The class was unusually small, consisting of only five students, four of whom were international students (two Chinese, one Korean [The Consumer Scientist], and one Indian). The instructor conducted the class in a lecture format, stopping occasionally to ask whether there were any questions. The students did not seem to have many questions throughout the class. Of the seven questions

< previous page

page_95

next page >

< previous page

page_96

next page >

Page 96 raised during the entire period, one was The Ecologist’s request for some examples for a reference he had been assigned to read earlier. The Consumer Scientist (described later in this chapter) did not utter a word. The entire classroom atmosphere was passive due to the small number of students, the lecture type, and the fact that most were foreign students. In sum, The Ecologist, though quiet most of the time, was changing his classroom participation mode from inactive to more active due to the influence of his American classmates. He was willing to participate when he could understand the instructor and the topic under discussion was directly related to the textbook. He felt most comfortable speaking up in small group discussions with a certain number of American students on whom he could rely for linguistic help. He kept silent most of the time in lecture-type classes, partly due to his concept of proper classroom behavior, and partly due to his desire to not waste the other students’ time. The Mechanical Engineer (MMAK1) A graduate of the Aviation University in Korea, The Mechanical Engineer served in the Korean Air Force for about 3 years. He had a lot of experience working in an engineering repair shop, a maintenance commander office, and control towers. He first came to the United States in 1991 for his master’s degree in Aerospace Engineering at West Virginia University and graduated in 2 years. Then he came to Ohio State for his second M.A., this time in mechanical engineering. The Mechanical Engineer likes computers and is fond of playing computer games. Reading newspapers and magazines and watching sports are also part of his daily life. He is not comfortable talking to strangers, but once he knows a person well, he is very ‘‘open-minded,” in his own words. The Mechanical Engineer is a student who never stops asking questions until he gets the answer that he wants. Stubborn and determined, he is always the first to turn in his in-class writing or other assignments, and yet, as he admits, his paper is more often than not full of grammatical errors. He knows that he makes mistakes, but he is too impatient to reread and check what he has written. He prefers not to concentrate on something too long. This habit of his, however, was not formed in one day. As he reveals: I know I have problems to [with] me. It is hard for me to concentrate on some items. It means I always skip some important things. It takes me a lot of mistakes when I write English or speak English. I will misuse the tense of verbs and some mismatch between the structures. That’s the big problem of me. When I do the research job sometimes I have to read carefully over the articles several times but

< previous page

page_96

next page >

< previous page

page_97

next page >

Page 97 I think, “Oh, it’s not important,” so I skip it, and it causes me problem. So, that’s my worst weak point in personality. The Mechanical Engineer’s personality has affected his language learning. He never takes the time to memorize idiomatic expressions in English, and therefore, he feels that his English vocabulary is limited. He enjoys being a student at Ohio State as “there are many classes to select from.” Of seminars and lecture-type classes, the two lesson types common in his field, he prefers seminars because he thinks he can gain more information from the exchange of information and opinions. He is not keen on lectures because “in lectures, all we do is sit and listen. The professor writes down equations and solves them.” But, even in the seminars he feels most comfortable with, he does not participate in the discussion to any great extent except for asking a few questions. He lacks confidence in speaking in class in front of native speakers of English. Conversely, he feels more relaxed when international students, Asian students in particular, are sitting in class with him. He can be silent during the entire class, or he can shoot off endless questions on a topic of interest to him, dominating the whole discussion. He is very extroverted and fearless of making mistakes when he is really interested in the discussion. In the class in his major that I observed, the majority of students were from Asia. The Mechanical Engineer remained silent in class most of the time. At one point, however, the professor challenged the class with a question about some mechanical problems in the textbook. This question happened to be related to The Mechanical Engineer’s prior work experience while serving in the military. As expected, he was very enthusiastic in participating in the discussion, and, not fully convinced by the professor’s explanation, he continued discussing the issue with the professor after class. When asked why he opted not to participate in the classroom discussion on many occasions, The Mechanical Engineer pointed to the fact that few opportunities were given by the instructors, who were mostly non-native English speakers themselves. He also thought that the fact that the majority of the students in engineering classes were non-native speakers of English also inhibited the students’ participation modes: I think I don’t have any chance to speak except some questions during the class, the professor not much asks the students to think, we just communicate using paper or the blackboard not much speaking, because in the engineering the majorities are non-native speakers. They are almost all international students, more than native speakers and also professor is not native speakers, that’s the strange situation in engineering area.

< previous page

page_97

next page >

< previous page

page_98

next page >

Page 98 The fact that the majority of the students in class were non-native English speakers made oral classroom participation more difficult, according to The Mechanical Engineer. Many international students were from different parts of the world, and spoke with such heavy accents that their English was unintelligible. Understanding someone with a strong Indian accent, for instance, could be more challenging than understanding American students for many Asian students. Therefore, The Mechanical Engineer preferred to withdraw from in-class discussion to avoid communication barriers. If the class is dominated by non-native speakers, it is hard to talk because … as somebody sometimes worried about if their questions are answered. Sometimes I could not understand their meaning so sometimes frustrated. He did feel comfortable actively participating in class if many Asian students were present. The Mechanical Engineer felt that besides the subject matter of the course, the instructor’s teaching style was of great importance in determining his oral classroom participation mode. He was most comfortable participating in classes when the instructor was inviting, friendly, and encouraging. If the instructor relied on transparencies or the textbook only, the class was often boring, but if the instructor gave a lot of examples with very concise and easy-tounderstand explanations, then he would feel like contributing to the discussion. However, The Mechanical Engineer was very self-confident in his special area, “Flight Control System.” He not only thought he was a specialist in that area, but he also felt that he had a lot of ideas in that area to contribute to class. What held him back sometimes in participation was his lack of vocabulary and his inability to “translate’’ his own language into English. But he did not care when he made mistakes if the question was something he really wanted to answer. In fact, as he revealed, he had felt uncomfortable if he made mistakes in speaking up in class in his native Korea, but his 3-year experience of studying in the United States convinced him that making mistakes was not that terrible: When I arrived in the United States, I realized that some American students sometimes asked stupid questions, but they don’t care. So when I made mistakes in speaking English in class sometimes, I don’t feel shameful either. Maybe this “take it easy” attitude eased his concern about making mistakes in speaking, which helped him participate actively on the subject matter of his interest. When he was willing to participate in the dis-

< previous page

page_98

next page >

< previous page

page_99

next page >

Page 99 cussion, he would not accept the professor’s explanation if he was not convinced. He would confine his participation style mainly to asking questions about the content of the class and usually saved technical questions about the assignment schedule and homework until after class. The Mechanical Engineer had a very interesting perspective on taking courses with American students versus taking courses with other international students. Apart from the fact that it was easier for him to understand American classmates than non-Asian international students, he felt it was easier to get high grades in courses such as mathematics without the intense competition from many co-nationals and other Asian students: In terms of grading, I prefer to take classes with Americans, especially in classes like mathematics. The more American students in class, the higher grade I can usually have because the mathematics skill in Asia is much higher. Admittedly, The Mechanical Engineer shared this insight with me by treating me as a cultural insider. In fact, as an ethnographer, I do believe that my Asian background helped me a lot in obtaining the emic perspective from my participants in the study. While this comment of his might be offensive to some, I appreciated his honesty. Clearly, he cared about grades as much as most Asian students do, and he could easily get by without much participation if he could get high grades in courses like mathematics with American peers. However, he felt unusually competitive when he described his feelings about taking courses like mathematics with many other Asian students. He thought that Asian students who took mathematics courses were normally high-achievers, so it was extremely hard to get a high grade without extra effort. But he also saw the advantage of taking courses with many Asian students. That is, he felt more relaxed in participation given his prior experience in West Virginia, and compared with many Asian students who were new arrivals in the United States, he found himself relatively more competent in speaking English in class. He confessed: Because as usual, international students have to pay more money and they are eager to study. They don’t have many chances to play; they have much time to study, so it is more hard to compete with them. But as far as English is considered, it is easier to take classes with more international students, because they don’t speak very well. To The Mechanical Engineer, the nature of the course was also an important factor affecting his participation mode. Even though the professor encouraged discussion in class, students could hardly be involved

< previous page

page_99

next page >

< previous page

page_100

next page >

Page 100 in discussion when the content of the course was related to abstract concepts, such as mathematics. According to him, “Mathematics is always unique, there is no opinions, no suggestions about mathematics. The question, if any, is always the mistakes in professor’s explanation of equations.” Oral classroom participation was, therefore, confined to true or false identification of the mathematics formula. In sum, The Mechanical Engineer’s participation mode was interest-driven. He sometimes participated very actively without worrying about the mistakes he made in speaking if the topic was of interest to him. Conversely, he sometimes did not care about participation when the topic of discussion was boring or irrelevant to him. He felt comfortable in classes with many American students for two reasons: he could get a higher grade, and he could understand them better. Nevertheless, he often felt inhibited in participation because he lacked the vocabulary to express himself as clearly as he should. Conversely, he felt uncomfortable in classes with many international students in general, and Asian students in particular, for two reasons: he felt it was difficult to get high grades in those classes due to the highly competitive atmosphere, and they were no better than he was in speaking English in class, so it was more difficult for him to understand their English. The Biophysicist (MPHDJ1) The Biophysicist came to the United States in 1990 as an undergraduate and spent 4 years in Birmingham Southern University in Alabama majoring in Physics. He enrolled as a Ph.D. student at Ohio State upon earning his B.A. degree. He had about 5 years’ experience teaching mathematics and science at a private tutoring school in Japan run by his father. His confidence level in English was not as high as it might have been after spending 4 years in college in the United States. He felt uncomfortable studying in an environment surrounded by native speakers of English, such as in a freshman composition course. Conversely, he felt much more at ease with other non-native speakers because his English was better than theirs. As he put it, “Asians always like to compare the abilities of ourselves to those of others.” The Biophysicist enjoyed his experience as a Ph.D. student at Ohio State. In his department, biophysics, there are usually two types of classes. Lecture-type classes often had up to 200 students, which made it almost impossible for students to participate. However, The Biophysicist also attended small seminars, usually with fewer than 20 students, in which oral classroom participation was highly encouraged. The Biophysicist felt relaxed enough to participate in this type of class whenever he wanted to and sometimes even forgot that he was a nonnative speaker. If the instructor did not give students enough opportu-

< previous page

page_100

next page >

< previous page

page_101

next page >

Page 101 nities to speak, The Biophysicist would simply interrupt the instructor as many American students do. He admits that he likes classroom participation. When I observed one of The Biophysicist’s classes, I arrived 10 minutes early and happened to see The Biophysicist when I got off the elevator. There were about five students in the classroom when we walked in. The Biophysicist took a front seat and I took a back seat in order to observe the class more clearly and to avoid being observed. One of the first five students to enter the class was a presenter in class that day. This Indian student had set up the overhead projector early and seemed very intent. A few minutes later, other students came in, taking seats randomly. It was not a surprise for me to see a few Chinese students walking in together and sitting together talking in Chinese until the class started. The Biophysicist informed me earlier that the class I was to observe was a seminar. All the graduate students at both the master’s and Ph.D. levels were required to take a seminar for ten consecutive courses. This was a 1-hour course and was offered every quarter. The course objective was to provide the graduates within the department a forum for exchanging the newest information and knowledge from recently published studies. Students were required to keep abreast of updated information through extensive reading of journal articles and reports, and then each student had to select something of interest to present in a pre-assigned time slot each week during the quarter. The students in this seminar were required to participate in the discussion of the presentation. As soon as the bell rang, the Indian student started his presentation. His topic was “Introduction to Fluorescence Lifetimes and Fluorescence Resolution of the Intrinsic Tryptophan Residues of Bovine Protein Tyrosyl Phosphatase,” a recent journal article. The presentation was well organized although the student had a very strong accent, which was difficult for me to understand. Later I found that The Biophysicist as well as many of his classmates who were non-native speakers encountered the same problem. The presenter spoke rapidly and used transparencies as an aid throughout his presentation. Only a few questions were asked. On one occasion, another Indian student asked the presenter to clarify a point, and the same student asked a follow-up question after the presenter answered his first one. On another occasion, the presenter paused for a minute and asked whether the class was following his presentation. An Asian student asked one question, and then a European student asked another. Both of these questions were thought to be important by the presenter. The presentation continued until the last minute of class, and there was no time left for discussion. However, the students’ facial expres-

< previous page

page_101

next page >

< previous page

page_102

next page >

Page 102 sions revealed their disappointment at not being given time for questions. There was no interactive atmosphere at all. Two handouts were distributed: one was a summary of the presentation, the other was a course requirement for the students in the department. There were altogether 22 students in the class, 11 of whom were Asians with 7 or 8 Chinese among them. To my great surprise, there was not a single American student in class. When I asked The Biophysicist about it, he told me that usually when there were a few American students in class, they would always ask many questions or help clarify some points when the presenters had trouble getting their meanings across, since most of the students were non-native speakers of English. The Biophysicist wanted to participate in classroom discussion on various occasions, but the opportunity always seemed to slip by because while he was thinking about the questions he wanted to ask, other students would ask the questions he had in mind. He told me after class that at one point he was struggling about whether the question in his mind was worth asking. If the presenter were his teacher, he would have the audacity to go ahead and interrupt him or her because he liked to challenge the teacher. Moreover, The Biophysicist could be very articulate when he asked questions, and he did not really care about his grammar mistakes when he spoke, but still he was hesitant before he opened his mouth. It was not his language problems that led to his silence in class; it was his caution in formulating a question, which he expected to demonstrate his knowledge or ability. The Biophysicist was, after all, more Americanized in many ways because he had spent his undergraduate years in the United States. However, his oral classroom participation mode is somewhat difficult to describe. He spoke very good English due to his 4 years in an American college and his participation was not affected by a sense of inferiority in English, which many other Asian students usually feel. He would not hesitate to point out mistakes in the lecture when he discovered any. To him, mistakes made by the professor usually serve as a trigger to his participation: ‘‘Whenever there is some disagreement between me and the professor, I would speak up.” This was not characteristic of Asian students, most of whom feel that it is impolite to confront the professor even when there is disagreement. For many Asian students, talking with the professor individually after class is more comfortable. The Biophysicist, on the other hand, is more straightforward, and this directness is due to his college experience in the United States. Another factor that facilitated his active role in oral classroom participation, as in the case of The Mechanical Engineer, was his interest in the subject matter discussed in class. If the topic interested him, he would keep talking. The pressure of speaking fluent English that he used to feel when he was at college no longer existed when he became a doctoral student.

< previous page

page_102

next page >

< previous page

page_103

next page >

Page 103 Interestingly, The Biophysicist saw participation and learning as two separate entities. To him, participation could be enjoyable and rewarding, but it did not necessarily equate with learning. Learning, in his view, was “just understanding the materials and memorizing some information.” As he further elaborated: If I participate well, I can understand what the teacher is talking about, but doesn’t mean we are learning very well. Some people participate the class very well, but actually they do not learn anything. They just talk with teachers. What is implied here is that students can sometimes understand the teacher well even without oral classroom participation. In order to participate, he thought that two things were important. One was “to get rid of the hesitation,” and the other was “to forget I am an international student.” However, sometimes he did not participate in class discussion simply because of the lack of adequate preparation. If he prepared for the class ahead of time, chances were that he felt more focused in participation. Like The Geo Scholar, The Biophysicist was very critical of the quality and relevance of questions raised by other students in class: I just check whether the question is suitable for class, or the appropriateness of the question level. If they ask some easy questions, I would wonder why they should ask such questions. However, The Biophysicist confessed that on many occasions he benefited from his classmates’ questions in that he would check whether the teacher’s answer was consistent with the one in his mind. If a discrepancy occurred, he would seize the opportunity to ask the teacher to clarify the point. Meanwhile, The Biophysicist was cautious in his oral classroom participation. He tended to think over and rephrase his ideas before he spoke in class, if time allowed, because he did not ‘‘want to make mistakes.” He felt that he could speak better than many other nonnative speakers due to his longer length of stay and learning experience in the United States. Recalling his earlier experience in Japan, The Biophysicist felt strongly that college life in Japan is no fun for Japanese students, as they are not supposed to ask questions in class: In Japan, we always think that the professor is superior to students, and we always think the materials taught by the teacher are correct. We could not argue with the professor, and we could not show our own opinions. If he were in Japan, he would be in trouble if he picked up the mistakes in professors’ lectures, as it would be considered culturally inap-

< previous page

page_103

next page >

< previous page

page_104

next page >

Page 104 propriate. Had he been educated in a Japanese college, he would not have had the courage to participate as much as he did in his content courses in the United States. Therefore, the cultural differences as well as the professors’ expectations of classroom participation in the native countries of many Asian students do influence their participation modes to a great extent. The length of his stay in the target culture coupled with his college experience in the United States have led The Biophysicist to see oral classroom participation as positive and necessary. However, his Japanese social identity and educational background held him back in actual oral classroom participation. When asked about what he perceived as the attitudes of native speakers of English toward their international peers, The Biophysicist thought that native speakers sometimes did not really understand how much non-native speakers knew, what their feelings were, or what they were thinking about due to their reticence in class. However, as The Biophysicist argued, the quiet behavior of many international students in class did not necessarily reflect a lack of thinking or understanding. The Biophysicist’s dual experience of learning in both Japan and the United States helped illustrate a very important aspect of classroom interaction and communication. As he pointed out, international students should speak up without worrying about their grammatical errors, because they would get help from those peers who were native speakers of English. In fact, the things non-native speakers were most concerned about, such as grammar and usage, are not that important to native speakers as long as the content can be understood. But if international students do not speak up in class, American students have no chance to understand what they think. In sum, The Biophysicist’s prior college experience in the United States enabled him to confidently participate in class provided that the classroom environment was facilitative for oral participation, that the instructor encouraged participation, that he was well prepared for class, and that he was interested in the subject matter. What concerned him the most in participation was not his language skills but his preparedness for the class as well as his interest level. He believed that active classroom participation among non-native speakers could help their native-speaking peers in class understand them and be able to help them better. Although oral classroom participation does not equate with learning, oral participation does facilitate meaningful learning through dynamic classroom interaction. The Political Science Teacher (MMAI3) The Political Science Teacher graduated from a teacher’s college in western Indonesia in the Department of Moral Education in 1985. After

< previous page

page_104

next page >

< previous page

page_105

next page >

Page 105 working as a moral education teacher in a local Indonesian college, he received his M.A. in General Education in 1990. He continued to teach moral education and some other social science courses at a college. A solemn-looking man, The Political Science Teacher gave the impression of seriousness, but he was very gentlehearted. He considered himself rather introverted. In his own words, “I’m a silent person and I don’t talk a lot in daily life.” Recalling his English learning experience, he sighed and said regretfully: I first started learning English in Junior High School, and actually I like it very much. Unfortunately, my teacher sometimes did not use good methods in teaching, so I was unlucky in not learning English very much in both junior and senior high schools. So my English ability was very poor when I graduated from senior high school. And when at college of education, maybe, the English courses are very limited. Although I took English class every semester, my English ability had not been improved a lot. His experience as a graduate student at Ohio State, however, changed his attitude about learning English. He liked the campus environment, the facilities and resources, and the class atmosphere. What amazed him the most was that instructors were helpful and employed innovative and communicative teaching methods. His appreciation of both the educational environment and the professors motivated him to try to be active in class by asking questions and sharing his experiences and opinions. He struggled to make his ideas clear to the class, and was sometimes hesitant to participate; when he participated, he usually kept sentences short and the meaning simple. He attributed his hesitancy to both language barriers and the composition of the class: Actually I want to speak to participate in class discussion, but sometimes I have English difficulties, so I hesitate to express my ideas. If overall members of classmates are more international students than American students, I would feel less hesitant to speak up. Due to his introverted personality and his lack of confidence in speaking English, he was usually very quiet in class, but he was highly engaged in his thinking. Whenever he could not follow the lecture, he would look confused, at which point a sensitive instructor would have to stop and ask him whether he had questions, and he would always say yes. He could not make himself understood very well due to his heavy accent, and he sometimes felt inhibited when what he expressed was greeted with some puzzled faces in class. But if he was given adequate time and his classmates were patient, he could make very good points.

< previous page

page_105

next page >

< previous page

page_106

next page >

Page 106 What held him back from active participation was lack of English speaking abilities. Nevertheless, he made an effort “to try to participate in every class.” His participation mode was dependent on his comprehension of as well as his interest in the subject matter under discussion. However, there was another interesting and yet understandable factor: Because almost all the courses which I take require the students to speak, to give opinions, and maybe participation in class is one of the requirements for grading. So I try to speak in every class. Admittedly, he would not participate as much if it were not required, and he did so only in certain discussion formats, such as seminars. Perhaps as a teacher himself, it was both his professional sensitivity and sense of responsibility that motivated him to try to do what was expected. He would always do what the teacher asked him to do: In one of my courses, the professor asked the students to prepare questions at home. I read the book chapters earlier, and then prepared the questions and opinions. So when I came to the class, I was well prepared. Whether he was required to participate or he volunteered to participate, he perceived the benefits in participation as threefold: improving his spoken English ability, exchanging opinions and ideas with others, and building his selfconfidence. To him, the most essential factor determining his participation mode was his preparation for class. He would feel conscience-stricken if he came to class without doing the assignment. This again was closely related to his sensitivity as a moral education instructor. Doing whatever he was required to do as a student was a true reflection of what he had been preaching: moral principles and proper behavior: I want my professor to know that it’s my intrinsic motive that I want to ask and express my ideas. And I am interested in the topic, for example, the content, and want my professor know that I care about what they talk about and they can trust me that I understand and participate in this class. When he was a student back in Indonesia, The Political Science Teacher was a very active participant in classroom discussions, but in the United States, he experienced discomfort and shyness when he had to repeat what he said until he could be understood. Therefore, the reaction others had toward his participation sometimes made him feel embarrassed and ashamed. In order to compensate for his weakness in speaking clearly in class, he tried to go over the question he was about to

< previous page

page_106

next page >

< previous page

page_107

next page >

Page 107 ask several times or even “write the question down” if he was not sure about it. To him, lower-quality questions would have already been deleted through this mental process, so all the questions he eventually asked would have been well prepared in one way or another. This reduced his overall participation, but it also protected him from losing face. About taking classes with more American students versus with more international students, The Political Science Teacher had this to say: There are both advantages and disadvantages for me. For example, I have some advantages for the classes with a lot of Americans in the class. Although they speak fast, I can learn about speaking, little by little and step by step, I understand the style of their speaking. The disadvantages of this kind of this class is that sometimes I do not have the confidence participating because I am sometimes shy and worry about my English. But if in this class, there are a lot of Indonesian students as well as Asian students, non-native speakers, I feel more comfortable participating in this type of class. Unfortunately sometimes we are not speaking English in class. We speak Indonesian among my group. This view was not uncommon among Asian students. They tend to stay within their own ethnic community, speaking their native language, and exchanging strategies to get good grades in courses. Central to these behaviors is the issue of cultural identity and in-group solidarity. These students feel that they would become alienated if they kept speaking English rather than their own language in their own community. As The Political Science Teacher realized, “We feel awkward not to use our own language when only we Indonesians are together.’’ The problem is that while these students are well aware of the importance of speaking English, they would rather use their own language to maintain group harmony and reflect their own cultural identities. Due to the lack of opportunities to speak English with in-group members, The Political Science Teacher could not improve his English speaking skills as much as he expected. He experienced both supportive and unsupportive attitudes from American peers when he participated in class: Usually all the American peers, whether elementary or high school teachers, they are very supportive. Sometimes I asked them how to spell and how to pronounce a word; for example, they would help me and help my friends. But some younger or less experienced teachers are not very supportive. If we talk, they are not very friendly. And maybe it is not only my feeling but from my Indonesian friends. They have the same feeling. Some of the Americans had surprising attitudes because of our English.

< previous page

page_107

next page >

< previous page

page_108

next page >

Page 108 In the class I observed, all 15 students were from Indonesia. The professor invited the students to discuss the implementation issues of the Professional Development School in Indonesia. Although the overall discussion was lively, The Political Science Teacher remained silent the entire time. According to him, this was a bit unusual, as he always tried to say something in class. It so happened that one of his fellow Indonesian students contributed ideas to the class that The Political Scientist shared. Then he tried to come up with another observation, but due to the time limitations, he was not able to share it. In sum, The Political Science teacher was a potentially good participant in class. Had he not worried about his speaking ability, he would have been more active in speaking up in class. Although the overall environment was facilitative for oral classroom participation among non-native speakers, he felt uncomfortable because of some negative attitudes of a few American peers. His sense of responsibility associated with his profession as an instructor of moral principles played a major role in his classroom participation in terms of his motivation and persistence. His confession that it would be very easy for him to keep within his own ethnic community made him wonder how he was going to improve his English speaking skills. The five participants classified in this pattern (Conditional Interaction) whose oral classroom participation modes were somewhat active were all male students, but from four different countries. Their interchangeable modes in oral classroom participation can be accounted for by various reasons. For The Geo Scholar, his mode of participation depended on whether he thought the question he was to ask was of high quality because he was more concerned about what other classmates would think about him than about how he could benefit from asking the question. Heavily influenced by the cultural belief that students’ proper classroom behavior was being silent and that questions should be based on the textbook, The Ecologist’s oral classroom participation mode was determined by his comfort level in class and his judgment of the relevance of his questions to the text. The Mechanical Engineer, like The Biophysicist, seemed to let his participation mode be decided by his interest level in the subject matter under discussion. However, The Biophysicist’s prior learning experience as an undergraduate in a U.S. university enabled him to be confident in classroom participation. His thorough preparation for class also allowed him to point out mistakes the instructors made in class, which would have been totally inappropriate in Asian culture. Interestingly, The Political Science Teacher, though not comfortable in speaking up in his content courses because of his language abilities, felt obligated to participate in class due to a sense of responsibility as he used to be a teacher himself back in Indonesia. The salient perceptions of the five participants in this (Conditional Interaction) pattern are summarized in Table 3.2.

< previous page

page_108

next page >

< previous page

page_109

next page >

Page 109 Table 3.2 Perceptions of Oral Classroom Participation in Pattern 2 Participants Perceptions Benefits/Concerns The Geo Scholar 1. A way to demonstrate and confirm one’s knowledge by asking high-qualityCognitive (MMAC2) questions and raising thought-provoking issues to stimulate discussion 2. Not a way to ask easy questions that can be found in the textbook or that Cognitive might be more appropriate to ask after class. 3. The quality, not quantity, of the participation should be of concern Sociocultural 4. A way to demonstrate one’s preparedness for class Pedagogical 5. To show one’s ability to synthesize what is going on in class Cognitive 6. A way to exchange ideas Sociocultural 7. A way to correct mistakes and check comprehension Linguistic The Ecologist 8. A way to exchange and share opinions with classmates Sociocultural (MPHDC4) 9. A way to improve English speaking abilities and listening comprehension Linguistic 10. Asking questions in big classes wastes others’ time Sociocultural 11. Asking too many questions is rude behavior Sociocultural The Mechanical 12. Participation is not as important as getting a good grade Sociocultural Engineer (MMAK1) 13. An opportunity to elaborate on something of interest Cognitive The Biophysicist 14. Participation does not equal learning Pedagogical (MPHDJ1)

< previous page

page_109

next page >

< previous page Page 110

Participants

The Political Science Teacher (MMAI3)

page_110 Perceptions 15. A way to check the instructor’s answer against one’s own 16. Nonparticipation does not equal a lack of thinking or understanding 17. An opportunity to improve English, especially speaking

next page > Benefits/Concerns Cognitive Cognitive Linguistic

18. An opportunity to exchange opinions with other Sociocultural classmates 19. A way to build self-confidence Affective Table 3.2 indicates that these five somewhat active participants in Pattern 2, Conditional Interaction, generated 19 salient perceptions of oral classroom participation. Unlike the perceptions generated in Pattern 1, Total Integration, which are all positive, some of the perceptions by the participants classified in this pattern are negative (i.e., 10, 11, 14, and 16). These perceptions can be classified into five categories as shown in Chart 3.2: cognitive, sociocultural, linguistic, pedagogical, and affective. This suggests that the overall perceptions (both positive and negative) of oral classroom participation held by the five participants in this pattern are multiple (i.e., cognitive, sociocultural, linguistic, pedagogical, and affective), overlapping (e.g., 9 and 17 and 6, 8, and 18), and interrelated. For instance, asking low-quality questions is considered a waste of others’ time (10), and rude behavior (11) as participation does not equate with learning (14), and active thinking can occur without participation (16). Chart 3.2 demonstrates the multiple relationships among these perceptions. Pattern 3: Marginal Participation Five participants, The Ex. Physiologist from China (MPHDC1), The Chemical Engineer from Taiwan (MMAT1), The Consumer Scientist from China (FPHDK2), The Nutritionist from Korea (FPHDK5), and The Counselor from Japan (FMAJ3), were classified within this pattern of marginal participation. These students seldom contributed to class discussion or asked questions in their content courses. They kept their classroom participation to a minimum.

< previous page

page_110

next page >

< previous page

page_111

next page >

Page 111 Chart 3.2 Perceptions of Classroom Participation Among Five Participants in Pattern 2: Conditional Interaction

The Ex. Physiologist (MPHDC1) The Ex. Physiologist, a young man with thick glasses, studied biology in China in the Biology Department in Shandong University as an undergraduate. He received his M.A. in Physical Education, majoring in exercise biochemistry at Beijing University. After doing laboratory research for several years upon receiving his master’s degree, The Ex. Physiologist enrolled in the Physical Education Department at The Ohio State University as a Ph.D. student in September 1994. The first time I observed the Ex. Physiologist, I talked with the professor briefly and then sat in the back row. As soon as the bell rang, the professor started talking. The topic of discussion was the historical development of theoretical and experimental study of dehydration. There were about 11 students altogether, all of whom were American except for The Ex. Physiologist. The professor started the class by dis-

< previous page

page_111

next page >

< previous page

page_112

next page >

Page 112 tributing handouts to the students. With the aid of transparencies that were written in different colors, the professor walked the students through the literature on dehydration. To my surprise, even I, who did not have any background knowledge on the topic, could follow the lecture well. The professor used some examples for illustration. At several points, he stopped for comprehension checks, and several students asked questions that were immediately, although briefly, answered by the teacher. For instance, the professor asked questions like “Does everyone follow me?” and he would call on several students if there were no volunteers. The entire class was conducted in a lecture format, and the students seemed to be a bit bored and were not very active in communication. The class finished on time and the students did not show any excitement when the class was over. The Ex. Physiologist did not utter a single word in the class, and he did not feel the need to participate. On the one hand, he was familiar with the content the teacher introduced in class, so he did not have any questions to ask. In a way, he was reviewing in English what he had learned in Chinese. On the other hand, he could avoid revealing his weakness in speaking by not participating in class. What he cared about most was the content knowledge. In his earlier interview, he revealed that the Chinese cultural concept of “listening attentively” as a priority for students in class had a great impact on him. When he was a teacher in China, he encouraged his students to ask questions, but usually no one did and he had no problems with that. So it was natural for him to assume the role of a good listener when he became a student himself. He did admit that sometimes the teacher would call on him and he had to give his opinion. He was not comfortable being pushed, but he appreciated the attention the professor paid to him, and he understood the benefits of participating in class and was willing to make a change in his classroom behavior from being a passive listener to an active participant. He also realized the importance of improving his listening and speaking abilities in English. Although The Ex. Physiologist was usually very quiet in class, he saw classroom participation as a way to get information through his classmates’ comments: I think I prefer to listen because usually seminars are focused on discussion about the current research in my area, thus I can have a general idea of what is going on in my major area. In seminar, people will present their own research issues, their research plans, suggestions, ideas so I’ll have enough information concerning my major area. To The Ex. Physiologist, listening and absorbing ideas from his classmates was comfortable and fulfilling. He occasionally participated in class discussion when he was asked to do so by his professors. When he

< previous page

page_112

next page >

< previous page

page_113

next page >

Page 113 spoke, however, he was very worried about his language ability as he realized that he was unable to match the speed and fluidity of his native-speaking classmates: In discussion, they speak much faster than what the teacher speaks in the lecture. So you can catch up the professor in class, but you may feel yourself lost in discussion. Sometimes you even don’t know what they are talking about. It is frustrating. The Ex. Physiologist’s anxiety in participation was caused by his lack of English speaking and listening abilities. His experience in language learning back in China had not been very positive. Although he achieved a fairly good TOEFL (610) and GRE (1999) scores, he admitted that he had a lot of trouble in spoken English. ‘‘Had I had no language problem, I would have no trouble participating in class discussion,” he confessed. When asked what he did when he was in M.A. seminars back in China, he smiled, and then added, “ If I were allowed to use Chinese in discussion, I would not only participate, but also contribute a lot to discussion.” The problem is his English. His poor listening and speaking abilities also affected him as an international teaching associate (ITA). It was obvious that the only way to reduce his anxiety in teaching and his sense of insecurity in class participation was to improve his English. He felt ashamed of the fact that he often asked his students to repeat what they said or to simply slow down for him. He avoided classroom participation to conceal his weakness in speaking, and as a result, his lack of participation decreased his opportunities to improve his speaking abilities through practice. Sometimes he felt that there was a miscommunication between his adviser and himself in some classes. His adviser encouraged him to participate as often as possible, but he did not have the courage to tell his adviser exactly what his problems were. He thought his adviser might be aware of his problems, but he deflected his concerns: At the very beginning of this semester when we were having a discussion, all the native speakers spoke very fast, and my adviser asked me: “Can you understand what we are talking about?” and I said, “Yes.” Did he really understand? “No,” he confessed. But why would he say “yes” when he actually meant “no”? Again, this is related to Asian culture. In Asia, people are usually very polite especially within the hierarchical relationships such as that of teacher and student. Students would be ashamed to admit that they did not know what they were supposed to know when the teacher asked them a question. What usually happened was that the student would say yes to whatever he or she did not

< previous page

page_113

next page >

< previous page

page_114

next page >

Page 114 really understand and later on find out the answer. In The Ex. Physiologist’s case, he might have been better off if he had admitted to his adviser that he did not understand what the discussion was about. In concealing his weakness to avoid embarrassment, he failed to get the help that he needed from his adviser. What he did was completely understandable and explainable through the Asian concept of face-saving, which will be discussed in the following chapter. The Ex. Physiologist was very knowledgeable in his content area, but his English language skills did not allow him to communicate effectively in a classroom setting. Only on one occasion did he try to ask questions or participate in discussion: when he was extremely well prepared for class. Regardless of his inactive role in classroom participation, The Ex. Physiologist’s attitude toward oral classroom participation was in general positive, although he drew a distinction between necessary participation and unnecessary participation: I think participation can enlarge the scope of the topic. Some points might not be mentioned without discussion. So I think through students’ participation, we can understand a certain topic better and deeper. However, some questions asked in class, such as “Where is this formula?” is unnecessary if the student read the assignment. To me, participation has to be meaningful. According to The Ex. Physiologist, many Asian students including himself participate in class discussion only when it is required by the professor and is counted in the overall grading for the course. If participation is a “must” in order to get an “A” in class, he would either write down the questions before class and ask what he had prepared or ask short spontaneous questions to meet the participation requirement. When he had real questions in class, he would carefully rephrase them in his mind several times, although on many occasions, such prolonged mental preparation resulted in his question being asked by other students before he had the chance. When that happened, The Ex. Physiologist preferred discussing the issues with some of his classmates or the professor after class. Apart from his poor speaking abilities, The Ex. Physiologist felt strongly that his cultural background largely affected his reticence in class. As he recalled: In China, classroom participation is not common. In undergraduate courses, the first two years in particular, there are about one to two hundred students in a class, so participation and discussion is not possible. Students have questions, but they usually ask them after class. Sometimes, the teacher will arrange time for questions at a

< previous page

page_114

next page >

< previous page

page_115

next page >

Page 115 special session. Only in graduate courses, sometimes discussions are encouraged. I think, in general, teachers in China are not good at encouraging students in class discussion and participation. They usually lecturing, and students just listening. The Ex. Physiologist pointed out that the traditional Chinese educational system encourages students to be passive absorbers of knowledge imparted by their teachers who are authorities in the students’ eyes. Even though students have different opinions or concepts than their teachers, they will usually avoid direct confrontation. When it is necessary to differ, students usually talk privately with the teacher after class. Although in the last decade or so, such traditions have been challenged with the influence of western cultures, being polite to teachers is still a vital moral principle in Chinese culture. Coming from this cultural background, The Ex. Physiologist felt a bit uneasy in the first few classes he took with American students who asked a lot of questions in class, some of which the professor had to admit that he could not answer. It took quite a while for The Ex. Physiologist to realize that even though he was not an active participant himself, he benefited from his classmates’ participation. In sum, The Ex. Physiologist’s perceptions of oral classroom participation were positive. However, two major factors accounted for his inactive oral classroom participation mode: his lack of confidence in speaking English in class and his Chinese cultural concept that a good student should “listen attentively.’’ The Chemical Engineer (MMAT1) The Chemical Engineer is a young man with many questions, but he never asked them in content classes. Serious and with thick-rimmed glasses, The Chemical Engineer is attentive, conscientious, and meditative. A 1991 graduate of the National Taiwan University with a B.A. in Chemical Engineering, The Chemical Engineer served in the military for a couple of years and worked for 1 year in a profession totally unrelated to his major before he came to the United States. As a language learner, he felt that he was very good at reading because he had used a lot of English textbooks in Taiwan. He was very cautious in selecting his major and he was not sure whether he would continue pursuing his Ph.D. upon completion of his master’s degree. He was also worried about his grades in his graduate courses as he was pressured to take four courses but had difficulty understanding his professors. Being a graduate student at OSU was a challenge to him. He was frustrated with campus life and the quarter system. In his opinion, the quarter system has two main drawbacks: one is that teachers teach less and students learn less; the other is that teachers teach in one quarter what

< previous page

page_115

next page >

< previous page

page_116

next page >

Page 116 is supposed to be taught in a semester. His poor English speaking ability aggravated the situation. In the interviews I conducted with him, he asked me several times if he could speak Chinese; when I agreed, he never stopped speaking Chinese with me. Of course, he felt at home in expressing his resentment and dissatisfaction to me in his own language. He told me that because of the heavy course load required by the department, he only wanted to survive by catching up with reading and following the lectures. He seldom participated in class, but when he did, he asked questions only for clarification to make sure that he followed the instructor. Whenever he could, he preferred “to ask questions after class because the time in class is precious,” and the questions he asked were mainly related to the homework assignments. In addition, consideration of others’ time in class and reliance on the textbook had an impact on his participation modes in class. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the importance of participation, believing that if students did not participate in class, the professor would not get to know them personally. Based upon his limited experiences as a student taking classes in his own major, The Mechanical Engineer preferred that teachers initiate and encourage discussion because: In discussion I can benefit from others’ questions which I have not thought of before, and we can thus check our potential answers with that of the professor. Because of the stress caused by his heavy course load, The Mechanical Engineer was always in low spirits, complaining about the amount of work he had to do every day and worrying about his grades. Because of his own miserable experience, he felt that all new international graduate students should take fewer courses when they first arrive. Unlike many other Asian students who did not participate in class discussion because of their concern about their lack of speaking abilities, The Mechanical Engineer did not seem to care too much about his English even though he was obviously not a good speaker. He believed that being a non-native speaker, it was excusable to make some grammatical errors in speaking, “because everybody knows that I am a foreign student.” This excuse allowed him to avoid speaking English in class. Instead, whenever possible, he would speak Chinese to other Chinese students either in small group discussion or between classes simply because “it won’t take me too much time to communicate with them.” Whenever The Mechanical Engineer had trouble understanding the instructor, he would simply “give up listening and go home and study hard,’’ or discuss the topic with his classmates after class in Chinese. He did not care much about the lesson type as long as he could pass the course.

< previous page

page_116

next page >

< previous page

page_117

next page >

Page 117 When I told him that I would like to observe one of his classes, he was very enthusiastic and helpful in giving me his course schedules, his course syllabi, and his instructors’ e-mail addresses. When I showed up in one of his classes, he introduced me to his instructor and talked with me during the break to make me feel comfortable. As expected, he did not participate in the discussion as the class was a lecture on some chemical formulas. He followed me after class and complained in Chinese that the class was boring and since there were more than 40 students in it, he did not feel comfortable asking any questions. And he added that he had a few questions, but just did not feel like asking them in class. In sum, The Mechanical Engineer was not an active oral classroom participant at all. He had problems adjusting to the quarter system in American higher education and found his heavy course load stressful. His passive role in oral classroom participation was not directly related to his inability to speak English, but rather was due to a lack of enthusiasm because of his heavy course load. The Consumer Scientist (FPHDK2) The Consumer Scientist went to Yuhua University, Women’s University, in Korea for her B.A., M.A. and Ph.D., majoring in Family Resource Management. However, she did only 1 year of Ph.D. course work in Korea before she transferred into the Ph.D. program in Consumer Science at Ohio State. She did not have prior work experience except that she had done some practice teaching as an undergraduate. Quiet and introverted, The Consumer Scientist was a serious student. She did not think highly of herself as a language learner because she was reluctant to communicate with Americans or with people in general. Although she was confident about her reading skills, her speaking and writing skills bothered her a lot. The Consumer Scientist’s ambition upon receiving her Ph.D. was to become a university professor in Korea. She enjoyed being a student at Ohio State due to its excellent educational system, graduate programs, and learning environment. She was a diligent student and was never late for class. When she took my ESL Composition class, she was always the first student in the classroom. Whenever I arrived in class, I would see her sitting in the corner, either reading the textbook or proofreading the assignment she was to hand in. A careful note-taker and attentive listener, she always tried to do her best on her assignments and homework, and yet she was very quiet in class. Participation to the Consumer Scientist was a matter of teaching style. It depended on the instructor, and the students could only do what the teacher’s style allowed them to do: I think the main responsibility is on the teachers. Some teachers in the last quarter in my major classes encouraged us to think more and

< previous page

page_117

next page >

< previous page

page_118

next page >

Page 118 more about the main subject. In this case, the students wanted to talk about the subject more and more. The other instructors just lectured all the time and there is no response, no questions. In a class I observed in her major, the teacher kept talking all the time. Although there were fewer than 10 students, no opportunities were given for class discussion, and no one in class seemed to care. As I recall, the only chance the professor gave the students to speak was to ask them whether they had any questions. Only two brief questions were asked regarding the assignment and the reading schedule, respectively, which the professor answered without elaboration. The Consumer Scientist did not say anything in this class, and she told me later that usually in lecturetype classes, she kept quiet. Unlike some Asian students in this study (e.g., The Biophysicist, The Ex. Physiologist, or The Mechanical Engineer) who would ask questions only when they were well prepared for their classes, The Consumer Scientist had a different perspective: I think it depends. Because if I prepared well the lecture, I could have no question about that, and so I have no question, and so if I didn’t prepare anything about the teacher’s lecture, I can have some questions. Her lack of questions after preparation was a result of her ability to find answers to the questions through reading. She was very self-disciplined and her persistence usually led to her discovery of the answer. To her, questions derived from reading motivated her to search for answers, and that was what preparation was all about. She was so disciplined that she simply would not allow herself to go to the class unprepared. The irony was that, consequently, she had no questions to ask and so she would not participate in class actively at all. Despite her inactive role in class, she did see participation as an effective way to communicate with the instructor: In oral classroom participation, there are usually open questions and so all the students in the classroom can hear what is the question and the teacher can catch what is the exact questions and so we can communicate with the teacher very effectively. In addition to her lack of questions to ask in class as a result of her thorough preparation, she had some concerns about her communicative competence. She was sometimes worried that the instructor might not understand her if she participated in class. Obviously, she lacked self-confidence in her speaking ability. When she had something to ask, she would often ask after class:

< previous page

page_118

next page >

< previous page

page_119

next page >

Page 119 I sometimes ask professor questions after class, yes, after class … usually we have enough time … because usually class time is very short, only 40 or 50 minutes, and also I feel more relaxed. I don’t need to care about what other people will think about me. While talking with me in an interview, she stated that her lack of confidence in speaking English was originally caused by the negative reactions she experienced when she first came to the United States. Although she tried, she found it hard to express herself in class and she was afraid that other students would fault her English: I had no pride and I was not sure whether I should really participate in the class or not, and I was worried about whether I could understand the professor exactly or not, I was not sure at all if other people could understand my English. As a compensation strategy for the lack of oral participation in class, The Consumer Scientist studied very hard by herself. She was used to studying alone and understanding the readings by herself. Her initial attempts to try to participate in class were discouraged by her poor English speaking skills, and she found it more comfortable to rely on her learning style—thorough preparation and attentive listening in class—which had been successful when she was in Korea. She was very alert to others’ questions and answers and compared the answers from either the professor in class or her classmates with her own. If a discrepancy occurred, she would jot down notes and try to talk with the professor after class. The Consumer Scientist associated her reticence in class in the United States with her experience as a student in high school and college in Korea, where respect to the teacher demanded that students not ask too many questions in class and not ask questions without raising their hands. They should not dominate the discussion unless requested to do so by the teacher. The teacher is the boss who controls everything in class, and to be a good student, one should do what the teacher required. In Korea, there are two different ways. One is the respect, I mean, one is formal and one is informal. Whenever we ask a question, we should use the respect one. For instance, we cannot say to teacher as “you.” We don’t say “you” to the teacher. In sum, The Consumer Scientist was a serious learner whose inactive role in classroom participation was due to her cultural belief that one should show respect for the teacher by not talking too much in class. Her thorough preparation as a compensation strategy for building her self-confidence resulted in her silence in class though she was very

< previous page

page_119

next page >

< previous page

page_120

next page >

Page 120 active in thinking in class. Her English speaking ability was a contributing factor, but she firmly believed that it was the teaching style that determined the participation mode of the students, herself included. The Nutritionist (FPHDK5) The Nutritionist graduated from a women’s college in Korea in 1990 with a B.A. in human nutrition. She studied for her M.A. there in the same major and received it 2 years later. She worked as a lab assistant in another Korean university while applying to graduate programs in American universities. Although she was admitted to the College of Agriculture at Ohio State as a Ph.D. student in 1993, she postponed her matriculation until the fall of 1994 because of a motorcycle accident. She believed that the accident still affected her in that she was sometimes emotionally fragile and extremely homesick. The Nutritionist was very quiet and extremely polite. She spoke in a soft tone and always thought for a moment before she spoke. Although she was often unsure of her English speaking ability, she spoke English very well because she had taken courses in an ESL program in another American university for half a year after she quit her job as a lab assistant. She sometimes was upset with herself for being quiet in America, because she had not been that way in Korea. Her account of this hybrid personality reveals her inner thoughts: I don’t think I am very active and also not very quiet. I think I tend to be more active, because intentionally, just be quiet is not good to study abroad. Actually, I learn how to be active in Korea, but, um … I think in Korea, I was more active than now because in Korea, I have family and I have friends so it was not very hard to adjust to be very active. But here, um … everything was new, and it just takes time to adjust to this environment and all the systems and I had to make some friends also. And also there is no relatives here so it is very hard. The first time I came here I was really depressed or upset, because even though I learned English in the United States, it was not perfect so I also had language barrier. If I were more active, maybe the time to adjust would be quicker and shorter. The Nutritionist clearly expressed her desire to be active in the new environment, and yet she was aware that it took effort: obviously, cultural adjustment takes self-initiative. Facing difficulties in listening, The Nutritionist challenged herself by bringing a tape recorder to lectures and listening to the recordings again and again until she understood what the professor talked about. She considered listening to lectures a way to practice her listening comprehension, and she believed that the

< previous page

page_120

next page >

< previous page

page_121

next page >

Page 121 listening skills she acquired through lecture-type classes would help her to eventually participate in class. She liked professors who used clarification and confirmation checks in class, although she seldom asked the questions she had “because if I say something, I feel like bothering other students.” Friendly and approachable, The Nutritionist always tried to maintain a good relationship with her classmates and her instructors. In class, she was an attentive listener, to compensate for her lack of speaking, and she was very expressive, nodding her head and smiling to indicate her understanding and agreement and frowning and shaking her head to indicate her puzzlement or disagreement. As I recall from my class observation, The Nutritionist maintained constant eye contact with the professor, and her face expressed her understanding, bewilderment, or satisfaction. She engaged in conversation only with an American female student sitting next to her at the end of the class. Although the class was a lecture type, many students participated in the discussion about their observations of people on diets, initiated by the professor. The Nutritionist expressed two main reasons for her reluctance to participate after my observation: poor understanding and difficulty in expressing herself in class: First of all, I did not understand the purpose of the discussion, and secondly, I don’t know how to say and how to ask them, and how to express my idea very appropriately. Besides, I think I don’t feel like I belong to class. I mean, maybe without any mention, because the professor talks most of the time. Apart from these two reasons, she also thought that the fact that she was not familiar with her classmates inhibited her participation. She associated her reticence in class with her earlier college experiences in Korea where professors usually treated the students as passive knowledge absorbers, believing that limited class time should be used for knowledge enhancement via lectures. When she had questions in class, The Nutritionist sought help from her classmates before she asked the professor after class. Although she seldom participated in class, The Nutritionist did see its benefit: Sometimes other students will say the question what I have, so even though I didn’t ask my question, they can ask, then I can get some knowledge from them. To her, the active participation of other students helped her to clarify her ideas and answer her questions. She could get by without uttering a sound, but she felt “lonely’’ and had a sense of detachment or alien-

< previous page

page_121

next page >

< previous page

page_122

next page >

Page 122 ation—in her own words, “not belonging to the class.” Therefore, deep in her heart she wanted to participate, but she did not have enough confidence in her speaking ability. Sometimes, she had questions or answers, and knew exactly what she wanted to say, but she was worried that the other students might not understand her. Due to her lack of participation in class, she was also concerned about her self-image in class. As she put it, “My classmates would think, ‘Oh, she doesn’t have any question or she is very silent and quiet.’” To compensate for her silence in class and to get answers to her questions not addressed in class, The Nutritionist relied on study groups after class where she could exchange her ideas and discuss issues with her classmates. She also preferred to confer with professors after class about things she was not sure of: Professors understand that I am a foreign student so he will understand I am afraid asking him during class. So he explained very clearly. If I ask if it’s true or not, he said directly: “It’s true, because there are two reasons: One is this and the other is that.” So if he said like that, I can understand very much. And also I can ask some of my ideas into the two reasons. So when I said my opinion, he said: “All right, your idea is right,’’ so I can give respond and I can make sure upon what I thought. To The Nutritionist, one-on-one help from the professor was a more concrete and direct way to get answers to her personal questions. She believed that the professor, realizing that she was a foreign student, would use “foreigner talk” or “teacher talk,” which made her feel more comfortable and taken care of. Even if she were unable to express her ideas well when talking with her professor after class, she would not necessarily regard it as negative. Instead, she would feel encouraged to try another time. Interestingly, The Nutritionist felt that talking with professors in the United States was much easier than talking with professors in Korea. She felt less restricted and more relaxed in the United States: In Korea, I have to be polite always. When I meet with my professor, I bow, and I always try to use very polite language and I have to be very nice to them and this is really very hard. I cannot ask very directly and I cannot against their opinion. So when I have an idea I have to be careful when I explain. But here I can explain directly, maybe they can more understand because if I say something not directly, they could not catch my point. So I like it. There were many native speakers of English in the content classes The Nutritionist took at Ohio State. She felt very comfortable speaking English with them after class and regarded it as a good chance to prac-

< previous page

page_122

next page >

< previous page

page_123

next page >

Page 123 tice her listening comprehension. Talking with native English speakers made her feel “very confident” about herself. She felt awkward talking with her co-nationals in English as they codeswitched (i.e., speaking English and Korean back and forth) all the time, and gradually their conversations would be Korean only. However, in communicating with native speakers, she had no choice but to speak in English. Evidently, The Nutritionist, although inactive in participating in class, had the potential to speak up in class as her English improved. She was highly motivated to improve her English speaking skills, to adapt to the target culture, and to increase her knowledge in her field. With her background as a student in a women’s school and women’s university in Korea, The Nutritionist had unique perspectives on the role of female college students in Korea, which, in her opinion, was a major cause of her reticence in class. As she recalled: As a student in Women’s University, I don’t know other school, and I don’t know about men’s ideas, but usually Korean woman is very passive and they are also afraid of asking questions to the professor. But they are very good in exam. But I don’t think they are good in participation in classes. I know they study really hard and I am sure they have a lot of questions but they prefer to exchange their ideas just with the other students. The Nutritionist did not use “I” in describing her educational experience in the women’s university. She intentionally pulled herself out by using “they” to distance herself from being directly associated with ‘‘them,” her former cohorts in Korea. Her deliberate rhetorical choice could be an indication of her strong motivation for acculturation to the target culture. Having been a student in a women’s school and a women’s college did prepare The Nutritionist to be a polite and sensitive student, and she admitted that the women’s college produced quiet, responsible, and competitive students. But, as she later confessed, after spending time at a coeducational U.S. university, she became aware of the disadvantages of single-sex education. She felt that going to school with males would have prepared her better to actively participate in class: From the first time I had to choose university, I think it doesn’t matter the school with men or women. But after graduating I realized just studying with other men would be better to develop personality and social skills. If I were a governor in education, maybe I will definitely make all the schools mixed. In sum, The Nutritionist did not participate actively in her content courses for several reasons: her lack of comprehension and speaking ability, her inhibition toward being aggressive in class as influenced by

< previous page

page_123

next page >

< previous page

page_124

next page >

Page 124 her being a student in a Korean women’s school and a women’s college, and her unfamiliarity with her classmates. In spite of her inactive participation mode in class, The Nutritionist clearly saw the benefits of active oral classroom participation, and she was appreciative of the support she received from her professors and peers in discussions after class. She was confident that once she improved her language skills, overcame cultural barriers, and had taken more courses, she would become a more active participant. She was looking forward to the emergence of her true extroverted personality, which she had concealed for such a long time, both in America and in Korea. The Counselor (FMAJ3) The Counselor was a very quiet female Japanese student who did not speak at all in the 48-minute class I observed in her major. But as I got to know her better, my impression of her changed. She was a very strong-minded person and she spoke very good English. The Counselor came to the United States in 1993 and went to Michigan State University as a junior transfer student majoring in political science. Upon receiving her B.A. from Michigan State, she came to Ohio State to pursue her M.A. in Counseling. Quiet and very respectful, The Counselor was a good listener and wrote very well except that she made quite a lot of grammar mistakes even though she took a grammar course at Michigan State. With a strong sense of community and desire to maintain group cohesion, she liked spending time socializing “to have good interpersonal relationships.” Due to the nature of her major, counseling education, she took many courses in which she had to practice counseling techniques by using classmates as participants, and she felt strongly that she should make friends with her classmates. On many occasions, students were encouraged to participate and discuss many issues and problems they observed in daily life. However, The Counselor would feel rather uncomfortable in such situations in which class discussion was chiefly experience exchanging. She felt that her lack of counseling experience together with her shy personality inhibited her participation. Most of the time, she kept silent in class, although she could speak very well due to her prior experience at Michigan State. The Counselor considered herself “slow to react.” She allowed herself enough time to think about something before she reacted or responded, but admittedly, she found this a disadvantage for classroom participation. As many of her American classmates were very active and spontaneous, she missed many opportunities to contribute to the class discussion. Sometimes she was discouraged because her American peers always asked “too many questions.’’ Moreover, The Counselor was not only “slow in thinking” but also “passive in reaction.” To use her own

< previous page

page_124

next page >

< previous page

page_125

next page >

Page 125 words, “I think if the teacher asks us opinions, I will not volunteer to speak up immediately. I cannot organize fully my thought because English is my second language.” Evidently she needed more time to think about issues and react to discussions than her American counterparts, which reduced her opportunities to participate in class. Like The Consumer Scientist, The Counselor considered lack of preparation for the class as the only good reason to ask questions in class. She would rarely have questions when she was well prepared, which she almost always was. Thorough preparation was the common practice among Asian students. In Asia, it is stressed by schools and parents that students are responsible for lesson preparation. They are supposed to find the answers to their questions through reading, and thorough preparation is considered the key to school success. Nevertheless, The Counselor perceived participation not so much as a means to improve her English but as a means to help her to be active in speaking. Her lack of participation worried her because she feared that the professor would have a poor opinion of her. So the solution to her conflict was to ask professors questions after class. She was appreciative of her classmates’ questions in class. As she revealed, “I think most of them are very challenging questions, so I can benefit from them and sometimes I can understand the questions in depth.” She felt that she needed the stimulus of her classmates’ questions to clarify her own thinking. She found that answering questions was more challenging than asking them. She would have plenty of time to think about and to rephrase a question before she actually asked it, but it took longer to answer others’ questions. So she hardly had any opportunities to answer others’ questions because her mostly American classmates spoke up so quickly. The Counselor preferred classes that were a mixture of lecture and discussion. She liked the systematic presentation of the subject matter in a lecture, but she also enjoyed hearing her classmates’ opinions in discussions. She also thought that the lesson type should depend on the content. One of the courses she had taken, “Introduction to Counseling Education,” for instance, would have been better offered as a lecture because ‘‘it is an introduction.” According to the Counselor, it was the norm in Japan to sit quietly in class, taking notes and listening carefully to the teacher. In one of the interviews, she revealed that classroom participation in Japan seemed to be male-dominated, although Japanese students tend to be quiet in class in general. However, she believed that oral classroom participation cannot be equated with understanding: I think there should not be difference between the male students and the female students. But in reality, I think there is the gender difference. Boys tend to be aggressive and girls tend to be quiet. But generally, girls understand better than boys do in class.

< previous page

page_125

next page >

< previous page

page_126

next page >

Page 126 In sum, the main reason that The Counselor did not participate in class was that she was slow to respond and shy and passive in nature. Although she could speak English very well due to her experience at Michigan State, she offered her status as a second-language learner among native speakers as a reason for her reticence in class. She asked her professors questions after class and was usually very active and comfortable in small group discussions. To her, participation could help her to be more courageous in speaking up, although she did not expect to improve her English via participation. She asked questions only when she did not understand the subject matter, but her questions were usually resolved in her careful lesson preparation, which reduced the likelihood of her asking questions. Her passivity in class, which was associated with the role of female students in Japanese culture, did not reflect low academic achievement. A common theme in this pattern is that the students’ inactive participation mode was not solely due to a lack of language abilities; cultural norms regarding listening attentively and solving problems on one’s own played a major role in their silence in class. In the case of The Ex. Physiologist, his lack of speaking abilities could be compensated for by his thorough lesson preparation, yet his belief in attentive listening as a priority in class was not easily changed. For The Chemical Engineer, his passive role in oral classroom participation was not directly related to his lack of language proficiency in communication; he was under great pressure due to a heavy course load, which affected his attitude and motivation in class. The Consumer Scientist’s prior educational experience in women’s schools and colleges confirmed her cultural belief that keeping silent in class is a sign of respect for the teacher. She felt comfortable not participating actively in class, and she thought that it was not linguistic ability but teaching style that should determine the participation mode of the students in class. With a similar educational and cultural background in women’s colleges in Korea, The Nutritionist was even more inhibited in class. Lack of linguistic ability was one factor, but she also felt a great need to overcome cultural barriers and take more courses to adjust to the new academic environment. The Counselor, who spoke English very well after getting her B.A. in a U.S. university, attributed her silence in class to her personality—slow to respond and shy in nature. She did not see the correlation between inactive oral classroom participation in class and academic achievement, and she associated her passivity with the role of female students in Japan and her thorough lesson preparation, which helped to solve many problems before she needed to ask questions. The salient perceptions of the five participants classified in this pattern (Marginal Participation) are summarized in Table 3.3.

< previous page

page_126

next page >

< previous page

page_127

next page >

Page 127 Table 3.3 Perceptions of Oral Classroom Participation in Pattern 3 Participants Perceptions Benefits The Ex. Physiologist (MPHDC1) 1. A way to get information, ideas, and opinions from other students Cognitive 2. A route to better understanding Cognitive 3. Important for cultural adaptation Sociocultural The Chemical Engineer (MMAT1) 4. A way for professors to get to know students personally Sociocultural 5. A way to benefit from others’ participation Cognitive 6. An extra burden on top of the heavy course load Pedagogical 7. A way to check answers with the professor Cognitive The Consumer Scientist (FPHDK2) 8. Unnecessary if well prepared Sociocultural 9. Nonparticipation is a sign of respect for teachers Sociocultural 10. Teaching style the determinant Pedagogical 11. Self-confidence counts Affective The Nutritionist (FPHDK5) 12. A way to check answers with classmates Cognitive 13. An indication of belonging to a group Sociocultural 14. A way to create mutual support among peers Sociocultural The Counselor (FMAJ3) 15. A way to help build self-esteem Affective 16. A way to create a good impression Affective 17. Participation and learning are different Sociocultural

< previous page

page_127

next page >

< previous page

page_128

next page >

Page 128 As Table 3.3 indicates, the five inactive participants in this pattern generated 17 salient perceptions of oral classroom participation. Unlike the overall positive perceptions in Pattern 1, some of the perceptions in this pattern are negative (i.e., items 8, 9, and 17). These perceptions can be classified into four categories: cognitive (5), sociocultural (7), pedagogical (2), and affective (3). This suggests that the overall perceptions (both positive and negative) of oral classroom participation held by the five somewhat active students in this pattern are multiple (i.e., cognitive, sociocultural, pedagogical, and affective), although linguistic consideration is not accounted for, overlapping (e.g., Perceptions 5 and 12, and Perceptions 13 and 14), and interrelated. For instance, in a supportive environment through participation (no. 14), students will feel a sense of belonging (no. 13), check answers with classmates (no. 12), and build confidence (no. 15). The interconnectedness of these perceptions is shown in Chart 3.3. Pattern 4: Silent Observation Seven study participants, The Pharmacist from China (FPHDC3), The Ed. Administrator from Hong Kong (FMAHK1), The Musician from Taiwan (FMAT2), The Fashion Designer from Korea (FMAK4), The Social Worker from Japan (FMAJ2), The Ag. Specialist from Indonesia (MMAI1), and The Social Studies Teacher from Indonesia (MMAI4), were extremely inactive in oral classroom participation in their respective content courses, and some never asked a single question in class. Their reactions toward their silent behaviors in class were mixed, and the reasons they identified were multiple and complex. The Pharmacist (FPHDC3) A mother of two who had to change her babies’ diapers while preparing for finals as a Ph.D. student in the Chemistry Department at Ohio State, The Pharmacist was a truly remarkable woman. Having stayed at home as a housewife during the first 2 years after her arrival in the United States, she enrolled with very high TOEFL (612) and GRE scores (2190, with 800 in the mathematics section, 790 in the logic section, and 600 in the verbal section), and she received a research assistantship from the Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry. Upon her graduation from Traditional Chinese Medicine College in Zhejiang Province in 1990, she worked as a doctor for a year before she came to the United States with her husband, who was a Ph.D. student at Ohio State. As she had been away from school for quite a few years, she admitted that she had trouble adjusting to American university life, especially during the first few quarters. In her own words, “Actually I had a lot of trouble understanding English in class.”

< previous page

page_128

next page >

< previous page

page_129

next page >

Page 129 Chart 3.3 Perceptions of Classroom Participation Among Five Participants in Pattern 3: Marginal Participation

Recalling her English learning experience in China, she was not very positive: My English? Well, as I started learning English in the countryside, my English was very poor when I was in junior school. My English was still very poor when I entered high school as I only got 40 (out of 100) in high school entry exam. Since then as my high school teacher was very strict, my English had improved a lot, and I got 90 (out of 100) in college entrance examination. Although my English was always on the top list in class, I still had much room for improvement compared to those in Zhejiang University. When she came to the United States in 1991, she was very frustrated about her English. In order to adjust to her new environment, she stud-

< previous page

page_129

next page >

< previous page

page_130

next page >

Page 130 ied by herself while taking care of her babies by memorizing words, listening to tapes, and watching television. Interestingly enough, her temporary work experience in a local Chinese restaurant in Columbus improved her listening skills. In her department, pharmacy, lectures were the common lesson format. About three-fourths of the students in that department were Chinese, and they spoke in Chinese all the time. She found it hard and unnatural to talk with her countrymen in English, and besides, she was shy. When she was surrounded by Chinese people, she felt secure in using Chinese and she thought it was easier for her to get her meaning across: I use Chinese when I ask some Chinese students for help because it’s more comfortable and easy to explain what the real problem it is. Most of them have very strong background in this area. So they understand well, sometimes even better than others. From being a housewife taking care of two children to a Ph.D. student in pharmacy was an abrupt change. As she admitted, her high TOEFL and GRE scores got her into the program, yet only she knew how painful it was to sit in class understanding only twenty to thirty percent of the instruction because: I don’t have much background knowledge, so I just keep listening and if there is any question, I just keep in my mind until after class. I will look in literature and the textbook. If I still don’t understand after checking the textbook, I will first ask my classmates, and then if they do not know the answer, I will then go and ask the professor. It should be noted that her “textbook-classmate-teacher” method of dealing with questions is a normal practice for many Asian students. The Asian concept of face-saving came into play here. To avoid embarrassment, she wanted to make sure that the textbook did not provide answers to her questions before she asked her classmates, and she checked with her classmates in her native language, Chinese, to be sure that the questions she wanted to ask the instructor were worth asking. This double-checking process was often used by Asian students like The Pharmacist as a safety net in communicating with professors. Besides her shy nature and lack of background knowledge, she acknowledged that her weakness in speaking also kept her from participating in class: ‘‘Sometimes when the teacher asks me a question, I know the answer, but I will still have trouble, and I get nervous. So I cannot answer well.” The Pharmacist mentioned the possibility of participating in class only when she was well prepared. But the fact was

< previous page

page_130

next page >

< previous page

page_131

next page >

Page 131 that in her courses, the professors usually did not use textbooks. They relied heavily on handouts distributed in class, which did not give her enough time to prepare. When she was not well prepared, she had no idea what to talk about: If I do not have any idea in mind, I will never ask stupid questions. Even though my classmates might not think that I am stupid, but I will. How can I ask questions without even thinking them first by myself? The Pharmacist considered herself a nonparticipant in class and she was. In two consecutive ESL writing courses she took with me, she hardly spoke in class, although she was very argumentative in small group discussions. In one of her classes in her major that I observed, there were about 40 students, The Pharmacist did not utter a single word. I was not surprised to find that her reticence in the ESL classroom was echoed in her content classrooms. But, she acknowledged that there were many benefits to participation. First, she thought that when a good question was asked, the teacher, not knowing how much the students knew, usually offered a detailed explanation. She also believed that through other students’ participation and questions, her thinking could be stimulated and challenged. Her face lit up when she shared the following anecdote with me: In a recent mid-term exam, I answered a question a classmate raised in class. It seemed no one took notes when that question was answered in class, but I did and as a result I got two extra points in getting the answer straight in the mid-term exam. I was the only one who got the right answer. The professor later told me that I surprised him. The student who asked that question in class only got one point while I who listened carefully to the answer got two points. So I was very glad indeed. If The Pharmacist’s two extra points in the midterm exam were the result of her paying attention to the answer to her classmate’s question, then whether one participated in class or not didn’t matter so much. What was important was listening carefully and thinking things through thoroughly regardless of who asked the question. The Asian concept of “attentive listening” as a motto for school children worked very well here in gaining The Pharmacist two extra points. In The Pharmacist’s case, she gained confidence by receiving knowledge through others’ questions and answers without necessarily participating herself. Moreover, her nonparticipation behavior in class could be justified by her consideration of the teacher as well as her classmates:

< previous page

page_131

next page >

< previous page

page_132

next page >

Page 132 If a teacher tries to answer a question, it take a lot of class time. As a result, the teacher material have to either be cut off or cut short. Another reason is that there are so many people with different knowledge backgrounds, and they have to listen to you and the answers although they are not interesting in. When a class is big like over 60 students, I don’t think it’s quite good to ask questions. The Pharmacist was very particular about her examination scores. Her low self-esteem due to the lack of participation in class was compensated for by her high scores on examinations, for which she was always well prepared. She confessed: In my case, I might only understand 30% in class, but I spend a lot of time preparing for the exam and I can usually get 80 to 90% in the exam. American students seem to understand far better in class, but their examination results are not surprisingly good at all. Their average score is only about 50 to 60%. The Pharmacist talked about how American students would characterize Asian students like her who are very quiet in class and yet whose scores in exams are always high. “Hard-working and no weekends,” she said with a smile. She pointed out that since English is not her native language, she usually spent three or four times the time her American counterparts spent to read and understand the assigned readings. The Pharmacist valued ends rather than means. She cared more about her test scores than the impressions her instructor and her American classmates had of her. High scores on an examination were very important to her. Without high scores on the TOEFL and GRE, she could not have enrolled in her Ph.D. program. She firmly believed that grades were the true reflection of her knowledge and ability. Prompted by this belief, she evaluated the course by what she actually learned regardless of how much she participated in discussion, or how many questions she asked in class. In terms of teaching styles, she preferred lectures to discussions: Sometimes, my advisor wants to ask questions and questions, and by the end of the class, I feel I have not learned anything. But in lecture type class, in the end, I take at least four or five pages notes, and I would feel that I have accomplished a lot. So in terms of efficiency, I feel lecture type class is better than discussion type even though through discussion, I feel the class is active and our thoughts are stimulated. If the preference for a lesson type does reflect one’s learning style, then how can one’s learning style be adapted to the lesson type?

< previous page

page_132

next page >

< previous page

page_133

next page >

Page 133 Students have no control over the lesson type a particular instructor uses, but some teachers might take into account the type of lesson the majority of the students prefer. The Pharmacist, like many other Asian students, preferred lectures because she was accustomed to them and she could do a good job. She cared more about her understanding of the lecture than whether she participated in class or not. In sum, The Pharmacist believed that her personality—being shy—as well as her poor listening and speaking abilities in spite of her high TOEFL and GRE scores and her lack of content knowledge had an effect on her inactive role in class participation. She did not care too much about participation as long as she got high scores on her exams. However, she admitted that she benefited from her classmates’ participation. Moreover, she benefited from the teacher’s lecture, a lesson type she preferred. The Ed. Administrator (FMAHK1) When I had The Ed. Administrator in my ESL composition class and talked with her on several occasions, I could not figure out why she chose Ed. Administration as her major. Born and raised in Hong Kong, she went to Taiwan after she finished high school at the urging of her father who had business interests there. Although she learned English in Hong Kong and taught English at a cram school (an after-school program where students are specially trained to prepare for examinations) in Taiwan upon receiving her a B.A. degree in foreign language education, her confidence in her English language ability was still low. Nevertheless, she considered herself a very fast language learner in that she learned Mandarin Chinese within a year after she arrived in Taiwan. She attributed her lack of English speaking ability to the lack of an English-speaking environment, and therefore she wanted to gain new experiences in a native language environment, which is what brought her to America. The Ed. Administrator never talked in class except for small group discussions. She found it hard to follow class discussions. She did not have any background knowledge in educational administration, and she was not sure whether her ideas or suggestions would be valuable to the class. That was perhaps one of the major reasons for her silence in class: The most important reason is that they are talking about American educational system which obviously I don’t have much to say and they are talking about their own classroom activities which I do not know much. I might know some terms but I have no ideas about some practical problem, so I cannot participate. As the only Asian student in class who was young and had no prior work experience, The Ed. Administrator felt intimidated by her

< previous page

page_133

next page >

< previous page

page_134

next page >

Page 134 American classmates with a lot of work experience. Even though she participated in class, she thought that no one would listen to her or take her seriously. Another reason for her silence in class was the large class size (usually 40 to 50 students). She felt shy talking in front of so many classmates. She only felt comfortable in small group discussions, in which she sometimes participated. She preferred discussion to lecture as a lesson type because she could listen to more opinions and experiences other than the professor’s. She was at first surprised to see that her classmates (all Americans) were so open in discussion. She simply enjoyed listening and sharing their experiences, and sometimes compared their experiences with those in her own culture. Like The Pharmacist, whenever The Ed. Administrator had a question in her reading or in her classes, she would first try to obtain answers from the textbook or her classmates. Only when she was desperate would she turn to professors, but always after class. Perhaps the following observation of one of her classes will better depict her classroom participation mode. It was a Tuesday evening class in late April 1995. Because the majority of the students were at work during the day, this course was scheduled in the evenings. I arrived a few minutes early. Some students had already been there for a while, chatting and discussing issues of concern related to parent education, the subject matter of the course. Among them sat The Ed. Administrator, eating Wendy’s fries, something she would undoubtedly not have done in her own culture. The professor came in with a videotape that she wanted to show to the class. There were about 16 American students in this class besides The Ed. Administrator, and most of them were women. They formed a big circle. The professor began class with a brief overview of the agenda, and all the students seemed to understand what she meant. Soon afterward, a female student went to the front of the classroom and began leading the discussion of the first topic of the day: “Characteristics of children at different age groups and what kind of parents these children need.” She asked for feedback and wrote her classmates’ ideas down on the blackboard. There, discussion was lively. Many classmates including the instructor contributed to the discussion for about 10 minutes, and their ideas were discussed and subsequently written on the board. The Ed. Administrator did not utter a word up to this point. After listing these characteristics on the board, the discussion leader divided the class into five groups with three to four students in each group. Each group was required to discuss one stage of child development according to the handout, and they came up with some possible ways to define the concept. I joined the third group with The Ed Administrator. Our topic was “Industry vs. inferiority stage.’’ Our task was to find ways for parents to recognize their children’s efforts, which

< previous page

page_134

next page >

< previous page

page_135

next page >

Page 135 would lead to a sense of industry. We came up with four points, one of which was contributed by The Ed. Administrator: “We should encourage schoolwork to be functioned. That’s to say, we should cooperate with school to see the assignment and requirement by the school be done.” Another student then took over the discussion on measuring the effectiveness of parent education. She summarized three major models of parent education. Ten minutes before the break, each group shared their discussion highlights with the whole class. When the class was resumed after the break, each group was assigned another topic for discussion. The topic for discussion in our group was: “How does parent satisfaction of performance affect the family?” This time, The Ed. Administrator did not say anything as there was not enough time for everyone to speak, and The Ed. Administrator, who was prepared to speak at last, lost her opportunity. The professor then spent the last 30 minutes of the class talking about her own experience in educating parents. She gave a few examples and finished the class by showing the video clips of herself and her assistant talking to three parents whose children had chronic diseases. Apart from the interesting topic, I was impressed by the interactive nature of the group discussion and the contributions of the parents in this class. In the follow-up interview, The Ed. Administrator told me that she enjoyed the class, but as the youngest student, she found it hard to contribute to the discussion, because she did not have any parenting experience and was unfamiliar with American parenting behavior. Both her Asian cultural background and her reserved personality made her a good listener rather than a contributor to the discussion. She read the assigned readings and was very clear about the discussion points, but in this class actual parenting experience seemed more important. Therefore, she was happy to listen to others’ discussion in class as always. The Ed. Administrator did take part in one of the two small group discussions. She felt comfortable talking in a small group because she did not feel she was being judged. However, apart from the pressure and time constraints of the small group situation mentioned above, her non-aggressive personality would deprive her of the opportunity. It was obvious that her American classmates were very supportive and helpful. In her small group discussion, they listened to her carefully and helped her with a few phrases when she was not sure of the wording. The Ed. Administrator knew that and she realized that her confidence in speaking had gradually increased because of her supportive classmates and the interactive learning environment, for which she was grateful. In sum, two things account for The Ed. Administrator’s reticence. First and foremost, she did not have the knowledge and work experience that many of her classmates did. Due to the nature of the courses in her

< previous page

page_135

next page >

< previous page

page_136

next page >

Page 136 major, her lack of experience and knowledge caused her to question the value of her contribution to the discussion. Second, the large class size also discouraged her participation, as she was not confident in her speaking ability in English. Nevertheless, she did enjoy and benefit from her classmates’ active participation and discussion in class. The Musician (FMAT2) Like many other Taiwanese female students in class, The Musician was quiet and attentive. A 1992 graduate of the Chinese Cultural University in Taiwan with a B.A. in music, she taught music in a high school in Taiwan before she came to the United States to major in piano in the Music School at Ohio State. As a language learner, she did not think highly of herself. She complained about her skills in speaking, listening, and reading. The only area she had confidence in was writing. In her own words: ‘‘I feel I have made great progress in writing recently.” The Musician was easily overlooked since she always sat quietly in a corner in the ESL composition class without saying anything throughout the entire quarter. She did not talk with her classmates during group discussion, although she talked quite often in Chinese with a fellow Taiwanese classmate before and after class. In her major, piano, there are generally two types of classes. One is theoretical courses similar to other general courses, which are conducted through lectures only. In this type of class, there is generally an absence of discussion and interaction, but listening to certain pieces of music is required. The other type is music analysis courses in which the students are required to listen to a musical piece first and then offer analysis and comments afterwards. In this type of class, participation is required. I deliberately chose to observe the second type of class as I hoped to see The Musician’s interaction with her classmates. The class followed the exact format that The Musician had described. The professor played a few Mozart concertos and asked for comments and reactions after each piece. The music was wonderful and almost everyone in the class listened with great appreciation, but when the time for discussion came, only American students offered their comments. There were about 30 students in class, at least half of whom were from Asia. None of them spoke up. However, I was not surprised, because The Musician assured me that this was normal in her major courses. Like many of her Asian classmates, The Musician attributed her resistance to oral classroom participation to her English speaking ability: Sometimes, I still have language problems. We usually have quite a number of students from Taiwan, so we usually are very quiet. In

< previous page

page_136

next page >

< previous page

page_137

next page >

Page 137 class, Americans usually speak a lot. If we have questions, we often ask them after class. To find answers to her questions, which had accumulated due to her nonparticipation, The Musician would talk with her Taiwanese classmates first, and if she still had questions, she, together with her Taiwanese friends, would seek help from their American classmates. This two-step help-seeking strategy worked out very well for The Musician who felt strongly that several Taiwanese students together could make each other feel more comfortable as they all empathized with each other and all came from the same background where class participation was not required or emphasized. When asked whether she used Chinese in conferring with her Taiwanese classmates, she said, “Of course, we talk in Chinese. We wanted to communicate our ideas, not to practice our English.” To The Musician, speaking English among her conationals is not only odd, but also less efficient because otherwise they could not discuss anything in depth because of their limited English. Sometimes when their in-group discussion was interrupted by a non-Chinese speaker, they would feel very uncomfortable because they were forced to communicate in English. Once, when we were discussing something, a Korean student joined us, so we had to speak in English. But we did not feel comfortable because we could not really express what we wanted to say in English. Thinking of the points for discussion is difficult for us, speaking about it in English is even more difficult. Although a nonparticipant, The Musician felt she benefited from the fact that questions raised in class could be answered immediately by the teacher or her classmates. However, due to her educational experience in Taiwan where participation was not encouraged, she preferred that the teacher talk most of the time. She justified her choice of lecture type over discussion type in this way: On the one hand, I would feel no pressure while listening. If the teacher pushes us to talk, I would feel a great deal of pressure. On the other hand, I want to absorb what the teacher says in class with not interrupting. The Musician had to sign up for quite a number of individual study hours with her piano professor. Her oral communication with her professor was kept to a minimum. As she told me, she usually could avoid saying much to the professor as long as she played well. In the individual study course, her professor first went over the musical notes, then

< previous page

page_137

next page >

< previous page

page_138

next page >

Page 138 demonstrated them by playing a section, and then asked her to play it afterwards. The professor would make some comments and asked her to play again, then moved on to another segment. In sum, The Musician’s silence in class participation was chiefly affected by her lack of language ability and her overreliance on her Chinese counterparts for debriefing after class. She segregated herself from the broader community, preferring to spend time with her empathetic Taiwanese classmates. However, she acknowledged benefiting from class discussion without participating, but she still preferred a lecture type of class as she was accustomed to this type of class from her education in Taiwan. The Fashion Designer (FMAK4) The Fashion Designer had the longest stay in the United States among all the participants in this study. With an undergraduate degree in Italian from a South Korean university, The Fashion Designer enrolled in the master’s program in the Textile and Clothing Department at Ohio State after spending the first 3 years as a housewife and the next 3 years taking care of her daughter while taking some ESL courses. She had trouble deciding on her major as she had forgotten much of her Italian. She had worked for a year and half at a trading company before she came to the United States. Because she started her studies in textile and clothing without any prior experience in the learning field, it took her a long time to finish the prerequisite courses. From being a housewife, a mother, and a part-time student to becoming an M.A. student at a research institute was a big change for her. For The Fashion Designer, oral classroom participation was very challenging because she had studied Italian at college in Korea and had learned English basically through watching television programs. She was a shy person and had no confidence in speaking English because she had not had many opportunities to practice speaking English before. She was very concerned about her speaking if she participated in class; therefore, to save face while letting the professor know that she had prepared for class, she often chose to ask the professors questions after class. Before she asked her professors questions, she would always rephrase and rehearse her questions several times before she actually asked them. She did try to make an effort to present herself the best she could: For me it is very hard, I mean, participation is very hard task for me. I am a shy person and I have no confidence in speaking English, and my English is still poor, so yeah, I hesitate to ask questions in class in front of a lot of students. I think if I say something in English, my

< previous page

page_138

next page >

< previous page

page_139

next page >

Page 139 grammar will be wrong to answer the question and also I am worried about the instructor who will not understand my English, so I cannot speak up in class. I prefer after class to have personal question, it is easy for me to ask questions. While The Fashion Designer was a quiet person in class, she perceived the benefits of oral classroom participation in several ways. First, she thought it would help her create a good impression and get good grades. Second, she thought that she would also gain confidence about the class content and about her English speaking abilities. However, another barrier to participation besides her English speaking ability and shy personality was her lack of background in her new major, textile and clothing. She did not feel that she knew her major area well enough to participate actively. She did feel, though, that she could participate if she thoroughly prepared for class by reading the class assignments and preparing questions ahead of time. The Fashion Designer preferred lecture-type instruction because she could avoid feeling embarrassed sitting in the class and not participating, as she often did in seminars and class discussions. She felt more comfortable listening without the pressure to speak. The Fashion Designer did not really care whether she had more native speakers or non-native speakers in the classes she took. To her, the instructor was the authority and the only person she needed to listen to: Because I am learning some subjects from the instructor, not from the classmates. So I don’t care about students. But if all the students are Americans, and I can make friends, my English might be improving. However, The Fashion Designer appreciated the support she received from American classmates who helped her when she struggled to find words or phrases while talking with them after class. Unlike The Musician who always sought help from her Taiwanese classmates, The Fashion Designer did not think she could get the same help from other international students, including her Korean classmates. She thought that her non-native English speaking classmates’ English ability was more or less the same as hers. She knew that many of her non-native English speaking classmates had only spent a few months or a year at most in the United States, and it seemed unlikely that their English would be better than hers since she had spent 7 years in the United States. What she failed to realize is that the length of stay alone does not determine one’s English speaking ability. She had spent most of her time in the United States as a housewife and mother speaking Korean all the time, which may have hindered her in improving her speaking ability and

< previous page

page_139

next page >

< previous page

page_140

next page >

Page 140 being able to follow the instructor in class. Her compensation strategy was to “take a memo, and then after class, borrow notes from American friends.” She only sought help from her instructor if neither the book nor the notes were helpful. When she asked the instructor, she was extremely careful about her grammar. What really surprised me was that The Fashion Designer’s fear of speaking and her shy nature were hard to detect in one particular course she took. She described the course as the most enjoyable course she had ever taken. Out of curiosity, I observed one of the classes. The topic for the class was “Fragrance and self-presentation.” All the students in this class were female. The seats were arranged in a half circle with a table in the center, which held some sample bottles of perfume and some of the professor’s personal collections of fragrances. The instructor, welldressed and in high spirits, covered five aspects of men’s and women’s fragrances: media blitz, subliminal advertising (bottle design), aroma therapy, disorders/ethics, and class experiments. She lectured in a very informative and interesting manner for the first 20 minutes on the historical development of the fragrance industry, the sociology of odors, scent identity, and the classification of fragrances. Immediately after that, the whole class was involved in identifying odors contained separately in the six bottles she brought to the class. All the students stepped to the front, and laughter and chatting could be heard. The entire atmosphere was so relaxed and lively that it seemed everyone in class was having a great time. The students were asked to identify certain fragrances. Though disagreements existed, the majority of the students had made similar guesses, and they could easily tell the difference between floral and fruity, between fresh and woody, and between musky and oriental. In the next activity the 20 students broke into three small groups and were then asked to choose a particular target audience and produce the kind of fragrance that would appeal to them. At this point, the class became even livelier. I followed The Fashion Designer’s group, which consisted of four students, two Korean and two American. One American student served as the reporter, but The Fashion Designer and the other Korean student contributed a lot to the group discussion. When the group reports were made, the whole class enjoyed all the strange terms and peculiar mixtures, such as ‘‘Gravity” and “Behold Me in the Dark.” Two things struck me throughout the observation. One was the active role The Fashion Designer played in the small group discussion situation. Like other students in the class, The Fashion Designer did not talk at all while the teacher was lecturing. However, her active role in the small discussion was unexpected. In the follow-up interview, she revealed that she had really prepared for the class and liked the profes-

< previous page

page_140

next page >

< previous page

page_141

next page >

Page 141 sor’s teaching style, which was a great incentive for her to participate. Her class behavior, therefore, was shaped by how the class was conducted and how comfortable she felt with the instructor. The professor in this class strongly encouraged group activities, and The Fashion Designer participated as actively as anyone else in the small group discussion. In fact, all the students in class were active in the group discussion because they had responsibilities to fulfill. It was hard to tell the difference between the two native speakers of English and the two nonnative speakers in this small group discussion situation—everyone was excited and involved. It was the teaching style that most affected the students’ participation modes. The observed professor, for instance, encouraged active classroom participation by presenting her ideas succinctly and highlighting the important information within a concentrated period of time. Needless to say, her organized approach and her skillful engagement of her students in all the class activities reduced the anxiety of students like The Fashion Designer and facilitated the active participation of all the students. In sum, The Fashion Designer was a shy person. Although she had been in the United States for many years, she did not have many opportunities to speak English, and as a result, she lacked self-confidence in speaking. She liked lectures because she could avoid her weakness in speaking. She sought help from the textbooks or from her American classmates’ notes but seldom trusted the notes of other non-native English speaking classmates. She asked the professor after class if she was desperate to solve a problem. But The Fashion Designer had the potential to contribute to class discussion as revealed in the class I observed, and her respect and trust in the professor became a motivating factor for her to speak up, although only in small group discussions. The Social Worker (FMAJ2) The Social Worker graduated from a women’s college in Osaka, Japan with a B.A. in English and American literature with minor concentrations in education and library science. Due to the insistence of her parents, she applied to many master’s programs at various U.S. universities, but she did not have a high enough TOEFL score to be admitted to any degree program. Therefore, she came to the United States to take some intensive English courses in the American Language Program at Ohio State first and then was admitted to the Department of Social Work at Ohio State, although she ended up in a major she was not interested in at all. Unlike most of her classmates who were native English speakers and experienced social workers or part-time students, The Social Worker had neither work experience to share with her classmates nor comparable language abilities with which to share information. She felt

< previous page

page_141

next page >

< previous page

page_142

next page >

Page 142 extremely frustrated. This was how The Social Worker compared herself to her classmates: Because my classmates need social work license so they came here at Ohio State to study. So they can talk experience because their jobs are related to social work. But I don’t have the background, so I cannot speak my experience. I can sometimes understand the class, but I cannot participate. On one occasion, a professor in one of her classes asked a very tough question. No one seemed to know the answer, and there was a dead silence for quite a few minutes. She thought that she knew the answer, but unfortunately, she could not really express it. She realized that her language ability was not at the level where she could freely express herself if she had an idea. Due to her sense of linguistic inferiority, The Social Worker was not sociable in class at all. Intimidated, isolated, and ignored, she felt that she was not suited to social work. She was intimidated by her classmates in many ways, not just because of her English speaking ability. She tried to listen and to take notes in class. If she had questions, she would save them and ask the instructor after class or would even call him at home when she was desperate. In her mind, the professor was the one she should ask, not her classmates. But sometimes she had trouble making herself understood to her professors: When I asked professors, sometimes they could not understand what I said, and then I tried to speak very slowly for them to understand. Fortunately, my professors are very patient, so they try to listen carefully, and they can understand me. As The Social Worker was the only international student in class, she felt that sometimes she was forgotten by her classmates as well as her instructors because of her silence. She thought that the only way to get their attention was to ask questions, but she could not because of her lack of work experience and poor speaking ability. She resented that she was the only international graduate student in class, and she wished there were more. The Social Worker seemed extremely happy when I observed one of her classes. I arrived a bit earlier as usual, and when she noticed that I was there, she chose to sit by me and chatted with me before the class started. Exactly as she described, the entire class was a seminar—the professor introduced a concept related to social welfare, and then invited the students to discuss the issues involved. Of course, the discussion was lively as most of the students in class had a lot to talk about and many experiences to share. The Social Worker tried to take notes, but

< previous page

page_142

next page >

< previous page

page_143

next page >

Page 143 was not involved in the discussion. After the class, she told me that this was exactly what she did in almost every class, and when she read her notes afterwards, they did not make much sense. She told me that keeping notes forced her to concentrate in class. The Social Worker admitted that in Japan when she was an undergraduate student, the classes she attended were usually very big, and the teacher did not encourage participation in class. Therefore, it felt natural to sit in class without participating, and the only thing she cared about was understanding the lecture. But in American classrooms, she felt anxious when she did not to say anything from one class to another, and after a few weeks, she felt her social identity had disappeared. She tried to force herself to say something in class, but when she tried to prepare questions, she found it very hard to put her thoughts into words, and she ended up giving up on her attempts and felt that she became more and more invisible. The Social Worker met an American woman in church who was looking for a roommate, and she moved in soon after. Unfortunately, she did not consider sharing an apartment with the American woman as a good way to practice English on a daily basis nor as a way to acculturate herself. On the contrary, she moved into the apartment because “the rent was cheaper than the dorm” she used to live in. In sum, The Social Worker was not sociable. With no prior work experience and weak listening and speaking abilities, she did not participate in class at all. She was overshadowed by her classmates’ work experiences and active participation in class. However, the only resource person she would turn to was her instructor. Due to her educational background in Japan, she respected the instructors and tried to ask them questions after class and sometimes even called them at home. She realized her weakness in English, but she did not make use of the advantages of sharing an apartment with an American friend. She was confused and wondered in which direction she should go to search for her identity. The Ag. Specialist (MMAI1) Before describing The Ag. Specialist, I would like to share my observations in one of his classes. As he informed me, this course was a study of the planning, development, management, and evaluation of instructional systems in vocational education. The topic of the class I observed was “Strategic Curriculum Planning.” As usual, I arrived early, and The Ag. Specialist was already there, sitting by himself. There were about 20 students in this class, the majority of whom were international students, including Chinese, Koreans, Turks, and Indonesians. The professor who taught this class asked questions constantly, and time was always given

< previous page

page_143

next page >

< previous page

page_144

next page >

Page 144 for students to answer. He also probed a lot. Instead of giving a direct answer to a student’s question, he initiated discussions, seeking answers from different students. Although there were only a few American students in this class, they dominated the entire discussion. Three of them were particularly active participants: One was the director of a company, one was a policewoman, and the other was a man with a lot of business experience. When these American students were engaged in discussion, the rest of the class remained silent as they lacked the schemata for participation. The Ag. Specialist was silent all the time. Admittedly, he had difficulties in following the teacher’s as well as some American students’ arguments. And when he was unsure, he did not have the confidence to participate. As he told me afterward, he understood only half of what was said in the class, and that was normal for him. Because I sat at an angle from which I could observe the Ag. Specialist’s facial expressions very well, I noticed that whenever a question was asked by the professor, The Ag. Specialist either frowned or kept busy leafing through his book or notes. He tried hard to understand each question but he seemed extremely nervous when the professor walked around expecting an answer. He sometimes lowered his head to avoid direct eye contact. On one occasion when the professor asked him to answer a question, his face turned red as he said “Sorry.” When I asked him after class about his reaction, he said that he could not follow the lecture well and he had no idea what to answer when the professor called on him. He also told me that in order for him to follow the lecture, he had to spend much time reading the textbook. He felt very frustrated when the professor’s lecture did not follow the textbook he was assigned to read, but he could do nothing about it. I was not surprised that all The Ag. Specialist said in this class was a single word—“Sorry.’’ Although he had many opportunities because the professor asked a lot of questions, he was not ready to participate. Consistent with what he revealed in the interviews, his listening comprehension was not good enough for him to follow the lecture, so he felt a lot of stress sitting in class. He felt sorry that he could not answer the question he was asked by the professor, and his strategy of avoidance by lowering his head when a question was asked was a face-saving strategy. However, he was grateful to a few American students in class who dominated the entire class discussion and who became the resource persons whenever the professor needed someone to talk. But the professor’s overreliance on these American students in discussion by and large inhibited the rest of the class, including The Ag. Specialist, from participating. The professor did not use teacher talk to appeal to the rest of the class. Even though the class was lively because the discussion never ceased, none of the international students in class was active in participation. I kept pondering what would happen if the American stu-

< previous page

page_144

next page >

< previous page

page_145

next page >

Page 145 dents who dominated the class discussion were absent and the professor invited the international students to join the discussion rather than accepting their reticence. The Ag. Specialist did not learn a lot from this class, and he was relieved when it was over. The Ag. Specialist used to be a radio announcer in an Indonesian broadcasting company. In the classes he took in the College of Agriculture Education at Ohio State, however, his vocal talent was hidden due to his “poor listening and speaking abilities” in English. His role in class was reduced to passive listening. Worse, he sometimes could not follow the instructor, and he had trouble taking notes. The only way to catch up with the class was to “read, read, and reread the textbook.” His self-esteem as a language learner remained very low in this new environment in which English was the medium of communication. He tried hard, but there were no shortcuts as he realized: Actually I speak a lot when I live in Indonesia. I like to have friends, but I have disability in speaking as well as in memorizing new words. In Columbus, my disability is language, so it is difficult for me to speak a lot to make friends, to make American friends, more difficult. Sociable and talkative, The Ag. Specialist is an outgoing person. He mentioned several times that had he not had a language problem, he would have participated actively in class and would have contributed a lot. Given his language disadvantage, he liked seminars in which discussions were held in small groups and he could make sure he understood the assignment or key points with the help of his peers. His lack of speaking ability was aggravated by his anxiety about the practice teaching as required in one of the courses he was taking. He knew the content he was to teach very well, but it was the language that bothered him. However, realizing his weakness in speaking, The Ag. Specialist expressed his interest in making more American friends so that he could have more opportunities to practice his spoken English. The Ag. Specialist, though never participating in classes he took in his major at Ohio State, understood the benefits of participating in class: “If I participate in the class, I can learn a lot about the materials and if I asked a questions, the answer would not be forget.” Sometimes when he had a chance, he asked classmates to clarify the main points of the class to make sure that he understood. But since he could not formulate the questions, he could not get much help from his classmates. On these occasions, he felt embarrassed and anxious, which made him hesitant to ask his classmates for help. If he did ask, he had to have enough time to process the question and rephrase it in his mind several times before he actually spoke. Sometimes, if he could not phrase a question well in his

< previous page

page_145

next page >

< previous page

page_146

next page >

Page 146 mind, he would simply refrain from asking it because he did not ‘‘want to make a mistake and don’t want to be laughed at.” His intimidation in speaking was increased by the fact that most of his classmates were native speakers of English. For The Ag. Specialist, who heavily relied on teacher talk to comprehend the lectures, native speaker–dominated discussion in class completely threw him. He thought that he would do much better in classes where he was not the only international student: “I like classes with a lot of students like me. It makes me safer because I am not the only foreigner.” Due to his limited English language proficiency, The Ag. Specialist preferred the lecture type of class even though he preferred the discussion type in Indonesia. In this way, he did not have to feel embarrassed in not speaking English, as he was not able to. When he was lost in class, he tried to remember the topic and read the book after class. He leaned over and asked whomever was sitting beside him to get immediate help. In sum, The Ag. Specialist’s outgoing personality completely disappeared in classes he took in the United States. It was not always the content that puzzled him, but his poor English language abilities that reduced his possibility to participate. As a result, he preferred lecture classes to discussion classes although he would choose the opposite if he had no problems with English. He did not talk to his American classmates as much as he would have talked to his Indonesian classmates. He felt the urgent need to improve his English, and he believed that he would be a much more active participant if he made progress in his spoken English. The Social Studies Teacher (MMAI4) The Social Studies Teacher was a “Yes” man. Whatever question I asked him, he responded “Yes.” When I asked him what he really meant, he would pause for a while, and then feel puzzled, and finally say, “yes, actually, I mean …,” which suggests “No.” He felt a lot of pressure in the U.S. academic environment as a graduate student. Listening and speaking were two skill areas with which he struggled a lot. When he tried to explain something, he would utilize as much body language as he could, and even real objects if he could grab any within his reach, but I would consider myself fortunate if I understood half of what he said. To ask him to repeat too many times would hurt his feelings, but to pretend to understand him would do him no good, so it was really a bitter situation for him and those speaking English with him. The Social Studies Teacher is a good singer, an outgoing and extremely active person who used to organize many recreational activities for his school in Indonesia, and he is also a good storyteller. Although he got his M.A. in business in 1986, he has a passion for teaching, and he

< previous page

page_146

next page >

< previous page

page_147

next page >

Page 147 became a business education teacher, teaching accounting in an Indonesian college since 1989. The Social Science Teacher considered himself a poor language learner and he blamed his inability in English skills, especially listening and speaking, on his Indonesian English teachers’ teaching methods. He preferred lectures to discussions. To him, understanding a professor’s lecture was easier than understanding his classmates because they spoke very fast and sometimes used dialects: They speak with not very good pronunciation, because they speak too fast but usually teachers, even though they speak fast I can still hear clearly. I don’t understand why, maybe the dialect or the teacher has a good performance in speaking. Due to his poor listening comprehension, it was sometimes hard for him to understand others’ questions. He nodded and then shook his head if he noticed surprise on the questioner’s face. He was a slow reader, weak in listening and speaking, but he always put on a smile in an attempt to please others by showing understanding. He felt obligated to be pleasant and cheerful in front of his classmates even though he was hurting inside. He concealed the agony of not understanding the lecture and walked out of the class with a smile, while deep in his heart he knew that he had to reread his assignment to catch up with what was going on in the class. He was desperate to improve his English, and he was also eager to obtain survival skills to help him get through the remaining courses. What surprised me was that one Friday evening, I got a call from The Social Studies Teacher, asking if I would observe his class the following Monday. I was delighted to be invited, but meanwhile my curiosity mounted. As I sat in his Monday class, which was specially designed for Indonesian students sent by the Indonesian government, I noticed that The Social Studies Teacher dressed very nicely. A few minutes into the class, the instructor reviewed what was covered in the previous lesson about educational assessment, and then asked for group reports on an assignment. I took a minute to glance over the handout given by the instructor on which the assignment was written, and when I looked up, I was surprised to find The Social Studies Teacher standing in front of the class, adjusting the overhead projector. “Class, I’d like to report our group’s discussion on the assignment. Please listen carefully. First, we discussed the types of … .” The Social Studies Teacher was lecturing, his tone formal, but his facial expressions dramatic. He went from one transparency to another, and his report lasted at least 3 minutes. Without asking whether the class had any questions, he ended his report by saying, “That’s all. Thank you.” All his classmates were amazed by his well-

< previous page

page_147

next page >

< previous page

page_148

next page >

Page 148 prepared and comprehensible report, and he indeed impressed me. I kept thinking of the phone call on Friday, the prepared report, and his smile after he returned to his seat. I could not help calling him that evening, trying to understand why he felt so comfortable taking the leading role in participation in class. The answer he gave me satisfied my curiosity: Of course, I wanted you to observe me when I am prepared. I spent a lot of time preparing the transparencies and then I practiced again and again, and then I called you to come to observe me. I wanted to let you know that I can participate when I prepared, and when I am with my fellow countrymen. I am not afraid of making mistakes because they will not laugh at me and they will help me because I will help them too sometimes. In sum, The Social Studies Teacher did not participate in class discussion because he was often insecure, underprepared, and unsure of his English. His reading speed was not fast enough for him to cope with the assignments, his listening comprehension was not good enough for him to follow the discussions, and his speech was not strong enough for him to be understood. He knew all of this, but he could not change the situation within a short period of time. He was desperate, but he did not completely lose hope. To help reduce his anxiety, he tried to be cheerful, despite his anxiety. However, he believed that he needed to improve his English language skills through participation, and he tried. The seven students classified in this pattern (Silent Observation) who almost never participated in their content courses gave various explanations for their participation modes. Three major reasons account for their silence in class: poor listening and speaking abilities in English (The Pharmacist, The Musician, The Social Worker, The Ag. Specialist, and The Social Studies Teacher), the lack of background and content knowledge (The Fashion Designer, The Social Worker, and The Ed. Administrator), and the lack of work experience (The Social Worker and The Ed. Administrator). However, these students all saw the benefits of active oral classroom participation, although from different perspectives. The cultural beliefs (1) that keeping quiet in class is a sign of respect for the teacher and a way of showing concern for their classmates’ time, and (2) that understanding the teacher and getting high scores on examinations are more important than oral classroom participation have resulted in The Pharmacist, The Ed. Administrator, and The Social Worker feeling more comfortable in lectures, seeking help from co-national classmates in their native languages, concealing their weakness in speaking English, and avoiding risks. However, in the cases of The Ag. Specialist and The Social Studies Teacher, realizing their weaknesses in communication motivated them to improve their listening and speaking skills in English because they understood the benefits of active

< previous page

page_148

next page >

< previous page

page_149

next page >

Page 149 oral classroom participation. Although The Musician acknowledged her weakness in speaking, she was unwilling to step out of her comfort zone and restricted herself to the Chinese community. The salient perceptions of the seven participants in Pattern 4 (Silent Observation) are summarized in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 Perceptions of Oral Classroom Participation in Pattern 4 Participants Perceptions Benefits The Pharmacist (FPHDC3) 1. A way to get professors to offer detailed explanations so the knowledge Cognitive can be reviewed through questions 2. A way to elicit thorough discussion about the topic covered in class Cognitive 3. Stimulation of thinking through others’ participation and questions Cognitive The Ed. Administrator 4. A way to get more opinions and perspectives from others’ participation Cognitive (FMAHK1) 5. A way to share experiences Sociocultural The Musician (FMAT2) 6. Questions raised in class can be immediately addressed Cognitive The Fashion Designer 7. A way to impress the instructor to get good grades Sociocultural (FMAK4) 8. A way to build self-confidence Affective 9. A way to improve speaking Linguistic The Social Worker 10. A way to gain attention from classmates as well as teachers Affective (FMAJ2) The Ag. Specialist 11. A way to reinforce the materials taught in class Pedagogical (MMAI1) 12. Active participation of others could conceal his weaknesses in speaking Sociocultural English The Social Studies 13. An intimidating experience Affective Teacher (MMAI4)

< previous page

page_149

next page >

< previous page

page_150

next page >

Page 150 Table 3.4 indicates that these seven extremely inactive participants generated 13 salient perceptions of oral classroom participation. Except for item 13, all the perceptions are positive, although the participants opted to take advantage of other students’ participation rather than their own. As shown in Chart 3.4, these 13 perceptions can be classified into four categories: cognitive, affective, sociocultural and pedagogical. The overall perceptions (both positive and negative) of oral classroom participation held by the seven nonparticipants in this cluster are multiple (i.e., cognitive, sociocultural, pedagogical, affective, and linguistic), overlapping (e.g., 2, 3, and 4), and interrelated. For instance, through others’ participation, one’s understanding can be enhanced (2 and 3), one’s weaknesses in speaking can be avoided (12), and the content can be repeated and reinforced through many questions (11). The interconnectedness of these perceptions is reflected in Chart 3.4. SYNTHESIS OF PERCEPTIONS Since the classroom communication patterns displayed by the Asian students in this study are related to the ways in which they perceive the value and consequences of their participation in classroom communication, it is important to understand the nature of their perceptions. As we know, perception is an active process by which we use our sensory organs to experience the world. In this way, we recognize and identify the existence of all kinds of stimuli and then evaluate and interpret what we have identified. However, although our physical makeup and social roles affect the way we perceive external stimuli, both are essentially conditioned by our culture. As revealed in the stories in this chapter, Asian cultural beliefs, values, and norms have had a great impact on the participants’ perceptions of classroom communication. However, cognitive, affective, linguistic, and pedagogical features also contribute to the participants’ perceptions of classroom communication. These categories, however, are not mutually exclusive. Some of them are interrelated and/or overlapping as revealed in the descriptions of each participant. While the participants discussed in the four major patterns differed greatly in their participation modes (i.e., active, somewhat active, inactive, or extremely inactive), some of their perceptions toward oral classroom participation are not consistent across the patterns they are classified into. That is, students who are active or somewhat active in classroom communication are not necessarily those who hold positive attitudes toward oral classroom participation; conversely, those who seldom or never participate in class do not necessarily feel negatively about oral classroom participation. Therefore, their perceptions are not static and are constrained by multiple factors. The majority of the Asian students in this study perceive the benefits of oral classroom participation from cognitive viewpoints. Students

< previous page

page_150

next page >

< previous page

page_151

next page >

Page 151 Chart 3.4 Perceptions of Classroom Participation Among Seven Participants in Pattern 4: Silent Observation

across all four patterns consider classroom participation as a way to gain and confirm knowledge and ideas regardless of whether they are actually engaged in participation or not. As many pointed out, they benefitted from listening to other’s opinions, thinking about the questions asked by others, or comparing their answers with those given by either their instructor or their classmates. That is to say, without necessarily speaking up in class, they are still silently engaged in class discussion, processing information, knowledge, and ideas. Some students consider oral classroom participation as a stimulant for thinking, which will lead

< previous page

page_151

next page >

< previous page

page_152

next page >

Page 152 to thorough and in-depth discussion on a given topic and enhancement of understanding. Through discussion, different questions will emerge, and answers or perspectives will be provided and challenged, thus providing an interactive process of learning which is cognitively stimulating. Furthermore, those who participate orally, although in varying modes, perceive participation as an opportunity to express their own ideas and ask questions, which are usually prepared before class. Participation to them is the reflection of preparedness and critical thinking. However, some students feel strongly that the lack of participation on their part does not reflect a lack of learning or low achievement. There are many other ways in which they can demonstrate their thinking and learning, such as examinations, homework assignments, and asking professors questions after class. Students in this study are divided in their perceptions based on a sociocultural perspective. On the one hand, some students consider oral classroom participation as disruptive to the teacher’s planned teaching schedule, and thus rude or disrespectful. These students further differentiate the questions by types. To them, some questions or issues (e.g., asking about a test date, which is specified in the course syllabus; asking for a definition of a concept, which is clearly explained in the book) should not even be raised in class in the first place. Instead, the one who asks the question should read the assigned chapter or listen more attentively. Simplistic low-quality questions and comments are also negatively perceived. Moreover, some students consider oral classroom participation as less important than obtaining a good grade, the latter emphasized not only by schools but also by family in Asian cultures. On the other hand, some students are willing to adapt themselves to the new culture by conforming to the active oral classroom participation modes that are encouraged in this culture. They perceive oral classroom participation as an opportunity to know one another in class, to benefit from the mutual contributions, and to share experiences and knowledge on an equal basis. These students are motivated to acculturate themselves to American classroom behavior, and they have both the confidence and ability to speak up in their content courses. Closely related to the sociocultural perspectives is the affective viewpoint. Some consider participation as a way to build self-confidence, reduce anxiety, and enhance motivation, while others perceive it as a way to draw attention as they fear being ignored or neglected due to their inactive role in class. As much as they want to impress their professors and classmates with their grades, they also want to be recognized as active students through participation, and thus oral classroom participation becomes a way for them to gain confidence. However, intertwined with the affective benefits are the linguistic possibilities in terms of speaking and listening in English. For some students, oral

< previous page

page_152

next page >

< previous page

page_153

next page >

Page 153 classroom participation is a way to demonstrate their communicative competence and to improve their spoken English through trial and error. Students with this perspective are usually risk-takers who are confident in participating in class discussions. For others, their concern about their poor speaking abilities inhibit their participation and because they prefer not to reveal their weaknesses in class, their linguistic deficiencies become aggravated. Oral classroom participation can also be viewed from a pedagogical perspective. Some students feel more comfortable when participation serves as a way to show their preparedness and to reinforce course materials. However, some students do not see the need and the benefit of encouraging oral classroom participation when the class size is unusually big or when the lesson type is strictly lecture. As seen, the perceptions generated from the 20 participants in this study regarding oral classroom participation in their content courses in a U.S. university are complicated. The complexity of the interrelationships among the cognitive, sociocultural, affective, linguistic, and pedagogical perspectives highlights the necessity for further exploration. Perceptions are formed based on individual experiences, but they can be altered if the participants’ new experiences change, replace, or add to their existing perceptions. However, as the participants in this study accumulated experience by taking a number of courses over a few consecutive quarters, their perceptions toward oral classroom participation in their content courses were independent of any specific class. In this regard, their perceptions were derived from the interactions among classroom experiences, their sociocultural backgrounds, their cognitive learning styles and educational experiences, their motivation and attitudes, and their linguistic abilities. The perceptions that were held by these students of oral classroom participation were more positive than negative overall, suggesting their potential to adapt themselves to this culture, beginning in their classrooms. Some participants formed positive attitudes of oral classroom participation from the very beginning when they took their first classes in the United States, and others took more time before they arrived at more American attitudes toward classroom communication. Admittedly, some students started off with a very rigid mind-set toward speaking up in class, but their negative perceptions were gradually transformed into positive ones through their own experiences. However, no positive correlation can be established between the participants’ positive perceptions of classroom participation and their actual participation behaviors in their content courses. Conversely, the participants whose perceptions were negative were not necessarily passive in class. Sometimes, the students who see the benefits of oral classroom participation might be those who seldom participate in class due to many factors (e.g., poor speaking ability, low com-

< previous page

page_153

next page >

< previous page

page_154

next page >

Page 154 munication skills, introverted personality), whereas those who do not see many benefits might be active participants under certain circumstances (e.g., eager to make a good impression on the instructor, concerned about receiving a good grade from participation). Perceptions changed over time. Some participants had seen many benefits to oral classroom participation, but later felt frustrated when they could not enjoy the benefits, because they were unable to participate as actively as they wished. Other participants who failed to acknowledge the benefits of oral classroom participation ended up taking the floor in class frequently, which helped to change their earlier impressions. Understanding the complex nature of the perceptions of the 20 Asian students in the study is a challenging task. Its complexity goes beyond the descriptions of these students and the identifications of their salient perceptions. In fact, we need to understand how these students in the study formed their perceptions, what the salient factors affecting the formation of the identified perceptions were, and how these factors can be categorized and examined in a social context such as a classroom. The following chapter will discuss these issues by exploring these factors and the interaction among them based on the classroom communication patterns of the participants and the identified perceptions of the students described in this chapter. NOTE 1. Asian students’ classroom communication patterns discussed in this book are therefore mainly their participation behaviors in their content classes.

< previous page

page_154

next page >

< previous page

page_155

next page >

Page 155 4 Factors Affecting Asian Students’ Classroom Communication Patterns In Chapter 3, I described all the participants in the study and then synthesized their perceptions of oral classroom participation according to the four different classroom communication patterns with which they are respectively affiliated. Although the majority of the participants in this study were not active participants, their perceptions of classroom participation were mainly positive. More than two-fifths of the students in the study classified in both the Marginal Participation and Silent Observation patterns are considered peripheral participants in classroom communication, but the analysis of their perceptions in Chapter 3 suggests that their silence in class does not mean that they hold negative attitudes toward active participation. To understand the discrepancy between the students’ classroom participation modes and their perceptions, multiple factors need to be identified and the interactions among them need to be understood. In this chapter, I consider these factors on a case-by-case basis to investigate what contributes to each individual’s perceptions of oral classroom participation. The identified factors are then synthesized into five major categories (sociocultural, cognitive, affective, linguistic, and pedagogical). Within each category, three functional levels are delineated (facilitative, debilitating, and mutual) to see

< previous page

page_155

next page >

< previous page

page_156

next page >

Page 156 how these factors at different functional levels shape Asian students’ perceptions as well as their classroom communication patterns. FACTORS ACROSS THE INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS To facilitate the systematic comparison of the perceptions that each individual student holds and the factors that are believed to be responsible for shaping the individual’s perceptions, all the factors are listed with corresponding students within each of the four classroom communication patterns in Table 4.1. Some of the factors can be grouped in general categories, and these general categories can be further divided according to their functional levels. The purpose of presenting the original factors related to each participant is to provide a database by which to synthesize and interpret the results. Table 4.1 Factors Affecting the Differential Perceptions of Oral Classroom Participation Across Four Classroom Communication Patterns Factors Students Patterns 1. Impact of his prior experience as an undergraduate in an American university The Geologist TI (MPHDK3) 2. Strong belief in the benefits of oral classroom participation as self-modification, demanding equality, and reducing anxiety 3. Self-assessment of his language ability as a motivating factor for his active The Geodetic Scientist TI participation (MPHDK6) 4. Strong will as the result of a 3-year military service 5. Constant practice of his English with American students living in the same dorm 6. Strong belief in oral classroom participation as confidence-building 7. Firm belief in the benefit of oral classroom participation The English Teacher TI (FMAI4) 8. Six years prior teaching experience

< previous page

page_156

next page >

< previous page

page_157

next page >

Page 157

Factors StudentsPatterns 9. Encouraging and facilitative classroom atmosphere and supportive climate 10. Thorough lesson preparation influenced by her cultural beliefs and practice in Indonesia 11. Strong sense of competitiveness with other Asian students in class 12. Seven-year prior college teaching experience and one-year experience as a visiting scholar in The Geo CI Germany Scholar (MMAC2) 13. Self-confidence in asking high-quality questions which were well-received by the instructor and classmates 14. Asian cultural beliefs in face-saving which filter out low-quality questions before they are raised; listening and understanding as the priority of the students in class; and collectivism in terms of considering other students’ interest and time by not talking too much in class versus individualism which might prompt one to ask as many questions as he or she wants 15. Overly concerned with the quality of the questions and speech, which could reduce his opportunities to participate in class 16. Concern about the fact that due to limited language proficiency, the questions he asked might not be understood by professors, and repetition and clarification afterward would not only embarrass him, but also waste class time 17. Introverted personality stressing listening and understanding in class and feeling The CI uncomfortable speaking in class but not in a small group of about five to seven students Ecologist (MPHDC4)

< previous page

page_157

next page >

< previous page

page_158

next page >

Page 158

Factors Students Patterns 18. Lack of experience in oral classroom participation in his college as well as in graduate studies back in China 19. Feeling more comfortable with many nonnative speakers in class who could share similar cultural backgrounds 20. Interest level and knowledge of the subject matter under discussion 21. Encouragement from the instructor and active oral participation of other students in class as stimulus 22. Uncertainty in understanding due to a lack of listening comprehension skills as well as the accent of some instructors 23. Textbook-dependent, asking questions based only on the textbook 24. Making a conscious effort to adjust to the American classroom climate as influenced by the active participation modes of American peers 25. Extroverted and persistent in asking questions of interest to him; fearless in making The CI mistakes but ignoring things in class he was not interested in Mechanical Engineer (MMAK1) 26. The fact that the majority of the students and instructors in his department were nonnative speakers inhibited the active oral classroom participation climate, whereas when the majority of the students were Americans he was intimidated in speaking 27. Felt comfortable participating only when the majority of the students were Asian

< previous page

page_158

next page >

< previous page

page_159

next page >

Page 159

Factors Students Patterns 28. The lesson type and his interest level in the subject matter as well as the instructors’ teaching style were the most important factors affecting his oral participation mode 29. Americanized in many ways as he spent his college life in the United States The Biophysicist CI (MPHDJ1) 30. Lesson type and class size determined his participation mode 31. Relatively good English speaking skills helped him have confidence in speaking among other Asian students 32. Interested in picking out mistakes made by the instructors, and disagreement with the professor always stimulated his participation 33. His interest level of the subject matter 34. Mental readiness ‘‘to get rid of the hesitation” and “to forget I am an international student” 35. Difference in participation modes depending on whether he prepared for class or not 36. Avoided making mistakes by thinking about and rephrasing his ideas before he spoke up 37. Lack of English abilities in terms of heavy accent and low fluency and accuracy in The Political CI speaking, resulting in a lack of confidence as he was not easily understood by his Science Teacher teacher and classmates (MMAI3) 38. Six years of prior teaching experience in Indonesia favoring classroom discussion and cooperative learning styles 39. The supportive environment and the encouraging professors enhanced his participation

< previous page

page_159

next page >

< previous page

page_160

next page >

Page 160

Factors Students Patterns 40. Understanding and interest level of the subject matter under study 41. Participation was required by the instructor 42. Sense of responsibility and obligation to prepare for class, which affected his participation mode 43. Readiness to ask questions he had mentally prepared 44. Overreliance on speaking Indonesian wherever possible inhibited rapid improvement in English and acculturation 45. Both supportive and nonsupportive attitudes from American peers as well as instructors toward his struggle in expressing his ideas 46. Whether participation was required by professor or counted toward the overall The Ex. MP grade of the course Physiologist (MPHDC1) 47. Lack of confidence in speaking because he was often worried about his oral language ability 48. Felt relaxed and comfortable in small group discussions 49. Cultural belief in face-saving, concealing his weakness in language by avoiding asking “stupid” or “low-quality” questions 50. Cultural influence that participation was not emphasized in China and students took passive roles in class as long as they followed the instruction 51. Under stress due to heavy course loads and resentful of the fast-paced quarter The Chemical MP system Engineer (MMAT1)

< previous page

page_160

next page >

< previous page

page_161

next page >

Page 161

Factors Students Patterns 52. Believed class time was valuable and preferred asking questions after class 53. Textbook-dependent and asked questions only when the textbook failed to give the answer 54. Thought that making mistakes in speaking was unavoidable as a non-native speaker 55. Graduated from a women’s university in Korea, and was deeply affected by The Consumer MP traditional Asian culture Scientist (FPHDK2) 56. Believed that the instructor’s teaching style was the key to students’ oral classroom participation 57. Good preparation could eliminate the need to ask questions, and persistence and self-discipline could resolve questions even before they were asked 58. Concern about whether she could be understood by the instructor if she asked questions 59. Good at studying alone and using problem-solving strategies 60. Had little trust in her non-native speaking classmates 61. Poor listening comprehension caused her some trouble in understanding the The Nutritionist MP teacher and other students (FPHDK5) 62. Difficulty in expressing herself in class 63. Her prior college life in Korea in which her professors treated the students as passive knowledge absorbers via lectures 64. Expectations that female students in Korea be polite, sensitive, quiet, responsible, and

< previous page

page_161

next page >

< previous page

page_162

Page 162

Factors competitive was thought to be related to their participation mode in class 65. Being the only non-native speaker in the classes she took in her major

next page > Students

Patterns

The Counselor (FMAJ3)

MP

66. A lot of group work required by her major 67. Two years of college experience in the United States 68. Shy in nature and passive in communication 69. Slow to react in that she always allowed herself more time than most of her classmates for response and reflection 70. Adequate lesson preparation and solving questions before they are asked, something encouraged by Asian culture 71. Concern about the professor’s impression of her due to her inactive participation, as compared to her active role in small group discussion as a compensatory strategy 72. Cultural belief in being a good student: taking notes and listening to the teacher carefully without asking questions is a sign of respect for teachers 73. A mother of two and housewife for 3 years, she learned English mainly through The television and pleasure reading Pharmacist (FPHDC3) 74. Lesson type is crucial; lectures were the most common type in her major 75. Easily fell back on Chinese as many of her classmates were Chinese

< previous page

page_162

SO

next page >

< previous page Page 163

page_163 Factors

next page > Students

76. Shy in nature 77. Poor listening comprehension and understanding in class due to lack of content knowledge and language ability 78. Asian cultural concept of face-saving in avoiding asking stupid questions 79. Handouts distributed in class did not give her enough time to read and respond 80. Consideration of other classmates and the teacher in terms of class time 81. Strong concerns about grades and high scores led to thorough lesson preparation as a compensatory strategy for her inactive oral classroom participation 82. Preferred lectures to seminars or discussions 83. Lacking in background knowledge and work experience, and unsure of the value of The Ed. her ideas and suggestions if shared Administrator (FMAHK1) 84. Intimidated by the rich experiences of other classmates who were native speakers of English 85. Due to her shy nature, she felt embarrassed talking in front of many classmates in a big class 86. Her poor English speaking ability The Musician (FMAT2) 87. Overreliance on American peers to ask the questions she had in mind 88. Came from a background in which participation was neither emphasized nor required 89. Reliance on Chinese study group in solving problems in Chinese

< previous page

page_163

Patterns

SO

SO

next page >

< previous page

page_164

Page 164

Factors 90. Preferred lectures to the discussion type as affected by Asian cultural beliefs 91. No background knowledge in her major 92. Shy in nature and not sociable 93. No confidence in speaking English and very much concerned about her English 94. Spent excessive time rephrasing her ideas before speaking 95. Believing that the instructor was the authority, she preferred lectures and enjoyed listening 96. Appreciated the support of American peers to help her out when needed but sometimes relied too much on their participation 97. Adapted “take a memo, check the notes, and consult the textbook” strategy to avoid the embarrassment of participation 98. A growing sense of being intimidated, isolated, and neglected by her classmates as she had no work experience, no prior knowledge, and poor English speaking ability 99. Not sociable at all 100. Saw the professor as the authority and preferred asking questions after class 101. Believed that participation in class was not necessary based on her prior learning experience in Asian culture 102. Did not take advantage of having an American roommate as she lacked motivation for self-improvement

< previous page

page_164

next page > Students

Patterns

The Fashion Designer (FMAK4)

SO

The Social Worker (MMAI1)

SO

next page >

< previous page

page_165

Page 165

Factors 103. Extroverted in Indonesian (outgoing, sociable and talkative), but introverted in English 104. Weak speaking and writing skills 105. Anxiety in speaking in class 106. Did class assignments to compensate for the lack of oral classroom participation 107. Four years of teaching experience in Indonesia

next page > Students The Ag. Specialist (MMAI1)

Patterns SO

The Social Studies Teacher (MMAI4)

SO

108. Used body language a lot in communication 109. Poor English abilities in four skills 110. Lacked the confidence he had in Indonesia Total integration, TI; conditional interaction, CI; marginal participation, MP; and silent observation, SO SYNTHESIS OF FACTORS The 110 individual factors displayed in Table 4.1 affected these students’ perceptions of oral classroom particpation in their content courses. However, the listed factors are less meaningful without further analysis. The percentage distribution of these factors among all 20 participants in the four classroom communication patterns are shown in Chart 4.1. Chart 4.1 Distribution of Factors Affecting Perceptions of the Participants in Four Classroom Communication Patterns

< previous page

page_165

next page >

< previous page

page_166

next page >

Page 166 The 110 identified factors can be classified into five major categories: cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic. The factors within each category can be subdivided into three groups: facilitative, debilitating, and neutral factors. Facilitative factors are those that contribute to the construction of positive perceptions of classroom communication in terms of active oral classroom participation in their content courses. These factors often motivate students to actively participate. Debilitating factors are responsible for or influence the formation of negative perceptions of classroom communication and oral classroom participation. These factors inhibit students from seeing the benefits of their direct involvement in class discussion or interaction with the professor and other classmates. Neutral factors can be positive or negative depending on the particular circumstances. For instance, the comfort level of the students is a neutral factor within the affective category. On the one hand, if a student feels very comfortable in active classroom participation, he or she might have a low anxiety level and will be willing to take risks and participate in class discussion. On the other hand, if a student feels uncomfortable, he or she might feel nervous and anxious and won’t make the effort to speak up in class. Another characteristic of neutral factors is that they have the greatest flexibility to allow changes to happen. For example, pragmatic competence could be a neutral factor. A student might start on one side of the continuum by speaking inappropriately although accurately and then gradually move toward the other side of the continuum by communicating not only appropriately but also intelligently. Cognitive factors refer to the cognitive processing of information and knowledge and the cognitive learning styles and strategies the participants in the study were accustomed to. Facilitative cognitive factors that contribute to positive perceptions toward oral classroom participation include professional engagement due to prior teaching experiences (Factors 12 and 107). On the other hand, factors such as reliance on self-study to find answers to the questions before they are asked (Factors 58, 59, 70, 94, and 97) and lack of background knowledge or schemata (Factors 77 and 83) are debilitating in nature because they can negatively influence participants’ attitude toward oral classroom participation. However, the neutral factors in this category, such as the interest level in and knowledge of the subject matter under discussion (Factors 20 and 40) and advance preparation for asking questions (Factors 20, 36, and 40), could influence individual students’ classroom participation modes either negatively or positively. For instance, advance preparation could increase the student’s confidence in asking questions, but it could also decrease the need to ask questions. Factors within the educational category refer to the educational experiences of the participants in terms of teaching styles used in their home

< previous page

page_166

next page >

< previous page

page_167

next page >

Page 167 countries as well as in the United States, the class size and composition, and the educational environment. Facilitative pedagogical factors include professors’ encouragement of participation (Factor 21), participation as a requirement (Factor 41), and peer support (Factor 97). Conversely, debilitating pedagogical factors include overreliance on the textbook, which could prevent students from discussing non–textbook-related issues (Factor 23). Neutral educational factors are exemplified by the lesson type (Factor 74), interest in the subject matter (Factor 33), and class size (30). However, factors such as the class size, the lesson type, and the chemistry as well as dynamics of the class can lead to either positive or negative perceptions and participation modes. For instance, many students in the study expressed their concern about oral classroom participation in large classes, especially in the natural sciences where classes might contain 20 to 200 students. The students in these classes cared more about other students’ time and interest levels, and they chose to participate only in relatively small classes or small groups. Factors in the category of affect usually refer to participants’ personality traits, motivation and attitude, anxiety, and risk-taking. Some participants’ positive perceptions of oral classroom participation are associated with extroversion (Factor 25), self-confidence (Factors 6 and 13), belief that mistakes are unavoidable (Factor 54), and concern about the professor’s impression of students based on their participation modes (Factor 71). On the other hand, numerous debilitating affective factors inhibit students’ from participating in class. For instance, some participants considered themselves introverted (Factor 17), lacking confidence (Factor 47), shy and passive in nature (Factors 68), or feeling overwhelmed by native English speakers in class (Factors 84 and 98), thus causing inhibition and/or intimidation (Factor 84). The competitiveness among peers is considered more facilitative than debilitating to classroom participation, but it is a very complex factor. 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., The Geo Scholar, The Geologist) with native English speakers. Such competitiveness thus becomes a facilitative factor for oral classroom participation. Conversely, other students are intimidated by being surrounded by native English speakers. Competitiveness becomes debilitating because of the linguistic inferiority felt by these students (e.g., The Ag Specialist, The Ed Administrator, The Social Worker). On the other hand, some students feel more competitive if the majority of the classmates are non-native English speakers. The English Teacher, for instance, felt extremely motivated to speak up in front of other English as a second language speakers. Her competitiveness, which was more of a linguistic than a cognitive factor in

< previous page

page_167

next page >

< previous page

page_168

next page >

Page 168 that particular classroom environment, served to facilitate her participation. Among all the affective factors identified in the study, two-fifths are debilitating to the students’ perceptions toward oral classroom participation and their actual classroom participation. The sociocultural category refers to the participants’ beliefs, values, and moral judgments that are heavily influenced by their cultural backgrounds and educational experiences in their home countries. Facilitative sociocultural factors had a strong influence on the participants’ perceptions of oral classroom participation. For instance, some participants had a strong sense of responsibility and obligation to participate in classrooms (Factor 42), or they made efforts to participate in classrooms due to peer pressure (Factor 24). Their prior experiences in the target culture and in American colleges (The Biophysicist and The Geologist) and graduate school (The Mechanical Engineer) also shaped their positive perceptions of participation. However, interpretation of this very sensitive issue should be undertaken with caution. What is encouraged in a student’s home culture might be discouraged in the target culture. If that student applies the beliefs, values, and norms of the home culture to the target cultural environment, such as classrooms, he or she might have the right classroom behavior but in the wrong place. This is what is meant by debilitating sociocultural factors. These factors include the belief that being a good student means taking notes and listening to the teacher carefully without asking questions out of respect for the teacher (Factor 72), lack of participation experiences in their own countries (Factor 18), discouragement of oral participation in the native culture (Factor 88), viewing class time as too valuable for asking questions (Factor 52), having attended a women’s college (Factor 55), the role of women in countries such as in Korea (Factor 64), and avoiding mistakes to save face (Factors 14, 49, and 78). No neutral factors were obvious within the sociocultural domain, although the nature of the identified factors could change over time. Factors within the linguistic category refer to the participants’ linguistic abilities and communicative competence. As seen from the description of individual participants in Chapter 3, although there are some connections between linguistic abilities and classroom communication patterns, linguistic ability alone cannot predict classroom participation modes. However, some participants clearly associated their active participation modes and their positive perceptions of participation with their good English speaking skills (Factor 31), while others felt their poor English skills (e.g., difficulty in expressing ideas sponta-neously, poor pronunciation and a strong accent, poor grammar) disadvantaged them (Factors 22, 61, 77, and 109). The frustrations and inhibitions caused by the linguistic deficiencies of more than half of the participants in the study greatly influenced their perceptions as well as participation modes to a great extent. Nevertheless, linguistic factors

< previous page

page_168

next page >

< previous page

page_169

next page >

Page 169 alone cannot account for the negative perceptions of the participants toward their involvement in classroom participation. To understand the functional impact (facilitative, debilitating, or neutral) of the 110 factors distributed among the five categories (cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic) on the classroom communication patterns of the 20 participants in the study, a synthesis of these factors is provided in Table 4.2. As can be seen, some of the factors overlap across categories. Two criteria are used for combining these factors. The first is the saliency of the attributes within a certain factor. That is, if a factor exists across several categories, it will be counted only in one category according to its saliency. Second, similar factors are combined into one in a higher conceptual level. For instance, ‘‘Encouragement & support from peers and the professor” in the facilitative/pedagogical group is a combination result of several factors (21, 27, 45, 92, and 96). The combined factors are accompanied by the number(s) of the original factor to help readers to locate more detailed descriptions of each factor given in Table 4.1. Table 4.2 Functional Factorial Impact on the Participants’ Classroom Communication Patterns

< previous page

page_169

next page >

< previous page

page_170

next page >

page_170

next page >

Page 170

< previous page

< previous page

page_171

next page >

page_171

next page >

Page 171

< previous page

< previous page

page_172

next page >

Page 172 Table 4.2 reveals that there are 57 combined factors with 15 in the affective, 14 in the cognitive, 12 in the pedagogical, 10 in the sociocultural, and 6 in the linguistic categories. At the three functional levels, 30 are debilitating, 19 are facilitative, and 8 are neutral. Within the debilitating domain, sociocultural factors are most numerous (8), followed by affective (7), cognitive (7), linguistic (5), and pedagogical (3) factors. Within the facilitative domain, affective factors are most common (8), followed by cognitive (4), pedagogical (4), sociocultural (2), and linguistic (1) factors. Neutral factors are found only in pedagogical (5) and cognitive (3) domains. Table 4.3 expresses these numbers as percentages. Table 4.3 Percentages of the Collapsed Factors in Five Categories at Three Functional Levels Functional Levels Cognitive Pedagogical Affective Socio-cultural Linguistic Total Facilitative 21% 21% 43% 10% 5% 33% Debilitating 23% 10% 23% 27% 17% 53% Neutral 38% 62% 14% As Table 4.3 indicates, more than half (53%) of the factors are debilitating, one-third (33%) are facilitative, and less than one-seventh (14%) are neutral, suggesting that more than half of the factors identified in this study have an overall negative effect on Asian students’ oral classroom participation. Of the debilitating factors, sociocultural (27%), affective (23%), and cognitive factors (23%) are most influential, suggesting that the beliefs, values, and norms of the home culture about classroom communication are the main contributors to students’ perceptions of and behaviors in classroom communication. However, other factors also come into play. For instance, a lack of content knowledge and schemata (cognitive) coupled with poor speaking ability (linguistic) inhibit students from trying (affective) and lead them to rely on avoidance strategies (cognitive). Moreover, a large number of sociocultural factors, such as keeping quiet in class as a sign of respect for teachers, trying to resolve questions through attentive listening and thorough lesson preparation, and maintaining harmony by withholding one’s contrary opinions, are crucial in shaping students’ perceptions of oral classroom participation, which produces more listeners than speakers in class.

< previous page

page_172

next page >

< previous page

page_173

next page >

Page 173 Among the facilitative factors, the affective (43%) ones seem to be dominant, closely followed by cognitive (21%) and pedagogical (21%) factors. 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 attitudes toward oral classroom participation. These positive perceptions are likely to make inactive students more active. Moreover, prior educational experiences and mastery of the subject matter help students’ active classroom communication. Likewise, pedagogical factors, such as a lively and relaxed class atmosphere, seminar and discussion-type lessons, encouraging professors, small class size, supportive environment, and credit for oral participation, contribute to active participation modes. Interestingly, only the cognitive and pedagogical categories are identified with neutral factors. This suggests that students’ perceptions and their subsequent participation modes are either partially or totally dependent on both internal factors (e.g., their interest in the subject matter under discussion) and the external situation (e.g., the class size, the lesson type, the teaching style). Chart 4.2 demonstrates the frequency distribution of the combined factors within the three functional levels across the five categories. Chart 4.2 Distribution of Collapsed Factors at Three Functional Levels Across Five Categories

< previous page

page_173

next page >

< previous page

page_174

next page >

Page 174 The distribution of the combined factors at three functional levels within each category and across all the five categories generated some very interesting observations. As shown, sociocultural coupled with linguistic factors seem to be the most debilitating in relation to students’ classroom participation. This can be explained by the fact that the Asian cultural beliefs, values, and norms these students grew up with had a great impact on what they perceived and did in American classrooms. Moreover, these cultural influences seem to have had a more negative impact on those with less proficiency in English and less communicative competence. It is interesting that in the linguistic category, the distribution is widest between facilitative and debilitating functions, suggesting how hard it is for students with difficulties in speaking English to overcome their perceived linguistic deficiencies. It takes time and effort for them to feel comfortable enough about their communicative competence to speak up in their content classes. This implies that Asian students, especially those who are concerned about their English speaking abilities, should take risks, build confidence, and seek opportunities (e.g., oral classroom participation, socialization outside of class) to improve their communicative competence. It also suggests that professors and American peers should be aware of the linguistic difficulties of some Asian students and be more supportive of their efforts to participate in classroom communication. Similarly, the debilitating and facilitative functions of sociocultural factors are widely scattered, with negative overall impact on classroom participation modes. This suggests a distance, rather than a conflict, between Asian educational beliefs and philosophies and those of the American culture. Such a distance must be acknowledged and reflected in intercultural communication settings, such as American classrooms, in which culture-sensitive knowledge and mindful reflexivity are essential for successful classroom interaction. For Asian students, the crucial starting point is their willingness to communicate and to adapt to the culture of American academia as a way to enhance their adaptive cultural transformation. It is also interesting that both facilitative and debilitating functions are proportionally distributed in both pedagogical and affective categories. Within the pedagogical category, however, more factors are identified as neutral, such as the lesson type, class size, and teaching style. This neutrality indicates the flexibility to move in either direction, facilitative or debilitating. Therefore, reducing class size and creating a facilitative and supportive classroom environment are essential. Affect, on the other hand, is a relatively dependent variable that has the greatest potential for change as the result of interaction with other variables. For instance, students’ motivation to speak up in class, their attitudes

< previous page

page_174

next page >

< previous page

page_175

next page >

Page 175 toward classroom participation, and their self-confidence in classroom discussion could influence, and be influenced by, many other variables in other categories. For instance, a student’s willingness to speak up in class could be enhanced by thorough preparation of the assigned readings (cognitive), by improved English speaking abilities (linguistic), by encouragement from professors and peers in class (pedagogical), and by the realization that active participation in class is expected in the target culture (sociocultural). As far as the cognitive factors are concerned, a wide range among facilitative, debilitating, and neutral functions exists. The point of departure here is whether active classroom participation matters in learning, a question that was addressed in Chapter 3. As discussed, opinions on this issue are divided among the participants in the study, and their differential perceptions of the benefit of classroom communication resulted in their use of various cognitive strategies, which affected their classroom communication patterns. However, the varying cognitive strategies that Asian students use and their conceptualization of the meaning of learning in relation to their classroom communication patterns are related, to a great extent, to Asian cultural beliefs and values and the extent to which these beliefs and values are integrated into those of the target culture. Chapter 5 is devoted to discussing this issue from an Asian perspective. STUDY FINDINGS Although the factors identified earlier can help explain the students’ perceptions of oral classroom participation and their participation modes in their content courses, the interplay among these factors across the five categories (cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic) as well as at the three functional levels (facilitative, debilitating, and neutral) within each category are very complex. Based on the data described and synthesized in the previous chapters as well as this chapter, I will interpret some salient and consistent observations, hoping to highlight the complexity of the interrelationships among multiple factors affecting the differential perceptions of classroom communication and their participation modes in their content courses. 1. Asian students are not all silent participants in American classrooms. However, their sociocultural backgrounds coupled with the affective and linguistic constraints, among other factors, are likely hold them back from active classroom participation in their content courses. As the study reveals, Asian students fall into all the four classroom communication patterns: Total Integration, Conditional Interaction, Marginal Participation, and Silent Observation. These four classroom

< previous page

page_175

next page >

< previous page

page_176

next page >

Page 176 communication patterns, however, are not unique to Asian students in multicultural educational settings. What is unique to Asian students is the proportional distribution among these four patterns, with more students leaning toward one end of the continuum—silence in class. Such a lopsided distribution can be explained by multiple factors in five general categories—cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic. However, the sociocultural factors combined with linguistic and affective factors are instrumental in shaping the characteristics of Asian students’ classroom communication patterns. This finding belies the assumption that students’ linguistic ability alone determines their oral participation modes. It also challenges the stereotypical assumption that Asian students are reticent and, as a cultural group, are passive or less able in classroom communication because they are all ESL learners. Such assumptions about Asian students are likely to have a negative impact on their self-esteem and risktaking behavior. The participants in the study, although representing only a few countries in Asia,1 share more or less the same sociocultural concepts, attitudes, and beliefs, which were ascertained through interviews and observations. These shared traits are reflected in the deeply rooted Asian concept of face-saving, the often-praised sense of collectivism demonstrated by following trends and avoiding confrontation with the teacher or other students, the sensitivity to interpersonal harmony, the overreliance on peers who share a similar cultural background, the blind obedience to the teacher expressed by listening attentively and concealing and tolerating disagreement, the sense of guilt in expressing disagreement with authority figures, and self-discipline in solving problems through reading the textbook. In traditional Asian culture, great emphasis is placed on obedience, proper conduct, moral training, and the fulfillment of social obligations (Bond, 1986). Conversely, independence and assertiveness, which tend to encourage active oral classroom participation, are not emphasized. Therefore, the ways in which Asian students behave in class are affected by their sociocultural backgrounds, although the degree to which each participant in the study was so influenced varies. The degree to which Asian culture influences a given individual accounts for the difference in oral classroom participation modes. Moreover, the Asian emphasis on obligation and responsibility may make the students work twice as hard at lesson preparation to find the answers to the questions in the textbook to avoid having to ask them in class or may lead them to spend much time solving problems that arose in previous classes by reviewing their notes and textbooks. The participants in the study also expressed, or reflected in their classroom communication patterns, their understanding of achievement motivation. As long as they get good grades and learn, they are

< previous page

page_176

next page >

< previous page

page_177

next page >

Page 177 satisfied. In their opinion, obtaining high grades is equal to high achievement in class. Therefore, if oral classroom participation counts toward the overall grade, even the least active students try hard to speak up in class. However, as some of the students were shy, they prepared one or two questions 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 was more canned than spontaneous. As a result, they do not enjoy participation because it is an obligation. Based on my own observation, it seems that achievement motivation is more firmly rooted in the collectivist than in the individualistic orientation. Because cooperative efforts toward achieving collective goals are emphasized more than individual competitiveness, the participants who do not speak up in class always feel more comfortable participating in small group discussions, and some feel even more relaxed in contributing to the small group discussion when the instructor is not present. The sociocultural training that Asian students receive in their education in their own countries contributes much to their character formation. As mentioned in the works of Abbott (1970), Vernon (1982), and Ting-Toomey (1999), in Asia, dependency, conformity, modesty, self-suppression, and self-contentment are taught from early on. Dominant moral and religious thoughts or doctrines, such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, penetrate sociocultural beliefs. In a way, many Asians are 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 sociocultural beliefs and concepts are taken into consideration, it is not surprising that many Asian graduate students in this study were deeply affected by their early educational experiences. The affective factors delineated in this study, therefore, could also be grouped under the broad spectrum of sociocultural 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 than the introverted students. Although sociocultural and affective factors are chiefly responsible for the silent behavior of Asian students in class, linguistic, cognitive, and pedagogical factors also come into play. The lack of English speaking abilities of many students in this study was disguised by adhering to the cultural norm of keeping quiet in class as a sign of respect for the teacher. Meanwhile, keeping silent in class because of the concern for making mistakes also allowed for facesaving through risk avoidance. If the motivation behind the behavior of keeping quiet in class is a com-

< previous page

page_177

next page >

< previous page

page_178

next page >

Page 178 bination of being polite (sociocultural) and face-saving (affective), then the causes of such behavior are obviously multiple. Apart from the lack of communicative competence in speaking English, cognitive factors such as not having prior work experience, the lack of schemata of the subject matter under discussion, and insufficient lesson preparation also have a detrimental effect on the Asian students’ classroom participation. Likewise, pedagogical factors, such as lecture-only classes, large class size, and emphasis on grades made many Asian students feel comfortable because the same factors were present in their home countries. These students naturally felt at home (affective) because there were few differences in the way the courses were conducted except for the language used as the medium of instruction, and they certainly would assume 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 (sociocultural). 2. Asian students have the potential to speak up in their content courses. They might start with Silent Observation and move gradually toward the other end of the continuum, Total Integration, given environmental support, changing cultural perceptions, enhanced communicative competence, and increased self-confidence. The findings of this study suggest that Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes can change over time. They have the potential to move from one pattern to another along the classroom communication continuum. Such changes can be bidirectional, 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, improvement in speaking abilities over time) and/or from outside (e.g., class dynamics, teacher influence and teaching style, other students’ participation modes and their attitude toward Asian students). As discussed in Chapter 3, the students’ perceptions of oral classroom participation and their actual oral classroom participation modes are not congruent. Those who seldom offered comments or asked questions in class were not necessarily those whose perceptions toward oral classroom participation were negative. Likewise, those who participated actively in their content courses did not always have completely positive attitudes toward oral classroom participation. However, what was evident from the data analysis, and consistent among the students in the study, was the fact that almost all of the students believed that oral classroom participation, whether their own or their classmates’, helped reinforce their ideas and clarify their thinking. This positive attitude implies that Asian students, regardless of cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic factors, have the potential to speak up in their content courses, a finding that is consistent with earlier research findings (Liu and Kuo, 1996).

< previous page

page_178

next page >

< previous page

page_179

next page >

Page 179 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., The Ag. Specialist, The Musician, The Social Studies Teacher) considered oral classroom participation in their content courses as a means to improve their communicative competence, but their poor English speaking abilities held them back from participating because 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 by their silence forced them to seek alternative means (e.g., attentive listening, careful note-taking and checking, thorough lesson preparation, review 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 courses (The Geodetic Scientist, the English Teacher, and The Political Science Teacher) were well aware of their weaknesses in speaking English, and they perceived oral classroom participation as a source of motivation to improve their English speaking abilities, which resulted in their active or somewhat active participation in not only their content classrooms but also in ESL and other courses. These students were good risk-takers, and they relied on strategies such as thorough lesson preparation and writing their questions down in advance to sustain their efforts. However, negative experiences, such as making mistakes in class, could preclude further attempts. Moreover, inhibition in oral participation could also change positive feelings toward oral classroom participation into negative ones. If the changing perceptions toward oral classroom participation from either direction is unavoidable, then to maintain the positive perceptions despite one’s actual linguistic abilities requires motivation and willingness to practice in class. Identifying and examining the multiple factors in different categories and studying the interconnections within and among categories will help Asian students to achieve their potential for active classroom participation. 3. Gender and personality are relevant to Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes. Female students are generally more reticent than are male students, and introverted students tend to speak less than extroverts. This study suggests that gender plays a role in oral classroom participation modes of Asian students as shown in the Chart 4.3. As stated previously, among the 20 participants in the study, nine (45%) were female and eleven (55%) were male. Among the eight active or somewhat active participants placed in the Total Integration and Conditional Interaction patterns, respectively, only one student was female (12.5%). However, of the 12 inactive or extremely inactive participants placed in the Marginal Participation, and Silent Observation patterns, 8 (66.7%)

< previous page

page_179

next page >

< previous page

page_180

next page >

Page 180 Chart 4.3 Distribution of Participation Modes Between Male and Female Participants

were female. This suggests that gender plays a role in students’ oral classroom participation behaviors. Of the 9 female students in the study, 8 were more inhibited in oral classroom participation than were male students regardless of their linguistic abilities and interest in or mastery of the content knowledge. The majority of the female participants in the study expressed their sociocultural beliefs about how a woman should behave in class in their own culture. For example, both The Consumer Scientist and The Nutritionist graduated from women’s colleges, and they believed that females in Asian cultures should be quiet, polite, sensitive, and responsible. Therefore, part of the reason that these Asian women students are silent in class is their cultural backgrounds and beliefs. One Japanese female student, The Counselor, spoke English very well, but she chose to be silent in class because she was accustomed to doing 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 behaved differently after

< previous page

page_180

next page >

< previous page

page_181

next page >

Page 181 class or with their co-nationals. The participants in this study were not chosen based on the even distribution of gender, but 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. They revealed that in the majority of the courses they took in their majors in the United States, Asian students were the minority, and Asian female students were usually the minority among the Asian students in class. As seen from their own perceptions described in Chapter 3, these female Asian students had tended 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 sociocultural and prior educational backgrounds and the traditional Asian societal concept of women as being passive, obedient, submissive, and quiet. Although this traditional view of Asian women has been challenged and altered, it still negatively 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, to maintain politeness and harmony. This is consistent with a 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 that of Peirce (1995), who challenged the notion of distinguishing personality traits from introverted to extroverted without considering the context, which is associated with one’s cultural belief system. Although the majority of students in this study consider themselves as introverted in American classrooms, some believe that they were extroverted in classes in their home countries (e.g., The Ag. Specialist), and some consider themselves extroverted in other social encounters with their co-nationals (The Fashion Designer). Therefore, Asian students’ classroom personality in the target culture is not static. Just as their linguistic abilities and perceptions can change over time, so can their classroom personality. Nevertheless, in a social context such as American classrooms, an introverted personality is more closely related to inactive participation modes of Asian students, as shown in the Chart 4.4.

< previous page

page_181

next page >

< previous page

page_182

next page >

Page 182 Chart 4.4 Distribution of Participation Modes According to the Students’ Personalities (Introverted versus Extroverted)

Chart 4.4 reveals that introverted students tend to fall on the silent end of the continuum, whereas students with extroverted personalities are situated more on the active end of the continuum. As seen, all three (100%) of the active participants (Total Integration) were extroverted. Three of five (60%) somewhat active participants (Conditional Interaction) were introverted, but they were all determined, persistent, and inquisitive. Four of five (80%) inactive participants (Marginal Participation) were introverted, and five of seven (71%) were extremely inactive participants (Silent Observation) were introverted. It can be inferred that extroverted personality traits could help oral participation, whereas introverted personality traits could inhibit active oral participation. Conversely, the relatively quiet classroom participation behavior will likely reveal the introverted side of one’s personality, and the relatively active classroom participation modes will likely enhance the extroverted side of one’s personality in a given social setting—the classroom.

< previous page

page_182

next page >

< previous page

page_183

next page >

Page 183 Chart 4.5 Interaction between Gender and Participation Modes of the Participants

Chart 4.5 indicates clearly that all three participants in the very active participation, mode (Total Integration) are extroverted (two male and one female). In the somewhat active participation mode (Conditional Interaction), all five are male students and introverted with one exception). This means that regardless of personality type, male students tend to participate more in class than do female students. Conversely, personality seems to matter more among female students, as all the female students with introverted personality traits belong to the inactive patterns (both Marginal Participation and Silent Observation). It can be inferred based on this study that introverted female Asian students are likely to be silent in class. The cultural implications of this finding are discussed in Chapter 5. 4. Content knowledge and prior experience affect one’s participation mode, but length of stay, alone, does not. Content knowledge was mentioned by at least three participants as an important factor affecting their active oral contribution to class. Five other students cited lack of knowledge of the subject matter as a debilitating fac-

< previous page

page_183

next page >

< previous page

page_184

next page >

Page 184 tor that inhibited their oral classroom participation. The participants who did not have much knowledge of 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 nonparticipants 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 active oral classroom participation. Closely related to the interest level and knowledge base in one’s major is one’s prior major-related experience. 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 did not. Of the five participants who had no prior experience, three (60%) were inactive or extremely inactive in oral classroom participation. For example, of the seven participants who had prior teaching experience ranging from 2 to 7 years, 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 regard to 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 where one stays and one’s motivation to acculturate to the English-speaking community. For instance, length of stay seemed to help some participants’ cultural adaptation and active or somewhat active roles in oral classroom participation. For example, The Biophysicist spent almost 5 years attending a college in Alabama; The Geologist had lived for 5 years in the United States, first as a transfer student in Denver, then later as a master’s student at Ohio State; and The Mechanical Engineer spent more than 2 years getting his M.A. in West Virginia. However, it did not help others such as The Fashion Designer and The Pharmacist, who spent 7 and 31/2 years, respectively, at home taking care of their children, speaking their own languages, 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 matter much. However, if one 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. 5. The American peers’ active classroom participation mode in general has an impact on Asian students’ classroom communication patterns. This study suggests that Asian students are usually very good at reading and solving problems, but because of their different cultural upbringing and linguistic deficiencies, they tend to have mixed feelings toward the generally

< previous page

page_184

next page >

< previous page

page_185

next page >

Page 185 active oral classroom participation modes of their American peers. Many participants in the study saw American peers as usually very active in oral classroom participation, and many found that this active participation 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. For example, they 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 their American peers helped them express their ideas. However, different reactions of the participants in this study toward the active participation mode of American peers in class have several implications. First, American peers’ active oral classroom participation modes could serve as models for Asian students to follow. Second, Asian students can benefit from American peers’ help with language difficulties. Obviously, there is a need for greater cross-cultural sensitivity from Asian students, their American peers, and instructors. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss this issue at greater length, focusing on why and how Asian students can adapt to the American classroom culture and build cultural transformation competence with the understanding and support of their American peers and instructors. 6. Teaching style, lesson type, and class size are more crucial to Asian students’ participation modes than academic majors. Eight participants (40%) majored in the social sciences, and twelve participants (60%) majored in the natural sciences. Only two of eight (25%) participants in the social sciences were active or somewhat active in oral classroom participation, whereas six of twelve (50%) participants in natural science were active or somewhat active in oral classroom participation, as shown in Chart 4.6. Chart 4.6 Interaction between Academic Major and Participation Modes

< previous page

page_185

next page >

< previous page

page_186

next page >

Page 186 It is commonly understood that there are more opportunities for classroom participation for students in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. However, this study shows that those who are social science majors do not necessarily have an advantage in oral classroom participation over those in the natural sciences, suggesting that the area of concentration is not crucial in determining the oral participation modes of the participants; lesson type, class size, and teaching style are also important. This study further suggests that the content area instructor’s teaching style is crucial to the oral classroom participation modes of the participants regardless of their major of study. However, this finding is slightly different from the results of a recent survey of college professors at four different institutions (Ferris & Tagg, 1996a, 1996b), which found that the degree of interaction reported in respondents’ classes varied significantly across academic disciplines. The authors’ study found that 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 because they are concerned about squandering 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 overcome the Asian concept that speaking in a large class or a lecture is inappropriate. The findings of this study suggest that the most significant factor affecting Asian graduate students’ active oral classroom participation is sociocultural adjustment and the lowering of their affective filter in risk-taking. The results of this study also imply that students in different fields of study usually have good content-knowledge. Instead of worrying about what students could contribute, instructors should be concerned 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. In summary, this study clearly demonstrates the following three recurring themes: (1) Not all Asian students are silent in the classroom, although they tend to be quieter in their content classrooms than are their American counterparts. The classroom communication patterns identified in the study are not unique to Asian students, but the proportional distribution of Asian students within each pattern has unique cultural meanings. (2) Asian students’ oral classroom communication patterns are related to, but not determined by, their perceptions of oral classroom participation. Asian students who are silent in classes are not necessarily unaware of the benefits of active participation; given time,

< previous page

page_186

next page >

< previous page

page_187

next page >

Page 187 effort, and support, their potential to speak up in classes can be realized. (3) No single factor explains Asian students’ classroom communication patterns with reference to their perceptions of classroom participation. Among various factors identified in this study that are believed to influence Asian students’ attitudes toward oral classroom participation as well as their classroom communication patterns, sociocultural and affective factors, which interact with cognitive, pedagogical, and linguistic variables, are most important. Within the sociocultural and affective domains, three salient aspects are believed to be crucial in understanding and interpreting Asian students’ silence in their content classrooms: (1) politeness and face-saving in Asian culture; (2) the construction of social identities in American classrooms; and (3) willingness to communicate in American classrooms. In the next chapter, I will explore these three unique aspects within the framework of the Asian culture of silence. NOTE 1. Because of the small sample size, the Asian cultural interpretations are limited to the countries and ethnic groups represented by the Asian students in this study (i.e., mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, and Indonesia) and are therefore not meant to be generalized to other Asian countries. While acknowledging the commonalities among the Asian students’ cultural backgrounds, I did not ignore the differences in the histories, philosophies, and cultures among these and other countries in Asia.

< previous page

page_187

next page >

< previous page

page_188

next page >

page_188

next page >

Page 188 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_189

next page >

Page 189 5 Interpreting Silence from an Asian Perspective In Chapter 4, factors that affect Asian students’ classroom communication patterns as well as their perceptions of oral classroom participation in their content courses were discussed and the major findings were synthesized. The findings, however, require further examination in terms of cultural concepts and issues pertinent to understanding Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities. This chapter investigates the theoretical framework of silence in terms of its structure, meaning, and function with reference to Asian culture. Moreover, the Asian social construct of ‘‘face” and the social identities of Asian students is also explored. Finally, I attempt to offer a theoretical explanation of Asian students’ willingness to speak up in their content classrooms by integrating cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic perspectives. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF SILENCE Silence Culturally Defined Speech and silence are complementary forms of communication; each acquires significance from the other. Like speech, silence is a means of

< previous page

page_189

next page >

< previous page

page_190

next page >

Page 190 communication, but it has received less attention as a subject of inquiry. Although silence is open to interpretation, its meanings, its structures, and its functions are culture-laden. For example, an “expressive culture” such as the United States and a “receptive culture” such as China may regard silence in communication in very different ways: the former seeking constantly to expand opportunities for self-expression, the latter feeling less need to display feelings before others. The Chinese may be comfortable with periods of silence, and even value them, but Americans are thought to be uncomfortable at such times. Silence is used by East Asian collectivists as an indication of strength, power, and disagreement, whereas individualists see it as an indication of weakness, shyness, or trouble (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1994). Silence is indeed ambiguous. Thoughts and feelings exist within a silent person but remain inaccessible and undisclosed. A word or a phrase offers some clues to meaning, but silence depends on the interpreter’s sensitivity to convey its meaning. The capacity of silence to provoke diverse interpretations and ambiguities makes it one of the highest forms of communication and one of the greatest sources of misunderstanding. It also makes it one of the most elusive of all communicative behaviors to describe and measure (Barnlund, 1989). Sobkowiak (1997) categorizes silence in several ways: (1) refraining from speech, (2) absence of sound, (3) withholding knowledge, (4) failure to communicate, and (5) oblivion or obscurity (p. 43). As Bruneau (1973) notes, there is “more significance in silence than in speech” (p. 18). However, silence depends on the context for interpretation (Saville-Troike, 1985), and interpretation is often culturally defined. As Saville-Troike (1985) states, ‘‘Within a single speech community, social values and norms are closely tied to the amount of talk versus silence that is prescribed—according to social distinctions such as rank in the social hierarchy, to role (sacred or secular), or to age” (p. 4). In fact, silence in interaction is determined by many factors, such as the cultural and situational context and the participants. As Sifianou (1997) states: The participants’ decision to initiate or contribute to an interaction is determined by: (i) cultural norms, i.e., which of the two, in general, the particular society, values more: taciturnity or volubility; (ii) situational norms, i.e., what the particular context requires (on a bus, or at a party); and (iii) individual traits, some people are more talkative than others by nature or may feel in a more loquacious or taciturn mood at a given time. (p. 64) Interpretations of silence differ greatly between Anglo (i.e., American and European) and Asian cultures. For example, Americans and Europeans “regard talk as desirable and use it for referential as well as for social/affective purposes,” whereas in some Asian cultures

< previous page

page_190

next page >

< previous page

page_191

next page >

Page 191 “people believe that talk is desirable only when there is something to be communicated” (Sifianou, 1997, p. 74). Bruneau (1973) observes that in Western cultures, “moments of silence and solitude are becoming rare, especially in the United States,” whereas “Eastern culture seems to be characteristically silent—both general and lengthy interactive silences are common’’ (p. 37). Within the classroom setting, students’ silence is expected and encouraged as a sign of respect for their teachers and classmates in Asian cultures. Due to the generally large class sizes, teachers usually prefer that their students ask questions or discuss issues after class so that the entire class period can be devoted to a well-organized lecture. In American classrooms, on the other hand, silence may be viewed as “absence” or lack of communication. Such differences in the interpretation of silence between Asian and American cultures, therefore, can cause misunderstandings in terms of classroom behavior. Some Asian students in this study, for instance, felt that some of their American classmates were rude or disruptive, and they also felt that their silence in class was underappreciated by their American professors as well as their American classmates. Therefore, while silence in classrooms is acceptable in Asian cultures, in the United States it is commonly viewed in a negative light and reticent students are seen as passive. However, in any culture, silence is communication; that is, silence has a communicative purpose even though it is often taken for inaction in communicative settings (Saville-Troike, 1985). The meaning of silence is paradoxically both positive and negative based on the culture, situation, event, and participants. Silence is perceived as positive when “it is taken as evidence of the existence of something positive underlying—for example, proper respect …” (Tannen, 1985, p. 94). On the other hand, silence is perceived negatively if the participants assume it represents “the omission of something positive” (Tannen, 1985, p. 94). Thus, by not being positive, silence is automatically assumed to be negative. For example, if something is not said and the participants feel that something should have been said, then silence is perceived as being negative. Conversely, if there is silence when the participants agree that silence is appropriate, then not speaking is considered to be positive. In societies where understanding is thought to require analysis and argument, words are critical; in societies where understanding evolves out of an intuitive sensitivity, words may be less informative (Barnlund, 1989). Therefore, the perception of whether silence is negative or positive hinges on the participants as well as on the context for the communication. For example, the Japanese seem to hold words in lower esteem than do members of other cultures. In Japan and many other Asian countries, “the emphasis is on listening rather than speaking, on intuition rather than explanation, on synthesis over analysis” (Barnlund, 1989, p. 129).

< previous page

page_191

next page >

< previous page

page_192

next page >

Page 192 The social attitude toward silence can also be applied to classroom situations—there are times when silence is perceived as appropriate and times when it is considered inappropriate. Thus, silence after a teacher asks a question may be perceived negatively in American culture (Scollon, 1985). This may result in American students being very active in classroom discussions if they feel uncomfortable when there is silence in the classroom. Students are uncomfortable when no one answers their questions, so some American students may talk even if they had not planned to. But silence in classrooms is totally acceptable in Asian cultures. Students’ silence not only shows their respect for the teacher but also shows appreciation for high-quality questions as the answers might take some time to think about. In Asian cultures, silence during lectures may also indicate students’ attentive listening and active thinking, but it may well be interpreted as the result of a boring or uninteresting class in American culture. The success of cross-cultural communication largely depends on mutual understanding between communicators. The norms of silence have to be shared for the participants in a given context to understand and communicate with one another without misunderstanding. Shared silence norms are the filter through which behaviors are measured, and silence can thus “be seen as positive or negative by members of any culture, as it is measured against what is expected in that context” (Tannen, 1985, p. 98). Sobkowiak (1997) sees silence in communication as being heavily marked, meaning it is uncommon or relatively unusual in comparison with speech, and may be unanticipated in relation to speech. As Sobkowiak states, “Communicative silence is a pragmatically marked member of the opposition silence-speech” (p. 45). However, this also depends on the culture and the context, since silence in a classroom may be unmarked in Asia, but both unmarked and marked in the United States based on the context. Thus conflicts may arise when students are silent (i.e., transferring their L1 unmarked behavior into the L2 context where silence is marked). Silence can also be a way of communicating indirectly, and Tannen (1985) refers to silence as “the extreme manifestation of indirectness” (p. 97). As she states, “If indirectness is a matter of saying one thing and meaning another, silence can be a matter of saying nothing and meaning something” (p. 97). Silence is thus a form of implicit communication, which is more congruent with Asian communication norms. As many students in the study revealed, their silence in class sometimes meant showing respect for teachers and classmates, especially when there were lots of students in class, and sometimes meant agreement and harmony with others’ opinions. Some Asian students in the study also kept silent when they did not understand their teachers or could not follow the lecture, because they knew that someone in class would speak up or ask the exact questions that they had in mind. In this way, their silence cre-

< previous page

page_192

next page >

< previous page

page_193

next page >

Page 193 ated opportunities for others’ participation in which questions and issues shared by silent students were answered and addressed. Therefore, to some Asian students, being silent in class is better (i.e., avoiding making mistakes or showing respect for teachers) than speaking up (i.e., interrupting the teacher or showing off). Another important component of silence is power: ‘‘In encounters with participants with unequal status, the superior’s silence may indicate domination, whereas the inferior’s silence may indicate subordination” (Sifianou, 1997, p. 68). In many mainstream classes such as content courses in U.S. universities, Asian students are in the minority, and their minority status extends beyond the classroom. Due to their minority status, Asian students use silence in class as a shield for self-protection through invisibility, or as a way to show their conformity and harmony with the majority, a behavior rooted in Asian culture. In any communicative interaction, power management seems to exist among the participants, dominant social groups exercise power when communicating in a manner regarded as legitimate and natural while subordinate groups exercise their powerlessness (Dendrinos, 1986). This was the case with The Nutritionist and The Consumer Scientist, who both attended women’s colleges in Korea. Being surrounded by male students and American students, both The Nutritionist and The Consumer Scientist kept silent in their content classes most of the time. To them, their silence in class was their expression of power in a powerless situation, which is different from subordination. The power of silence, in the minds of both The Nutritionist and The Consumer Scientist, lies in internally processing information at their own pace, thus allowing them to disagree or agree with the teacher or other students without affecting others and without being affected. In addition, for many Asian students, silence is not only a sign of respect, conformity, and agreement but also a safety net or a tinted window, as they can benefit from others’ discussion in class without the risk of losing face due to a lack of communicative performance or being seen as disagreeable or showing off. The Function of Silence The function of silence, like its meaning, is also culturally defined. Jensen (1973) describes five functions of silence: linkage, affecting, revelational, judgmental, and activating. First, silence has what Jensen (1973) refers to as a “linkage” function: “It can bind together people or it can sever relationships” (p. 249). Clearly, silence can isolate us from others, whether this is intentional or not. Conversely, it can establish bonds among people because it can symbolize rapport, cooperation, and the fact that verbal communication is unnecessary. This linkage function is clearly reflected among the Asian students in the study. Many students took comfort in taking classes with other Asian students, and when a number

< previous page

page_193

next page >

< previous page

page_194

next page >

Page 194 of Asian students were in a class, as was the case for the Indonesian students (The Social Studies Teacher and The Political Science Teacher), their mutual silence was tacitly supported. Conversely, The Social Worker and The Ed Administrator felt extremely uncomfortable being the only Asian students in their respective classes, and their silence alienated them from their classmates. Second, as Jensen states, silence has an “affecting” function, meaning that it “has the power to affect us and those around us, and for both good or ill” (p. 251). To use the example of The Social Worker again, her consistent silence was interpreted as indifference by her teachers and classmates, and thus had a negative impact on her as a student. Conversely, when The Pharmacist’s silence in a course was shared by the majority of classmates, who were all Asian, the instructor of that course, who was also Asian, felt respected. Silence also has a revelational function in that it can make something clear while it also hides something. This function is especially pertinent in the classroom, for as Jensen (1973) states: When a person in a small group is silent, it often communicates that he does not possess knowledge on the subject discussed. When a student remains silent when asked a question, the teacher interprets it to mean that the student does not know the information requested. (p. 253) However, this revelational function is more complicated when we observe the Asian students. As shown in the study, the fact that some Asian students did not participate in class or did not answer questions in class does not mean that they did not have the knowledge to contribute to class discussion or to answer the question. They chose silence to allow them to “hide” their lack of speaking skills within a structured and acceptable participation pattern. As Gilmore (1985) posits, “Except for occasional short answers the primary role of these invisible students is to facilitate the discourse by remaining silent’’ (p. 148). In many cases, some Asian students in the study were unsure about whether they could formulate their answers in an effective way as a result of their poor English speaking abilities. Therefore, they chose silence to conceal their thoughts while actively making comparisons between their opinions and answers and those of others. This is why many Asian students in the study had positive perceptions of oral classroom participation and yet were themselves inactive. This is also interrelated with another function of silence that is more common in Asian cultures—to give voice to someone else (Dendrinos, 1986) and to allow others the opportunity to communicate their ideas. As some students revealed, more silence on their part allowed others more opportunities to participate in class discussion, which Asian students equally benefited from.

< previous page

page_194

next page >

< previous page

page_195

next page >

Page 195 Silence also has a “judgmental” function, used to express agreement or disagreement with what someone else has said. Typically, silence indicates assent, especially in the case of Asian students. Even though they might disagree with something or someone in class, they keep silent to maintain harmony. Finally, silence has an “activating” function in the process of communication, which is one of thoughtfulness while others are speaking (Jensen, 1973, p. 255). This is very true of Asian students. My observations of their classes confirmed that some Asian students, though quiet, usually indicated their attentiveness, satisfaction, puzzlement, or disagreement nonverbally through their facial expressions. In sum, among all the functions just discussed, the “affecting’’ function of silence is most important in understanding Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes. Silence allows an Asian student to agree or disagree with the speaker without vocalizing an opinion—an indirect method of communication, which is common and acceptable in Asian cultures. As the findings of this study show, some Asian students may not voice their opinion if they disagree with the teacher, but rather keep silent to show their respect. This is also a face-saving strategy and a manifestation of concern for others. In this sense, “silence has a positive value as a way of serving negative politeness—not imposing on others” (Tannen, 1985, p. 98). For Asian students, this extends beyond not wishing to disagree with the teacher to not wanting to waste the teacher’s and other students’ time with their opinions and questions. However, while silence may function as a method of indirect communication for the Asian students, it can have negative repercussions, especially in a U.S. classroom context when class discussion is expected. Silence then is perceived negatively—as a lack of involvement with others. SILENCE IN U.S. ACADEMIA The Effect of Classroom Interaction Patterns The typical classroom exchange of initiation, response, evaluation (IRE), “tends to favor some students over others” (Losey, 1997, p. 10), and especially the mainstream middle-class students, but this type of communication exchange “is by no means a standard form of communication among other groups” (p. 10). In Asian schools, the teacher is perceived as the authority who does the most of the initiation for questions followed by students’ responses, which would again be evaluated by the teacher. Students’ major role is to listen attentively and understand the lecture. Unless expected to speak up, students are supposed to be quiet in class and take notes if they have any questions. Asking questions or speaking up in the middle of the lecture is considered inappropriate and disrespectful.

< previous page

page_195

next page >

< previous page

page_196

next page >

Page 196 In her research on the classroom interaction patterns of Mexican American students in a community college composition course, Losey (1997) found that ethnicity played a large role in participants’ interaction patterns: Anglo Americans accounted for 81% of the interaction, while Mexican American women, who accounted for almost half of the students in class (47%) overall, had the least amount of interaction: 12.5% of the initiations and 8% of the responses. Losey found that “the combination of class interaction, tightly controlled by the teacher, and fast-paced interaction between the students and the teacher … played an important part in the silence of the Mexican focal American women” (p. 156). This study of Asian students’ oral classroom participation presents similar findings. Out of politeness and respect, some Asian students in the study (The Ex. Physiologist and The Counselor) could not participate in discussion even if they sometimes wanted to. They had to wait until the action slowed down to get an opening, and even when they had an opportunity to speak, they were sometimes interrupted and misinterpreted by some of the most outspoken American students who tried to help them out, but then subsequently took over the interaction, which further silenced them. A few Asian students (The Biophysicist and The Geologist), who had some American college education and were more confident in their English skills, would fight to keep the floor when they were interrupted, but those who were not confident in their English skills (The Ag. Specialist and The Social Science Teacher) simply gave up in their content courses because of low self-confidence caused by an interplay of factors such as ethnicity, gender, linguistic barriers, structure and content of the course, and classroom interaction patterns. The Effect of Teachers Silence is two-way communication, and it is also affected by power, attitudes, and status. This is especially important for Asian students, who may face the stereotype of being passive learners simply because of their silence in class most of the time. However, classroom teachers also play a powerful role in Asian students’ silence. Based on a summary of prior research, Losey (1997) states that “some teachers purposely do not call on non-native speakers of English for fear of embarrassing them” (p. 19). Teacher factors, such as a lack of understanding of Asian students or the fear that Asian students are limited linguistically and therefore might be uncomfortable speaking, as well as a stereotypical view of Asian students as passive learners, may lead teachers to be accepting of the lack of participation of Asian students. This may perpetuate the cycle of silence as well as negatively affect those students who do perceive that participation in the classroom is important and are trying to develop the confidence to speak in class. The teacher’s impact on students can be directly translated into not allowing enough wait time (L2

< previous page

page_196

next page >

< previous page

page_197

next page >

Page 197 learners may take longer to formulate their ideas due to language differences), calling on American students before Asian students, allowing American students to monopolize discussions, and not making participation in class an important component of course grades. For example, the teacher in Losey’s (1997) study on Mexican American students did not challenge the silence of the Mexican American women, but conversely, and unfortunately, “assumed that the silence of the women was inevitable. She did not consider it important for students to talk in class nor did she give grades for class participation. She did not attempt to alter the situation, although she was aware of it” (p. 167). When I talked with some professors who had Asian students in their classes, they seemed very concerned about the silence of these Asian students, and they wondered what they could do about it. The Ag. Specialist’s professor, who taught a course on Vocational Education, for instance, tried to call on several Asian students in his class including The Ag. Specialist, but his experience was not positive. Many times, all he got was ‘‘Sorry, I don’t know,” accompanied by blushed faces and lowered heads. Other professors who were very impressed by the usually excellent performance of many Asian students in course exams, tended to disassociate their Asian students’ silence in class with their academic achievement, and thus became more accepting of it. This study found that Asian students were more likely to participate in class discussion when they had social support from their teachers or peers. For instance, The Geo Scholar was very quiet in one class because the professor preferred to talk most of the time. When this professor asked questions, he tended to expect answers only from a few domestic students who usually took the floor. In another class in which more international students were present, The Geo Scholar felt more comfortable in speaking up because the teacher encouraged participation from everyone. Those students who were least competent in speaking English in class were encouraged to speak because the professor would signal others to listen without interruption. Asian students, especially the less self-assured, less competent, and less experienced, need time to prepare their comments or questions and need a supportive classroom environment. The Effects of Peers American peers also affect Asian students’ silence in the classroom. American students have been taught that participation in classroom discussion is important. They may, unfortunately, monopolize the classroom discussion because (1) they misinterpret the Asian students’ silence as meaning that they have nothing to say; (2) they speak quickly if they have something to say, which means that an Asian student may lose the opportunity to speak; and (3) they are sensitive to silence in the

< previous page

page_197

next page >

< previous page

page_198

next page >

Page 198 classroom. This means that even if they had not planned on speaking, if there is silence in the classroom, American students may feel uncomfortable, and out of respect for the teacher, they feel they should speak, even if they have nothing to say. For Asian students, especially those who do not speak English very well, the momentary silence in class may give them an opportunity to formulate in English what they want to say, but this desire may be subverted by American students’ eagerness to break what they perceive as an uncomfortable silence. The findings of the study suggest that the overparticipation of American peers in the eyes of Asian students sometimes intimidates Asian students, even though they are willing to speak up. Some Asian students simply need more time to process and backchannel the information. The Asian and American students resemble the fast and slow talkers in research by Tannen (1985). Tannen found that the fast talkers “felt the slower ones to be withholding, uncooperative, and not forthcoming with conversational contributions. But the slower speakers, for their part, felt the faster ones to be dominating; they felt it hard to get a turn to speak” (p. 108). Therefore, cross-cultural understanding of classroom participation is needed to encourage and facilitate participation by Asian students. Silence Transfer In U.S. classrooms, students are encouraged not only to develop academic competence but also “to demonstrate interactional competence in social settings in order to do well in school” (Gilmore, 1985, p. 139). This includes class discussions, small group work, and out-of-class work. Students also need to know when to share their academic knowledge within the classroom context as based on the accepted rules of interaction in the classroom, and these rules are usually contextualized. As silence forms part of communicative competence in a language, second language learners also need to acquire the silence patterns of the L2, although this can often be difficult, as Saville-Troike (1985) explains: Perhaps because it functions at a lower level of consciousness than speech, many (perhaps most) otherwise fluent bilinguals retain a foreign “accent’’ in their use of silence in the second language, retaining native silent patterns even as they use the new verbal structures. (p. 13) Learning appropriate “silent” behavior is part of communicative competence, and successful second language acquisition involves “learning the norms and values of the ‘speech community’…. This process includes learning interaction patterns that differ with varying aspects of a ‘speech event’” (Hymes, 1972, 54–56). Thus, acquiring communicative competence in the L2 also means acquiring silence patterns:

< previous page

page_198

next page >

< previous page

page_199

next page >

Page 199 knowing what to say to whom, when, where, and why, and also what to leave unsaid. Retaining L1 silence patterns in the L2, as many Asian students in the study did, can lead to cross-cultural misunderstandings as well as stereotyping when “the patterned use of sounds and silence by members of one speech community are interpreted according to the norms and rules held by members of another” (Saville-Troike, 1985, p. 14). Such cross-cultural misunderstandings can sometimes lead to misinterpretation of Asian students’ transfer of their L1 culturally appropriate “silent behavior” into the classrooms as passive or having nothing to say. For Asian students, silence in the classroom is intended as a sign of respect; however, because of the transfer of this behavior into the content classroom where participation is valued and silence may be perceived as a lack of preparation, students’ positive intentions may be negatively perceived. This can create miscommunication based on L1 silence transfer. L1 silence transfer is natural for Asian students when they take their first few classes in U.S. colleges and universities, because they might not be familiar with American classroom culture and what is expected. However, keeping silent as a sign of respect for the teacher and classmates in many Asian cultures has a different connotation in American classrooms. Due to different cultural backgrounds and experiences, many Asian students have a tendency to behave in American classrooms in ways they believe are proper in their own cultures, and they tend to evaluate others’ classroom behavior based on their own criteria derived from their own social identity. While maintaining one’s social identity is a virtue in itself, Asian students might find it more valuable and useful to have multiple identities in various communities and social settings. Students who consider themselves as active or somewhat active participants in their content classes in the study have one thing in common—they realize the need to develop multiple identities in the target culture, and they consider active classroom participation as an opportunity to acquire the new identities that are necessary for their cultural transformation. However, some Asian students may experience conflict between what Tannen (1985) refers to as the two senses of politeness in terms of silence: ‘‘the need to show involvement and the need not to impose” (p. 106). This is a conflict between their L1 cultural norms and the L2 classroom expectations, which may be doubly difficult to resolve when linguistic resources are limited. Central to this conflict is the imbalance between Asian face-saving and politeness strategies of being silent in class and American face-saving and politeness strategies of breaking the silence in class. Asian students’ face-saving and politeness are explored in the following section.

< previous page

page_199

next page >

< previous page

page_200

next page >

Page 200 BEHIND THE MASK OF ASIAN FACE-SAVING AND POLITENESS The findings of the study reveal that many Asian students’ silence in class is related to their concepts of politeness and face-saving. Some students (The Nutritionist, The Consumer Scientist, and The Counselor) kept silent in class simply because they wanted to be polite and avoid direct conflicts. Some students (The Ex. Physiologist and The Geodetic Scientist) often refrained from stating their own understanding of the issues under discussion, which might differ from that of the teacher, to show respect. Some students (The Pharmacist, The Fashion Designer, and The Chemical Engineer) were quiet in class, even though they had questions to ask, because they were concerned about the class size and did not want to waste others’ time by asking questions other students might not be interested in. Some students (The Ag Specialist and The Social Studies Teacher) preferred to keep quiet to avoid making mistakes and being seen as linguistically incompetent. These politeness-related reasons for being quiet in class call for an explanation of politeness in light of face-saving from an emic (i.e., Asian) perspective. Conceptualizing Politeness Over the past few decades, politeness has been conceptualized by many researchers as strategic conflict avoidance (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987; Fraser, 1990; Fraser & Nolen, 1981; Goffman, 1967; Lakoff, 1973, 1975; Leech, 1983). In his comprehensive review of the literature on politeness, Fraser (1990) offers a critical overview of four approaches to politeness: the social-norm view, the conversational maxim view, the face-saving view, and the conversational-contract view. According to Fraser, the social-norm view of politeness reflects “the historical understanding of politeness generally embraced by the public within the English-speaking world” (p. 220). This perspective assumes that each society has a particular set of social norms from which explicit rules are derived that prescribe “a certain behavior, a state of affairs, or a way of thinking in a context” (p. 220). When an action is in accordance with the norms, a positive evaluation (politeness) arises. Conversely, when an action is contradictory to the norms, a negative evaluation (impoliteness) occurs. However, this social-norm view does not appeal to researchers who are interested in communication among people from diverse sociocultural as well as linguistic backgrounds. As Fraser (1990) posits, “What we view as polite or impolite behavior in normal interaction is subject to immediate and unique contextually-negotiated factors and as such, cannot be codified in any interesting way” (p. 234). If we use this social-norm view to evaluate Asian students’ oral classroom participation based on what is considered the norm in American class-

< previous page

page_200

next page >

< previous page

page_201

next page >

Page 201 rooms, misunderstandings will likely occur because we lose the perspective to view Asian students based on their own social norms. Likewise, if Asian students use Asian social norms of proper classroom behavior (e.g., attentive listening and silence) to judge American classroom behavior (e.g., active involvement in discussion), they will likely be surprised, if not disappointed. The conversational-maxim view, which relies heavily on the work of Grice (1975), attempts to clarify how speakers can mean more than what they say. Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP) posits that there exists a set of maxims and submaxims that guide and constrain the conversation of rational people. Simply put, in a conversation, “You should say what you have to say, when you have to say it, and the way you have to say it” (Fraser, 1990, p. 222). In an effort to account for politeness, Lakoff (1973) expands the notion of grammatical rule and its associated notion of well-formedness to pragmatics, and she later refers to politeness as “a device used in order to reduce friction in personal interaction’’ (1979, p. 64). Leech (1983) takes it a step further by treating politeness within the domain of rhetorical pragmatics. By differentiating a speaker’s elocutionary goals (what speech acts the speaker wants to convey by the utterance) from the speaker’s social goals (what position the speaker is taking, e.g., being truthful, polite, or ironic), Leech postulates two sets of rhetorical principles: Interpersonal Rhetoric and Textual Rhetoric, each consistent with a set of maxims that are socially acceptable. To use this conversational-maxim view to evaluate Asian students’ oral classroom participation in American classrooms is inappropriate. This view focuses on what is said, not on what is not said, and Asian students’ behaviors in their content courses are a mixture of silence and participation. The conversational-maxim view cannot adequately explain the sociocultural as well as functional role of silence. Perhaps the most influential view within the framework of politeness and the most relevant to the understanding of Asian students’ oral classroom participation is Brown and Levinson’s face-saving theory (1987). Although they generally agree with Grice’s view of conversational interaction, they posit that a working assumption by conversationalists of the rationality and efficiency of talk is “against that assumption that polite ways of talking show up as deviations, requiring rational explanations on the part of the recipient, who finds in considerations of politeness reasons for the speaker’s apparent irrationality or inefficiency” (p. 4). For Brown and Levinson, to ensure politeness people may choose not to talk strictly according to conversational maxims. In other words, politeness is the motivation for deviations from “model” situations, and as such politeness can be explained in rational terms. Based on this assumption, Brown and Levinson proposed a detailed and comprehensive theory of politeness. They characterize two types of face in terms of

< previous page

page_201

next page >

< previous page

page_202

next page >

Page 202 participant wants rather than social norms: negative face and positive face. According to these researchers, negative face is “[the] want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded” (p. 129). Positive face, on the other hand, is “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others” (p. 62) as well as the “perennial desire that his wants or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them should be thought of as desirable” (p. 101). To Brown and Levinson, face is so vulnerable that it can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and any threat to face must be constantly monitored during an interaction. Therefore, to reduce the loss of face, speakers rely on politeness strategies to communicate their primary message(s) and their intention to be polite in doing so in interaction. By proposing the regressive strategies of positive and negative politeness, Brown and Levinson hoped “to show that superficial diversities can emerge from underlying universal principles and are satisfactorily accounted for only in relation to them” (p. 61). They claim their politeness model is universal. To use this face-saving view to evaluate Asian students’ oral classroom participation is certainly beneficial, because facesaving strategies are widely practiced in many Asian cultures. However, the Asian concept of face-saving does not conform to what Brown and Levinson claim as universal, which will be discussed in the next section. The conversational-contract view was proposed by Fraser (1990), and Fraser and Nolen (1981). Based on Grice’s notion of Cooperative Principle and Goffman’s notion of face, the conversational-contract view assumes the sharing of understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations between conversationalists at the preliminary stages of interaction. During the course of interaction, ‘‘there is always the possibility for a renegotiation of the conversational contract: the two parties may readjust what rights and what obligations they hold towards each other” (Fraser, 1990, p. 232). In this conversational-contract view, politeness is a continuous effort conversationalists have to maintain. Participants in communication have to act within the negotiated constraints, and when they fail to do so, they are considered impolite or rude. What is implied in this conversational-contract view is the importance of meaning negotiation and consciousness-raising between speakers in communication. As revealed in the previous few chapters, many Asian students in the study were interested in oral participation in their content courses, and many of them made an effort to speak up in class. However, due to the interaction of multiple factors, especially their sociocultural and affective concerns coupled with their lack of communicative competence, some Asian students’ oral classroom participation experiences were not very positive. As a result, they tended to keep silent in class to avoid being misunderstood and being thought impolite.

< previous page

page_202

next page >

< previous page

page_203

next page >

Page 203 Face-Saving Central to these ideas is Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, which defines politeness as regressive action taken to counterbalance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts (FTAs). As discussed previously, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concept of face consists of two concomitant desires: negative face and positive face. These two kinds of face, although influenced by cultural variation and elaboration, contain two valid social needs that transcend cultural boundaries (pp. 61–62). As specified in their earlier work, Brown and Levinson “hope to show that superficial diversities can emerge from underlying universal principles and are satisfactorily accounted for only in relation to them” (1978, p. 61). Brown and Levinson claim that their politeness model is universal, but this claim has been seriously challenged by researchers studying politeness in non-Western societies (Clancy, 1986; Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1988, 1989; Gu, 1990; Mao, 1994). In Asian cultures, the connotation of face is different from, if not more complicated than, that in Western culture. The notion of face in Chinese culture, for ( ), and Miànzi ( ) as examined by Hu (1944). refers to the moral instance, contains two concepts: character publicly attributed to an individual, and Miànzi comprises an individual’s reputation achieved through success and ostentation. Neither of these concepts is equivalent to negative face. In Japanese society, as another example, social interaction is governed by “social relativism,” emphasizing concerns about belonging, empathy, dependency, proper place occupancy and reciprocity (e.g., Doi, 1973; Lebra, 1976; Samimy, Liu, & Matsuda, 1994). Because of the collective nature of Japanese cultural orientation, negative face fails to account for politeness behavior. To account for cultural diversities, Ide (1989) rejected Brown and Levinson’s volitional model of politeness and proposed social indexing and discernment (i.e., obligatory attention being paid to social status in interaction) as the analytical tool for politeness. Although Brown and Levinson (1987) mentioned that the universality of their notion of face is subject to considerable cultural adaptation (p. 13), their concept of positive face and negative face presupposes a Western-style individualist notion of self, which is inadequate to explain the complexities that arise in more collective societies such as China, Japan, and Korea. According to Bond and Hwang (1986), concern about face is a universal phenomenon, but what constitutes desirable face is culturally more specific. Because the participants in this study are all from Asia, Brown and Levinson’s facesaving strategies model does not account for the cultural interpretation of the silent behavior of these Asian students. The impact these students’ diverse sociocultural backgrounds has on their silence in class and how their own conceptualizations of face-

< previous page

page_203

next page >

< previous page

page_204

next page >

Page 204 saving relates to other salient factors can be examined only from an emic perspective. With this in mind, I will examine in depth the Asian concept of face by using Chinese and Japanese cultures as examples. The Chinese Concept of Face-Saving1 The concept of face is, in fact, Chinese in origin. The term is a literal translation of the Chinese , and Miànzi (cf. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [1944]; Webster’s Dictionary [1958]). While Miànzi refers to prestige and reputation, stands for “the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation,” and it represents the confidence of society “in the integrity of ego’s moral character, the loss of which makes it impossible for him to function properly within the community” (Hu, 1944, p. 45). Such dual conceptualizations of face, however, have not been given equal consideration. Although the meaning of Miànzi has been incorporated into many contemporary English dictionaries, the meaning of has not. Nor has it been discussed as a concept in scholarly works (Scollon & Scollon, 1981; Brown & Levinson, 1987). In Chinese culture, carries much more weight than Miànzi . For instance, to lose is considered more serious than to lose Miànzi in that the former refers to a condemnation by the community for socially distasteful or immoral behavior or judgment (Hu, 1944, p. 45), and the latter indicates the loss of one’s reputation or good image. In the study of Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes, many participants stated that they were concerned about their poor English speaking abilities and so they chose to be silent in class to avoid making mistakes that, in their minds, would result in a loss of Miànzi since their prestige as graduate students and their perceived public images as smart students or accomplished scholars in their own fields and in their own countries would be damaged as a result of their loss of Miànzi . However, if they did not try to protect their Miànzi by keeping quiet, they might eventually suffer from the loss of as a result of constant loss of Miànzi , which is an indication of their shamelessness in front of others in a given community. Growing up in such a collective culture, Asian students tend to care more about their Miànzi as their public image, and they tend to withdraw whenever they feel a threat to their Miànzi . Refraining from speaking up in class is therefore one of the strategies Asian students employ to save face, or maintain their Miànzi . Nevertheless, the distinction between Miànzi and is not categorical, and they may be used interchangeably depending on specific social contexts. Clearly, some fundamental differences exist between Brown and Levinson’s universality of face and the Chinese dual conceptualization of face. Central to Brown and Levinson’s definition of face as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself’’ (1987, p.

< previous page

page_204

next page >

< previous page

page_205

next page >

Page 205 61) is their emphasis on the individual, rather than the communal, aspect of face. Thus, the face becomes a selfimage, and the self is “public” only to the extent that it is dependent on the other’s face being maintained (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61). The overall composition of this self-image, as stated by Mao (1994), is not “susceptible to external pressure or interactional dynamics, and it only concerns the individual’s ‘wants’ and ‘desires’” (p. 459) as it remains constant and predetermined. One of the key characteristics of Chinese face is that it does not place self in the most important position as Brown and Levinson do in their definition of face. Rather, Chinese face “encodes a reputable image that individuals can claim for themselves as they interact with others in a given community” (Mao, 1994, p. 460). Chinese face is within the purview of the community and depends on how individuals think their character or behavior is being judged or perceived by the people around them. For instance, The Geodetic Scientist was sometimes very quiet in class when the discussion entailed something he was not knowledgeable about, but he was very active in participation when he believed that his involvement in discussing the topic would reflect his scholarship and expertise in the eyes of his classmates. He modified his participation behavior based on the context so that his classmates would have a favorable impression of him. As another example, The Pharmacist was silent in class most of the time. Apart from her concern about her English speaking ability, she felt very comfortable being silent simply because she was with many other Chinese and Asian students in class who also kept silent most of the time. Therefore, for The Pharmacist, choosing to be quiet was an indication of group solidarity and cohesion. What Chinese face emphasizes is the harmony of individual conduct with the views and judgment of the community. Chinese face, as a public image, is “on loan … from society” (Goffman, 1967, p. 10). It belongs to the individual or to the self only to the extent that the individual acts in full agreement with that face. As Mao (1994) posits, Chinese face is “earned through an interactional process’’ (p. 460) in which it is constantly modified to accommodate communication needs in terms of harmony. The content of face marks the second point of departure between Brown and Levinson’s negative face/positive face and Chinese face. Brown and Levinson’s negative face values individual’s needs and wants without outside impositions, whereas Chinese face identifies a desire or hope to gain prestige or reputation through public acknowledgment. That is, when an individual obtains Miànzi in Chinese, that individual is recognized and accepted by the community. For instance, by keeping quiet in class, some Asian students can avoid making mistakes, and thus they will not lose their Miànzi . In other words, silence as a lack of action in class will not result in a loss of Miànzi , although we

< previous page

page_205

next page >

< previous page

page_206

next page >

Page 206 cannot say that silence will necessarily help one gain Miànzi . Oral classroom participation, on the other hand, could cause one to lose Miànzi , especially when one has trouble in expressing oneself in a second language. The concern about losing Miànzi in front of classmates through oral participation, therefore, inhibits the oral participation of students like The Pharmacist, The Ecologist, or The Ex. Physiologist, who chose to remain quiet in class all the time in order to maintain their Chinese Miànzi . As revealed in the interviews, none of them felt comfortable in keeping quiet in class most of the time, but they would rather be quiet than lose their face by making mistakes in front of their classmates. To them, to maintain public face through silence is more important than to lose their public image by making mistakes in speaking through participation. In essence, the Chinese concept of Miànzi is inherited from a Confucian tradition that advocates that individuals should subordinate their wishes to those of the group or community. It regards self-cultivation as an act of communicating with, and sharing in, an ever-expanding circle of human-relatedness (Tu, 1985, p. 249). Influenced by Confucianism, Chinese students are taught to respect people in a group rather than to satisfy their individual desire for freedom. The appropriateness of actions or words in a given group or community should be considered before they are taken or spoken. For instance, one obvious reason that The Ecologist did not participate actively in class most of the time was his concern for other classmates’ opportunities and time. If he spoke too much, he thought he would be seen as dominating the discussion and thus reducing his classmates’ opportunities to speak up, and this would meanwhile force some classmates to listen to what they did not need to hear. In this regard, his participation sometimes would cause his classmates to lose Miànzi by their being unable to participate in class discussion due to his own active participation, which he translated as “dominance.” Therefore, by choosing not to dominate the class discussion, The Ecologist gave Miànzi to his classmates, which in return lends credence to his own Miànzi . Operating under Brown and Levinson’s negative face, many students in class would prefer to be left alone and ask whatever questions they have without considering other students opinions about the questions asked. Conversely, operating under Chinese Miànzi , many students in class would ask questions based on whether they think they would be of interest to other students and whether their participation would benefit or annoy others in class. This thoughtfulness and consideration in participation is linked to Chinese politeness, that is, to attend to each other’s Miànzi and and to ensure that one’s speech is appropriate to and worthy of such an image. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), face and politeness have a means-to-end relationship, but in Chinese culture, face and politeness go hand in

< previous page

page_206

next page >

< previous page

page_207

next page >

Page 207 hand. To save face, one needs to be polite to maintain a good public image, but to be polite, one needs to give others’ face priority when there is a conflict between one’s own interests and those of others. To return to the context of oral classroom participation, many Asian students tend to be quiet in class to be polite. By not disrupting the teacher, not taking too much class time, and considering other classmates’ time and opportunities to speak up first, these Asian students give Miànzi to others in class as a sign of politeness. In return, they believe that their silence in class helps them to maintain their own Miànzi as they hope to be viewed as being agreeable and polite. The Japanese Concept of Face-Saving Like the Chinese concept of face, the Japanese concept of face places great significance on social relationships and communal interdependence. As Matsumoto (1988) argues, Japanese culture is not characterized by its claim to individual freedom of action, but by a distinctive and continual emphasis on interpersonal relationships; such an emphasis revolves around acknowledging and maintaining one’s position in relation to other members of the same community and in accordance with their perceptions about such a position (pp. 405–408). What is of great concern to a Japanese person is his or her position in relation to the other members of a group or community and his or her acceptance by them. Loss of face results from saying or doing something inappropriate and thus not being accepted by the group. Therefore, maintaining group cohesion becomes the priority of an individual in the society. Nakane (1970) referred to the Japanese social structure as a “vertical society,” as opposed to a “horizontal society.” By “vertical society,’’ Nakane meant that the primary relations in Japanese society are dependent on the hierarchical order of social status in a certain social group, whereas in a “horizontal society,” the tie between two people of the same status is strong. Horizontal societies often attach great importance to class or caste. In the Japanese culture, people are supposed to behave according to their relative position or social rank in the group, and it is by the appropriate handling of this relative position in society that Japanese people maintain their face. Doi (1973) introduced the concept of amae as the basis of Japanese behavior. According to Doi, amae refers to an infant’s feeling toward his or her mother, that is, a feeling of dependency, a desire to be passively loved, and an unwillingness to leave the mother-protection to enter into the outside world. This concept of dependency is one reason that Japanese people tend to downplay individuality while trying to be accepted by others and maintain good social relationships with them. Such a commitment or concern for other mem-

< previous page

page_207

next page >

< previous page

page_208

next page >

Page 208 bers of the society is considered to be “a sign of maturity, but not of incompetence” (Matsumoto, 1988, p. 408). The attitudes of the Japanese students in the study toward classroom participation seem to echo this point, although with individual variations. The Social Worker, who was extremely inactive in participation, did not have the background knowledge and experience that many of her classmates had; additionally, she was not confident about her English speaking abilities. Instead of taking risks in participation, she chose to remain silent so as not to let her “poor speaking and non-experience in social work” raise concern on the part of her classmates and professor. It is clear that The Social Worker was self-conscious about her inferior social status in class in terms of both linguistic ability and work experience. To save face, she chose to keep silent in class as a way to conceal her weaknesses in English speaking and her lack of work experience. The Counselor, on the other hand, spoke very good English, but she was not an active participant in her class because she was concerned about her ‘‘slowness” in speaking and responding and her “loneliness” as the only non-native speaker in class. To avoid being thought of as different, she participated very actively whenever she worked with other classmates in small groups to compensate for her lack of participation in class. The Biophysicist, another Japanese student in this study, was more comfortable in classroom participation because he had obtained his B.A. in the United States. In addition, because of his prior educational experience in the United States and his status as a Ph.D. student, he enjoyed a relatively high position in class as compared with that of many other foreign students. To maintain his image as a good English speaker and a knowledgeable student in his field, he became very cautious in how he presented himself to his classmates. He chose to participate in class based on his sense of the appropriateness of his comments and how they would affect his classmates’ opinion of him. For instance, he would think twice before he participated in a discussion to make sure that his comments and questions reflected both a high quality of content and fluency in speaking. Deep in his mind was the Japanese concept of face-saving for his public image. As can be seen from the experiences of these Chinese and Japanese students, politeness and face are culturespecific concepts and are subject to much cultural elaboration. However, all the Asian students in this study seemed to be concerned about their public faces, although they used different strategies to construct them. Some students (e.g., The Geologist, The English Teacher, The Biophysicist, and The Geo Scholar) took advantage of oral classroom participation from time to time to present their expertise and experiences in the subject matter being discussed in class. Others, like The Social Worker, The Ed Administrator,

< previous page

page_208

next page >

< previous page

page_209

next page >

Page 209 and The Social Studies Teacher, preferred to construct good public faces by keeping silent in class to avoid making mistakes. Therefore, given their different educational backgrounds, linguistic abilities, and familiarity with the subject matter under discussion, Asian students might have different influences on their differential oral classroom participation modes. In addition, it is necessary to examine their motivation, which is characterized as their willingness to speak up in their content courses. THE WILLINGNESS TO SPEAK UP IN CONTENT COURSES The findings of the study revealed that not all Asian students are quiet or reticent in their content courses, although they tend to be quiet in their classes due to the interaction among sociocultural, affective, pedagogical, linguistic, and cognitive factors. Why do some students seek, while others avoid, opportunities to speak up in their content courses? Are students who often speak up in classes necessarily more willing to participate in class than those who do not? Are there any correlations in perceptions of oral classroom participation between those who often speak up and those who do not? As seen from this study, some students who are highly competent in spoken English (e.g., The Nutritionist and The Counselor) are unwilling or hesitant to speak up in their content classes, and others (e.g., The Geodetic Scientist and The English Teacher), who have more difficulty with spoken English, seem to take the opportunity to contribute whenever possible. Needless to say, Asian students’ willingness to speak up in their content courses varies among individuals and across time. There is a need to identify the cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic factors that describe, explain, and predict the participation modes of Asian students. In an attempt to move beyond linguistic or communicative competence as the primary goal of language instruction, MacIntyre, Clément, Nõrnyei, and Noels (1998) proposed a situational model of L2 confidence and affliction: Willingness to communicate (WTC). This model is based on the early works of Burgoon (1976) and McCroskey and Baer (1985) in L1 communication. McCroskey and Baer treat WTC as the probability of engaging in communication when free to choose to do so, and they view it as a personality trait closely related to communication apprehension, perceived communication competence, introversion–extroversion, and self-esteem. The uncertainty inherent in L2 use, which interacts in a more complex manner with those variables that influence L1 WTC, prompted MacIntyre and his associates (1998) to expand this model beyond personality traits by treating WTC as “a situation-based variable with both transient and enduring influences” (p. 546). In addition, they attempted

< previous page

page_209

next page >

< previous page

page_210

next page >

Page 210 to apply WTC to other modes of production, such as writing and comprehension of both spoken and written language. In describing their heuristic model of variables influencing WTC, MacIntyre and associates made a distinction between enduring influences (e.g., intergroup relations, learner personality), which represent stable, long-term properties of the environment or person that would apply to any situation, and situational influences (e.g., desire to speak to a specific person, knowledge of the topic), which are more transient and context dependent. Their model consists of six categories/variables, or in their own words, “layers” (p. 547). The first three layers (communication behavior, behavioral intention, and situated antecedents) represent situation-specific influences on WTC at a given moment in time, and the remaining three layers (motivational propensities, affective-cognitive context, and social and individual context) represent stable, enduring influences on the process. Although this WTC model is meant to describe, explain, and predict L2 communication in general, and L2 language instruction in particular, it can also help illuminate the complexities of the key issue observed in this study: Asian students’ oral classroom participation in their content courses in U.S. universities. In the following discussion, I will use the framework of the WTC model to explain the interconnectedness among the five salient variables—cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and linguistic—found in the study. Asian students’ oral classroom participation in terms of speaking up in their content courses is one of the many activities that can be considered as authentic communication behavior. According to MacIntyre and associates (1998), “authentic communication in a L2 can be seen as the result of a complex system of interrelated variables’’ (p. 547). Therefore, speaking up in class as a behavior is a step further from one’s willingness to seek opportunities to speak up in class, which is referred to as “behavioral intention” (MacIntyre and associates, 1998, p. 547). In psychology and communication, various models have been proposed to account for behavioral intentions, such as the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein, 1980) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1988). The Theory of Planned Behavior, for instance, suggests that one’s behavior is the result of one’s intention given opportunities. As Ajzen (1988) posits, one’s intention to perform a behavior does not guarantee its occurrence, because circumstances may intervene between intention and action. That is to say, Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes are determined by a combination of their intention or willingness to speak up in class, a supportive classroom climate, and the opportunity to actually speak up in class. As we recall from our description of The Social Worker, she was given ample opportunities to participate in her classes, which were mainly conducted seminar-style, but she was unwilling to because she was concerned

< previous page

page_210

next page >

< previous page

page_211

next page >

Page 211 about her lack of work experience as compared with many of her classmates and also about her speaking abilities. An opposite case is found with The Ecologist, who was sometimes willing to participate in class, but his participation mode was dependent on the classroom environment. That is, he spoke up only when he felt there were ideal opportunities either because of the small size of the class or because of the professor’s encouragement of oral classroom participation. Furthermore, Asian students’ intention or willingness to speak up in class is constrained by situated antecedents of communication: the desire to communicate with a specific person, and state, or permanent, self-confidence. According to MacIntryre and associates (1988), the desire to communicate with a specific person is fostered by affiliation and control. As far as affiliation is concerned, many Asian students in the study had very strong group solidarity, and their participation modes were affected by how they perceived themselves as fitting into classes. For instance, The Social Studies Teacher and The Musician felt more comfortable in keeping quiet in their classes when they were surrounded by many other co-nationals because they felt they were not alone. The Ed Administrator felt very insecure about participating in class discussions because she was the only Asian student in many of her classes. Related to affiliation is the extent of control the teacher has on a task-related situation. This can be understood as the teaching style and lesson type each individual teacher chooses. Because different teachers have different teaching styles, their emphasis on classroom participation and the opportunities they are willing to create for classroom participation also affect the oral classroom participation modes of Asian students. For instance, in The Musician’s major, participation is subordinate to performance, and naturally, The Musician did not feel the need to make an extra effort to be active in oral classroom participation. Another situated antecedent of communication is state communicative competence in terms of perceived competence and a lack of anxiety representing relatively enduring personal characteristics (Clément, 1980, 1984). State self-confidence differs from trait self-confidence in that the former refers to the feeling that one has about the capacity to communicate effectively at a particular moment, (i.e., a momentary feeling of confidence), and the latter is more of a personality trait. State self-confidence can be illustrated by many Asian students in the study who were somewhat active in class participation (e.g., The Biophysicist, The Geodetic Scientist, The Ecologist, and The Mechanical Engineer). These students’ participation modes were dependent on a particular task, a topic of discussion, the classroom climate, or their momentary self-assessment of their abilities to successfully convey their meaning in a second language on a given topic. For instance, The Mechanical Engineer chose to participate only when the topic discussed was within

< previous page

page_211

next page >

< previous page

page_212

next page >

Page 212 his interest and expertise. Likewise, The Geodetic Scientist contributed only when he felt that doing so would reflect this knowledge and experience. In addition to the situation-specific influences on Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes in their content courses, these students also possess considerable cross-situational consistency in their communicative behavior. Motivational propensities (e.g., interpersonal motivation, intergroup motivation, and L2 confidence) to communicate, according to MacIntyre and associates (1998), are stable individual differences that can be applied in several situations. Asian students’ interpersonal and intergroup motivations together constitute the affective and social aspects of the motivation to participate in classroom discussion. Although interpersonal motivation in class is related to individual characteristics of the communicators (i.e., between the teacher and the students and among students), in terms of rapport and comfort level intergroup motivation is derived directly from one’s belonging to a particular group. For example, The English Teacher affiliated herself with the target culture group and thus felt most comfortable in participating actively when other Asian students were not present. Conversely, The Nutritionist affiliated herself with Korean culture and constantly reminded herself of the role a woman in Korea should play in classrooms; she preferred to remain quiet and passive to conform to her social beliefs, especially when there were other Asian students in class. However, both The English Teacher and The Nutritionist would choose not to participate in discussion if their interpersonal motivation was low when they felt uncomfortable with the instructor or with some classmates. L2 self-confidence, as the third of the motivational propensities (MacIntyre et al., 1998), concerns the relationship between the individual and the L2. Unlike both situation-specific and state-perceived competence, L2 self-confidence reflects one’s belief in one’s ability to communicate in the L2 in an adaptive and efficient manner. Almost all seven students in the study who were extremely inactive in oral classroom participation in their content courses were selfconscious about their linguistic deficiencies. Such self-judgments about their degree of mastery of spoken English are cognitive in nature, but these students’ anxiety and discomfort in speaking up in class in their L2 were affective (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Horwitz & Young, 1991; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). Research has already demonstrated that self-confidence is related to aspects of intergroup contact (Clément & Kruidenier, 1985), to actual competence in the L2 (Clément, 1996), to ethnic identity (Clément & Noels, 1991), and to intercultural adaptation (Noels, Pon, & Clément, 1996). These findings reveal that Asian students’ communicative competence, their classroom participation experience, and American peers’ participation modes all affect students’ L2 self-confidence, which has a direct impact on their oral classroom participation modes.

< previous page

page_212

next page >

< previous page

page_213

next page >

Page 213 The 20 Asian students in the study were divided in their integration into the target culture (Gardner, 1985) and their fear of assimilation (Clément, 1984, 1986; Noels & Clément, 1994). The three active participants (The Geologist, The Geodetic Scientist, and The English Teacher) all demonstrated strong integrative motivation with positive attitudes toward the L2 community and desired to be a part of the L2 community through active classroom participation. However, the majority of the students who were inactive or extremely inactive in oral classroom participation (The Chemical Engineer, The Consumer Scientist, The Nutritionist, The Counselor, The Ed Administrator, The Fashion Designer, The Pharmacist, and The Social Worker) revealed their tendency to disengage themselves from the target community for fear of losing their own social identity and losing their connection with the L1 community. For instance, The Consumer Scientist spent 5 years in the United States without feeling comfortable in communicating with people other than her Korean husband and her Korean friends. The Pharmacist, who learned English by watching television during her years in the United States, communicated in Chinese at home and at work most of the time because many of her fellow research associates in the lab, including her boss, were Chinese. The Social Worker eagerly moved from a dorm to a house to live with an American roommate to reduce her expenses, not to gain opportunities to practice her English speaking. In addition to integration and fear of assimilation as two opposing forces within an individual, some Asian students (The Geodetic Scientist and The English Teacher) considered oral classroom participation as an opportunity to practice and improve their spoken English. Obviously, these students were highly motivated to learn English outside their language classroom. Oral classroom participation is, after all, part of a social situation. To fully understand situational variations in classroom participation, we need to observe factors such as the participants, the setting, the purpose, the topic, and the channel of communication. While the scope of this study of Asian students’ oral classroom participation has been restricted by the setting (education/academic, Biber, 1994), the purpose (transfer information, Biber, 1994), and the communication channels (speaking), both the participants and the topic seem to be key variables that have impact on Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes in their content courses. Unlike many ESL classes where learners are all non-native English speakers (NNESs), Asian students, in taking content courses in U. S. universities, come into contact with their American peers and other international students. Although no clear pattern differentiates students by variables such as social status or content knowledge, English language proficiency as a variable can serve as a marker to differentiate native English speakers (NESs) from NNESs. As Hatch (1992) posits, because of linguistic differences, interactions between NESs and NNESs tend to

< previous page

page_213

next page >

< previous page

page_214

next page >

Page 214 show an asymmetrical pattern, with NNESs performing in a relatively passive manner (i.e., avoiding topic initiation). However, the usual active oral classroom participation of NESs caused some concern among many Asian students in the study. The Asian students’ perceptions of some American classmates as dominating classroom participation created a social distance between these two groups and inhibited Asian students’ efforts to participate. However, when the majority of the students in class are Asian, their active participation is not guaranteed either. A possible explanation, as revealed by The English Teacher, is that the sense of competitiveness among Asian students induced by Asian culture sometimes created more tension in the content classes in speaking correct or accurate English in front of their L2 counterparts. This is also why The English Teacher tended to participate more actively when she was the only Asian student in a class—she did not fear losing face when she made grammar mistakes or mispronounced words. She thought that her American classmates would tolerate her mistakes in speaking more than other L2 students would. The study also has revealed that the topic of discussion in class plays a very important role in some Asian students’ willingness to participate. For instance, both The Mechanical Engineer and The Geodetic Scientist, who usually remained silent in class, would jump into the discussion when the topic appealed to them. Because both of them had had extensive work experience in their respective fields of study before they enrolled as graduate students, they regarded oral participation on certain topics as a demonstration of their expertise and self-esteem. They were usually very fluent in expressing in English what they knew in their L1s. Topical expertise and the familiarity with certain terminology and jargon evidently boosted their linguistic self-confidence. On the other hand, The Ed Administrator, who spoke very good English, lacked self-confidence in participating in the discussion in her content courses because of her unfamiliarity with many topics in her field and her lack of work experience and expertise in the field as compared with her classmates, who were mainly K–12 school administrators in the Columbus area. This study confirms prior research findings that superior content knowledge can result in an individual’s being more verbally forthcoming and can override certain limitations the speaker may have in his or her overall oral proficiency (Zuengler, 1993). If one’s topic knowledge does have a positive impact on one’s oral classroom participation in content courses, then will the level of communicative competence affect one’s willingness to participate in the content courses? Some students in the study (The Biophysicist and The Counselor) demonstrated a high level of communicative competence, but they were not among the most active participants. One possible explanation is that neither The Biophysicist nor The Counselor consid-

< previous page

page_214

next page >

< previous page

page_215

next page >

Page 215 ered himself a competent communicator when compared with native speakers of English. Their underestimation of their communicative competence was the result of their Asian backgrounds, which encourage modesty and humility. The discrepancy between their perceived competence and their actual competence reminds us that WTC is a function of how the individual perceives his or her competence rather than its objective development (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). Above all, Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes are determined by two enduring factors: the societal context and the individual context. The societal context extends beyond classrooms and refers to the intergroup climate in which Asian students are constantly challenged in the process of cultural adaptation or acculturation (Schumann, 1978). The individual context refers to more stable personality characteristics relevant to oral classroom participation modes. When Asian students come to study in U.S. universities, they face many challenges in adjusting to the unfamiliar culture. One big challenge is social identity in the intergroup climate, which not only affects how they perceive themselves in the new environment, but also how they want to be perceived by other people in the group. To present oneself well in the target culture requires adequate communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). Although there is little empirical support for a correlation between one’s communicative competence and one’s acculturation, some evidence suggests that harmonious adaptation is likely to occur for those who possess both the communicative skills and the knowledge necessary to operate effectively and appropriately in the target culture (Kim, 1988). As the study reveals, some Asian students (e.g., The Ag Specialist and The Social Studies Teacher) who are concerned about their speaking abilities are likely to keep quiet in class to save face and to maintain intergroup relations in class by avoiding being seen as poor communicators. Others (e.g., The Political Science Teacher), despite their poor speaking abilities in English, tend to seek opportunities to speak up in class as a way to enhance their communicative competence and to maintain intergroup relations in class. Perhaps the most enduring influence on Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes is personality characteristics. As revealed in the study, those who described themselves as introverted seldom or never spoke in their content classes. But the reverse was not true. Those who labeled themselves as extroverted were not all active in classroom participation. What is fascinating is that personality taken alone does not have much impact on students’ classroom participation modes. For instance, a naturally extroverted student such as The Ex. Physiologist was very introverted in class because of his insecurity about his spoken English. Conversely, a socially introverted student such as The Biophysicist participated actively in classroom discussion when he perceived the need to

< previous page

page_215

next page >

< previous page

page_216

next page >

Page 216 elaborate on a topic or to request an explanation to burnish his public image. Therefore, personality is situationspecific and functions only in combination with cognitive, sociocultural, affective, pedagogical, and linguistic factors. Goldberg (1993) recently developed a taxonomy of the most basic independent personality traits, which includes extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to new experiences. These five traits all contribute to developing motivation for language learning or L2 WTC. The findings of this study of Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes suggest that one’s personality traits vary with the contexts (in the classroom, off campus, at home) and are constrained by many other variables affecting oral classroom participation modes in content courses. McCroskey and Baer (1985) assert that L1 WTC is a trait-like construct, and MacIntyre and associates (1998) posit that L2 WTC is a situation-based variable representing an intention to communicate at a specific time with a specific person. Based on the analysis of the study of Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes, I suggest that Asian students’ willingness to participate in their content courses is a complex mechanism combining both trait-like and situation-based variables. Trait-like variables such as personality and linguistic abilities are only relatively more constant than situation-specific variables such as pedagogical tasks, interpersonal and intergroup motivation, avoidance strategies, and sociocultural concerns. Only by taking into consideration all these factors and how they interact can we have a better understanding of why some Asian students speak up in their content courses despite limited communicative competence, whereas others are reluctant to participate in class discussion even when they are highly competent in English. Only by looking closely at Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes, their perceptions of oral classroom participation, and the factors that influence their perceptions and participation behavior can we get a full picture of why they do what they do in classrooms and how we can help them feel more comfortable and competent in participating in their content courses by actualizing their potential to create a more harmonized intercultural classroom climate. Chapter 6 highlights the central issue of the book: adaptive cultural transformation. What does it mean to Asian students studying in the United States? How can Asian students achieve adaptive cultural transformation, of which communicative competence is only a part? Some recommendations for university administrators and professors and American and international peers are offered and some professional resources are given to facilitate Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation.

< previous page

page_216

next page >

< previous page

page_217

next page >

Page 217 NOTE 1. The Chinese and Japanese concepts of face-saving are used for illustrative purposes. The selection of these two cultures is based on the availability of resources. The omission of face-saving strategies pertinent to other Asian cultures (e.g., Korean, Indonesian) is not meant to downplay the importance of face-saving in those cultures.

< previous page

page_217

next page >

< previous page

page_218

next page >

page_218

next page >

Page 218 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_219

next page >

Page 219 6 Asian Students’ Adaptive Cultural Transformation In the previous chapter, I offered an emic perspective on why Asian students are likely to be quiet in American classrooms. However, when this silence is taken as a lack of respect or engagement, a lack of communicative competence, or an expression of fear and anxiety, cross-cultural conflicts arise. What should be done when we encounter such cross-cultural conflicts in American classrooms? Should people in the target culture be more sensitive to foreign students by trying to understand them and accept who they are and what they do in class? Should Asian students as a minority cultural group adjust and adapt to the American classroom cultural norms that endorse active oral classroom participation? Moreover, should Asian students studying in American colleges and universities be willing to acquire adaptive cultural transformation competence and construct intercultural identities in an effort to understand, respect, and adapt to the target culture? How can Asian students adapt to the target culture in general and to the American classroom culture in particular? What help do Asian students need from the target culture community, both in and outside the classroom? These questions are addressed in this final chapter through the framework of adaptive cul-

< previous page

page_219

next page >

< previous page

page_220

next page >

Page 220 tural transformation. As someone who was an Asian student and later an Asian professor in two different American universities, I believe that adaptive cultural transformation is inevitable for Asian students, regardless of their expected length of stay in the United States. As discussed in Chapter 1, the continual movement of people across societies, along with the technological and social changes within societies, requires that we cope with numerous situations for which our previous experience simply does not prepare us. Learning to live with uncertainty has become one of the central challenges of our time. Many Asian students in the United States struggle to cope with feelings of inadequacy and unease in the new environment, some resist change and cling to their ‘‘familiar social network” for emotional support, and some try hard to adapt to this culture. Whether for the long or the short term, Asian students in the United States are in a situation in which they are required to cope with substantial cultural changes in classrooms, on campus, out in the street, in communities, and in various social settings. Adaptive cultural transformation occurs naturally and necessarily regardless of the intentions of the individuals as long as they continuously engage in communication with the host environment and are functionally dependent on it. Asian students studying in the United States are in situations of functional dependence on the target culture. For them, their desire to study in American colleges and universities is a strong indication of their potential for adaptive cultural transformation, and their subsequent success in getting into the United States is the first step in their journey of adaptive cultural transformation. Except for the initial stage, adaptive changes are typically so gradual and subtle that they may not be recognized by the Asian students themselves, but they adapt and change as long as they are engaged with the target culture through communication. Naturally, the classroom setting is one of the important communication channels for Asian students. Although the process of adaptive cultural transformation varies across time from individual to individual, what matters to Asian students is their sensitivity to cultural differences and their willingness to develop multiple identities in different settings. In this chapter, I explore and explain the adaptive cultural transformation framework by discussing (1) the concept of adaptive cultural transformation, (2) adaptive cultural transformation processes and the challenges Asian students face in such processes, and (3) adaptive cultural transformation competencies. Recommendations for Asian students in U.S. colleges and universities are made along with suggestions on how university communities (ESL and content teachers, American peers, and U.S. colleges and

< previous page

page_220

next page >

< previous page

page_221

next page >

Page 221 universities) and professional resources can help Asian students in their process of adaptive cultural transformation. THE CONCEPT OF ADAPTIVE CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION When Asian students leave their own countries for the United States to pursue their academic studies, they start a boundary-crossing journey that is full of adventure. The successful completion of this journey is determined by the extent to which they adapt to the target culture. Adaptive cultural transformation is a process in which one constantly adjusts one’s cultural beliefs, values, and behaviors to those of the target culture and gradually develops the multiple identities necessary to operate in different intercultural communication settings with appropriate, effective, and meaningful communicative performance. In this process, one has to (1) constantly walk a narrow path while balancing different identities, (2) forgo stability to regain stability, (3) risk losing trust to regain trust, and (4) be willing to become anonymous in the unknown territory to be a full-fledged, recognized member of that new culture (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Asian students have to constantly negotiate the theme of being-and-becoming as they learn to acquire new roles and new adaptive skills in the target culture. Such an adaptive cultural transformation can be described as a “roller-coaster ride” (Anderson, 1994), “identity stretch” (Lazarus, 1991), or “identity tug-and-pull experience’’ (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Adaptive cultural transformation is a multidimensional, multifaceted process that is generally influenced by systemlevel, individual-level, and interpersonal-level factors. System-level factors are the elements in the host environment that influence newcomers’ adaptation to the new culture (Kim, 1991, 1995). They include (1) the host culture’s socioeconomic conditions (Puentha, Giles, & Young, 1987); (2) the host culture’s attitudinal stance on cultural assimilation or cultural pluralism (Berry, Kim, & Boski, 1987; Kraus, 1991); (3) local institutions such as universities and colleges that serve as firsthand contact agencies (Moutland & Ledgerwood, 1988); (4) the host culture’s meaning definition differentiating insiders from outsiders (Anderson, 1994), and (5) the cultural distance between the two cultures (Ward, 1996). All these factors have an influence on Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation. Individual-level factors that have been found to influence intercultural adaptation include (1) motivational orientations (Adler, 1997), (2) individual expectations (Ward, 1996; Ward & Kennedy, 1994), (3) cultural and interaction-based knowledge about the host culture (Krishnan & Berry, 1992), and (4) personality attributes (Ward, 1996; Ward & Kennedy, 1993).

< previous page

page_221

next page >

< previous page

page_222

next page >

Page 222 Interpersonal-level factors include relational face-to-face network factors (e.g., social networks), mediated contact factors (e.g., the use of mass media) (Kim, 1995), and interpersonal skill factors (Ting-Toomey, 1999). It is the simultaneous interaction of all these factors at and across multiple layers that makes adaptive cultural transformation a challenge for many Asian students. ADAPTIVE CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES As early as the 1950s, Lysgaard (1955) proposed the U-curve model of sojourners’ adjustment processes, suggesting that they pass through an initial honeymoon phase and then experience a stressful period before they bounce back and have a rewarding experience. Based on this model, Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) proposed a six-stage Wshaped model, with successive honeymoon, hostility, humorous, at-home, reentry culture shock, and resocialization stages. This W-shaped model was recently revised by Ting-Toomey (1999), who proposed a seven-stage W-shaped adjustment model (the honeymoon, hostility, humorous, in-sync, ambivalence, reentry culture shock, and resocialization stages). While this seven-stage model can be applied to the entirety of international students’ experiences from leaving when they first leave their country until their return to it, the first four stages can be used to depict the adaptive cultural transformation processes of Asian students in American classrooms at a micro level. In the honeymoon stage, Asian students are very excited about their classes in the new cultural environment where English is the medium of instruction. Although they might experience mild identity dislocation or disorientation because they cannot function in the L2 at the same competence level as in their L1, they tend to remain excited and perceive their classroom events through “pleasant tinted lenses” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 248). However, as Asian students take more classes, their mild identity dislocation and disorientation can become aggravated when they cannot find their own voices and identities in class due to their lack of participation because of the sociocultural, affective, cognitive, linguistic, and pedagogical reasons discussed throughout this book. Consequently, Asian students are likely to use avoidance strategies such as remaining silent or invisible in class, which results in low self-esteem and self-confidence, or they might feel uncomfortable with and therefore resentful toward the active participation modes of many American students in class, or they might realize the importance of adapting to the target culture by making an effort in classroom participation. Some Asian students might remain at this so-called hostility stage for a long time, but they gradually move into the humorous stage in which they “learn to laugh at their cultural faux pas and start to realize that there

< previous page

page_222

next page >

< previous page

page_223

next page >

Page 223 are pros and cons in each culture” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 249). They also experience a mixture of stressadaptation-growth emotions (Kim, 1988) as their frustrations are occasionally replaced by successes. They are likely to compare their own classroom experiences in their home cultures with those in the target culture in more realistic terms, and they will start to rethink things they have taken for granted and learn to understand, respect, and appreciate the live classroom atmosphere created through active participation. Their awareness of differences and willingness to cope with them move Asian students to the in-sync stage, in which they regain and gradually expand their social identities through active classroom participation. They feel secure and supported by teachers and classmates in their effort to participate in classroom discussion, and they taste the fruits of their endeavors in terms of adaptive cultural transformation through classroom participation. Asian students who study in the United States need to be aware of this process of adaptive cultural transformation. Recognizing the different stages they will go through before they take the journey is far more beneficial than experiencing one stage without knowing what to expect next. The challenges Asian students face in their adaptive cultural transformation process in U.S. universities are numerous. In the classroom, Asian students often encounter (1) differences in core beliefs, values, and situational norms in terms of how a class is conducted, the roles of the teachers and students, and expected oral classroom participation modes; (2) the diminished value of their modes of behavior in their home culture and their familiar identities as attentive listeners and silent knowledge acquirers; and (3) their sense of social as well as linguistic incompetence in responding to the new setting appropriately and effectively. To help Asian students meet these challenges, teaching them how to overcome culture shock in American classrooms is the first and foremost task faced by ESL teachers, content teachers, and American peers. According to Furnham (1988), culture shock involves (1) a sense of identity loss and deprivation with regard to values, status, profession, friends, and possessions; (2) identity strain as a result of the effort required to make a necessarily psychological adaptation; (3) identity rejection by members of the new culture; (4) identity confusion, especially in regard to role ambiguity and unpredictability; and (5) identity importance as a result of not being able to cope with the new environment. As seen from the study and as described, explained, and interpreted throughout the previous chapters, all 20 Asian students experienced identity loss. Because of the lack of communicative competence in English as a second language, many of them felt awkward and had difficulty in developing new identities in classrooms. The first year of stay is crucial for Asian students in American colleges and universities, and this

< previous page

page_223

next page >

< previous page

page_224

next page >

Page 224 is the time when they need the most help from their university communities—their ESL teachers, content course instructors, and their American peers—to build adaptive cultural transformation competence. ADAPTIVE CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION COMPETENCE Adaptive cultural transformation competence encompasses a wide array of competencies. It not only addresses what competencies one needs in successful communication, but also why and how such competencies can mark one’s identities in different social settings. In this book, the adaptive cultural transformation competence model incorporates both the transcultural communication competence model (Ting-Toomey, 1999) and the communicative competence model (Canale & Swain, 1980; Savignon, 1983) with Asian students as the focus, but also including other international students in U.S. colleges and universities. With this frame of reference in mind, adaptive cultural transformation competence can be referred to as the ability of an individual to communicate appropriately and effectively in the target culture by expanding his or her social identity to one that blends the new set of values, habits, and social norms endorsed in the target culture with those in the home country. It consists of a set of skills that are needed for appropriate, effective, and satisfactory cultural adaptation. For example, the values, habits, and behaviors Asian students bring with them into U.S. classrooms that are considered appropriate and acceptable in Asian culture need to be adjusted to cater to U.S. classroom expectations. The efforts that Asian students make in adapting their participation modes to what is expected in U.S. classrooms can be considered an indication of adaptive cultural transformation competence, although the content of such competence is multifaceted. The adaptive cultural transformation competence model consists of three major components: social identity negotiation skills, culture-sensitive knowledge and mindful reflexivity, and communicative competence. Social Identity Negotiation Skills At the center of adaptive cultural transformation is identity negotiation theory in which identity is viewed as “reflective self-images constructed, experienced, and communicated by the individuals within a culture and in a particular interaction situation” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 39). According to this theory, what is most essential for Asian students in U.S. colleges and universities is to address their sense of insecurity and vulnerability. To cope with identity threat, Asian students must be highly motivated to increase their familiarity with the diverse facets of the target culture by suspending their snap evaluations and cultural

< previous page

page_224

next page >

< previous page

page_225

next page >

Page 225 biases and be willing to understand and practice the socially acceptable behaviors of the target culture. When Asian students come to the United States, they bring with them their sense of “self-image” or ‘‘identity,” which is influenced by cultural, personal, situational, and relational factors. In the new environment, they need to establish their new identities while communicating with others. The effectiveness and appropriateness of the role their new identities play largely depends on the consensual norms and scripts developed by people in the target culture. Therefore, Asian students need to constantly negotiate their new identities in U.S. colleges and universities to be a part of the target culture. The identity negotiation perspective is an integrative theory that draws from the work of social identity theory (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Brewer & Miller, 1996), symbolic interactionism (e.g., McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1981, 1991), identity negotiation (e.g., Tajfel, 1974, 1981; Ting-Toomey, 1988, 1993), and relational dialectics (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). According to Ting-Toomey (1999), the basis of the identity negotiation perspective lies in the fact that individuals in all cultures desire to be competent communicators in a diverse range of interactive situations. Tajfel (1974, 1981), a social psychologist, believed that identity is derived from group membership. Tajfel (1974) defined social identity as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership” (p. 69). Tajfel maintained that because an individual’s identity is derived from his or her in-group membership, the individual may choose to change group membership if the current group membership does not adequately satisfy the elements of the social identity that the individual views positively. However, changing group membership, and thus social identity to a certain extent, may not always be possible, leaving the individual with few solutions: changing his or her interpretation of the characteristics of the in-group so as to view them in a more positive light or engaging in social action to change the situation. Drawing heavily on Tajfel’s theory, Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977) and Giles and Johnson (1981) developed their ethnolinguistic identity theory, focusing on language as a salient marker of group membership and social identity. Giles and Johnson state that “many language varieties (for instance, a broad ethnic accent) may be viewed as acquired characteristics rather than those given by virtue of birth. Therefore, language is also potentially a stronger cue to an individual’s sense of ethnic belongingness … since acquired characteristics may be attributed internally rather than externally” (pp. 203–204). Giles and Johnson also focused on group membership, hypothesizing that individuals compare

< previous page

page_225

next page >

< previous page

page_226

next page >

Page 226 their own social group to out-groups in an attempt to make their own favorably distinct and that positive distinctiveness enables individuals to achieve a positive social identity. If the comparison is negative, however, the authors maintained that an individual may adopt several strategies to attain a more positive social identity. One such strategy would be assimilation into a group that the individual or the individual’s group views more positively. If language is a salient marker of group membership, the individual may be faced with linguistic adaptations that may result in subtractive bilingualism or even language erosion if a large number of individuals of a particular group adopt assimilation into another group to achieve a more positive group identity. Interactional sociolinguists, such as Gumperz (1970, 1982) and Heller (1982, 1987, 1988), also focused on language in their research on social identity and believed that “social identity and ethnicity are in large part established and maintained through language” (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 1982, p. 7). They conducted research on specific speech events to examine the relationship between speakers’ choices of linguistic categories, such as phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis, and the social situation. They also looked for instances of codeswitching, either between languages or between varieties of the same language, to find out in what situations and with what interactants codeswitching occurs, as “linguistic alternates within the repertoire serve to symbolize the differing social identities which members may assume” (Blom & Gumperz, 1972, p. 421). The minority group’s language is often the in-group “we code” language, whereas the majority group’s language is considered the out-group or “they code” language (Gumperz, 1982, p. 66), and codeswitching may signal various group memberships and identities. Gumperz argued that a micro-level analysis reveals that codeswitching serves ‘‘definite and clearly understandable communicative ends” (Gumperz, 1970, p. 9) and is meaningful when analyzed for the conversational context. Asian students’ L2 social identity negotiation can be reflected in the process of assimilating to the target culture and by establishing group membership by consciously acquiring and using appropriate language as a marker of group identity. Identity negotiation requires skill. For instance, to assimilate to the target culture, Asian students must be aware of both self-image identities and situation-specific identities. Self-image identities (i.e., cultural, ethnic, gender, and personal identities) can be viewed as primary identities that exert a significant and ongoing impact throughout our lives, but situation-specific identities (i.e., role, relational, facework, and symbolic interaction identities) are changeable depending on different contexts. To maintain group membership, Asian students need to venture out of their own communities and immerse themselves with people in the target culture through various activities

< previous page

page_226

next page >

< previous page

page_227

next page >

Page 227 to acquire the communicative competence that is necessary to function as an in-group member of the target culture. Culture-Sensitive Knowledge and Mindful Reflexivity According to Ting-Toomey (1999), culture-sensitive knowledge is “the process of in-depth understanding of important intercultural communication concepts that ‘really make a difference’” (p. 266). Without such knowledge, communicators cannot become aware of the implicit “ethnocentric lenses” they use to evaluate behaviors in an intercultural situation, nor can they accurately reframe their interpretation from another’s cultural standpoint. When Asian students meet Americans, two different cultures meet. This can be characterized by cross-cultural organizational value dimensions, such as collectivism versus individualism or interdependent versus independent selfconstrual. Awareness of the differences in their negotiation of communication, conflicts, and relationship differences through distinctive verbal and nonverbal communication styles and in their use of distinctive ethnocentric perspectives to evaluate others’ behavior is very important for both groups. By understanding the cultural beliefs and values expressed through the use of particular verbal and nonverbal styles, each group can build empathy for the other’s dissimilar behavior. Through an understanding of the cultural values, such as individualism versus collectivism, both groups will make an effort to bridge the gap in classrooms, with Asian students being willing to participate actively in class and with college and university content instructors and U.S. students being supportive of Asian students’ efforts at adaptive cultural transformation through active classroom participation. Culture-sensitive knowledge is essential for breaking cultural boundaries in classrooms so that Asian students can understand why active oral classroom participation is an important marker of their adaptive cultural transformation in American classrooms. However, culture-sensitive knowledge in and of itself serves only as a basis for the adaptive cultural transformation process. Equipped with culture-sensitive knowledge, Asian students still need to attend to their internal assumptions, cognitions, and emotions and simultaneously be attuned to the assumptions, cognitions, and emotions of those in the target culture and specifically in U.S. classrooms. That is what Thich (1991) refers to as “mindfulness” and what Ting-Toomey (1991) calls ‘‘mindful reflexivity.” By being mindful of the differences in the cultural value assumptions about classroom participation, Asian students will be able to monitor their snap ethnocentric evaluations reflexively and their individual motivations and participation modes more consciously.

< previous page

page_227

next page >

< previous page

page_228

next page >

Page 228 Asian students need to be open to the active classroom participation modes in American classrooms and be willing to be participants. According to Langer (1989, 1997), mindful learning enables us to (1) see behavior or information presented in the situation as novel or fresh; (2) view a situation from multiple perspectives; (3) attend to the person in whom and context in which we are perceiving the behaviors; and (4) create new categories through which this new behavior may be understood (p. 111). Rothman (1997) refers to mindful reflexivity as “analytical empathy,” which allows one to see both the differences and the similarities between another’s cultural and personal perspectives and our own and to gain new insights and an alternative set of cultural and personal experiences. This type of analytical empathy is needed for Asian students to be ready both cognitively and affectively to adapt to American classroom culture and interact with American and other international students who are different from them in many ways. Culture-sensitive knowledge and mindful reflexivity are essential steps in Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation in American classrooms, but they still need communicative competence so they can communicate successfully in and beyond American classrooms. Communicative Competence “Communicative competence” was coined by the anthropological linguist Dell Hymes (1972) as an expansion of Chomsky’s (1965) limited notion of grammatical competence. The notion of communicative competence has been widely accepted in applied linguistics and has been described by many L2 researchers as consisting of linguistic competence, discourse competence, sociocultural competence, and strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Savignon, 1983). Linguistic or grammatical competence is ‘‘mastery of the linguistic code, the ability to recognize the lexical, morphological, syntactical, and phonological features of a language that tend to manipulate these features to form words and sentences” (Savignon, 1983, p. 37), whereas sociolinguistic competence involves knowledge of how to express messages appropriately within the overall social and cultural context. As Saville-Troike (1982) posited, an L2 speaker may be well advised in some instances not to try to sound too much like a native speaker for fear of appearing intrusive or, conversely, disloyal to the speaker’s own L1 community. This competence enables speakers to deal with situational variations in communication by taking into consideration social contextual factors, stylistic appropriateness factors, cultural factors, and nonverbal communicative factors. Discourse competence is concerned with “the connection of a series of sentences or utterances to form a meaningful whole and to achieve coherent texts that are relevant to a given context” (Savignon, 1983, p.

< previous page

page_228

next page >

< previous page

page_229

next page >

Page 229 40). In selecting, sequencing, and arranging words, structures, sentences, and utterances to achieve a unified text, attention should be given to cohesion, deixies, coherence, generic structure, and the conversational structure. Strategic competence is characterized as the strategies “that one uses to compensate for imperfect knowledge of rules” (Savignon, 1983, p. 40). As both verbal and nonverbal devices, strategic competence allows speakers to make up for deficiencies in any of the underlying competencies within the communicative competence framework. Strategic competence is essential to cope with any unpredictable situations in which a speaker falls short of any of the other competencies, and thus it gives a speaker self-confidence and a sense of security in communication. As Savignon posits, “The inclusion of strategic competence as a component of communicative competence at all levels is important because it demonstrates that regardless of experience and level of proficiency one never knows all of a language. The ability to cope within limitations is an ever present component of communicative competence” (p. 46). Based on the knowledge of an inventory of verbal schemata that carry elocutionary force, Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, and Thurrell (1995) proposed a fifth competence—actional competence—to add to the existing four-competence model described earlier. Actional competence is the matching of communicative intent with linguistic form. It can be conceived of as “pragmalinguistic competence” (cf. Thomas, 1983) from a pragmatic perspective. The key units are speech acts with which to carry out actions. Acquiring this competence enables a speaker to accomplish his or her goals when engaging in communication. Although the conceptualizations of communicative competence have indeed made great contributions to secondlanguage acquisition as a field, we might wonder why there are still many ESL students who fail to acquire some, if not all, competencies within the communicative competence framework. We might wonder why many ESL speakers who have already acquired a high level of communicative competence still fail to communicate appropriately in many social and educational settings, including U.S. classrooms. We might wonder why some L2 speakers seek opportunities to communicate with people in the target language and, while doing so, gradually improve their communicative competence, but others tend to avoid or passively wait for these opportunities to come to them. We might also wonder why some L2 speakers never venture out of their safe zone (i.e., their L1 community) to cross cultural boundaries to experience, appreciate, and respect cultural norms and habits that do not exist in their L1 repertoire. It seems obvious that Asian students’ acquisition of communicative competence in the target culture is interrelated with their acquisition of adaptive cultural transformation competence in which communicative competence is a component.

< previous page

page_229

next page >

< previous page

page_230

next page >

Page 230 In sum, Asian students need to acquire adaptive cultural transformation competence, which equips them with social identity negotiation skills, culture-sensitive knowledge and mindful reflexivity, and communicative competence. Adaptive cultural transformation competence from a socioconstructivist perspective will not only benefit Asian students and other international students in the target culture in their journey toward adaptive cultural transformation, but will also benefit individuals in this target culture by helping them to be open-minded and sensitive to Asian students’ cultural beliefs, values, and habits. Through mindful reflexivity, U.S. college and university professors in both ESL and content classrooms, as well as American peers, can gain a greater understanding of the silent behavior of many Asian students and, it is hoped, support and help them move along their adaptive cultural transformation process. In the following section, I offer some concrete suggestions for Asian students, U.S. college and university professors and instructors, American peers, and U.S. college and university administrators. These suggestions are by no means conclusive; in fact, they serve as a starting point to think about the issue: How can we make Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation process a rewarding experience? RECOMMENDATIONS In communication, we often encounter two words: sympathy and empathy. Sympathy, according to Bennett (1972), is “the imaginative placing of ourselves in another person’s position’’ (p. 66). That is, “we are not taking the role of another person or imagining how the other person thinks and feels, but rather we are referencing how ourselves might think or feel in similar circumstances” (Bennett, 1998, p. 197). Empathy concerns, on the other hand, “how we might imagine the thoughts and feelings of other people from their own perspectives” (Bennett, 1998, p. 197). A precise contrast of the meanings of sympathy with empathy was made by Wispé (1968): “In empathy, one attends to the feelings of another; in sympathy, one attends the suffering of another, but the feelings are one’s own” (p. 441). Evidently, the difference between the two concepts lies in whose perspective is being assumed. People tend to use sympathetic communication strategy for several reasons as discussed by Bennett (1998). First, sympathy is easy. We are often distressed to a certain extent by unfamiliarity, and we have the tendency to place phenomena in preexisting categories. As the most familiar frame of reference in the communication encounter is ourselves, we tend to generalize from ourselves to others and assume similarity. Second, sympathy is credible. Because the assumption of similarity is widespread, many people believe that similar circumstances yield similar experiences that give a person valuable insights. Given this credibil-

< previous page

page_230

next page >

< previous page

page_231

next page >

Page 231 ity, we can modify our own feelings to correspond with those of the experienced person. Third, sympathy is often accurate. The accuracy of sympathetic understanding derives from our tendency to surround ourselves with truly similar people. As attraction to similarity is a pervasive phenomenon, people tend to feel more comfortable with similar people. Fourth, sympathy may be comforting. People sometimes are comforted when another person has encountered similar circumstances, even though the experience of the circumstances was different. However, using a sympathetic communication strategy in an intercultural communication setting may suffer from the following drawbacks (Bennett, 1998). First, sympathy is insensitive to difference. Despite our best efforts to interact only with truly similar people, we are frequently thrown into communication situations in which others think and feel differently, such as different perceptions and behaviors in U.S. classroom communication between Asian students and American students. Second, sympathy is patronizing in the face of difference. Generalizing from our own frame of reference carries with it all the connotations of ethnocentrism, which allows people to assume the superiority of their thoughts and feelings. Third, sympathy perpetuates the assumption of similarity. That is, if we tend to use sympathy strategy in our communication, we will likely ignore differences in communication. In a country such as the United States, we are living in the multicultural world. Differences among people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds can be observed everywhere and at every level. Such apparent heterogeneity of human beings bracketed by language and cultural differences, as well as psychological differences, makes the communication strategy of sympathy ineffective and inadequate in intercultural communication. What we need is the empathy strategy most appropriate to multiple realities and the assumption of difference. Sympathy is defined as “imaginative placing of ourselves in another person’s position,” and empathy is defined as “the imaginative intellectual and emotional participation in another person’s experience” (Bennett, 1972, p. 66). Two important distinctions are made here. First, in empathy, we ‘‘participate” rather than “place,” and we are concerned with “experience” rather than “position.” By placing ourselves in another person’s position, we assume essential similarity of experience with the other, making it possible to trade places with this person. Conversely, essential similarity is not assumed when we participate in another’s experience, which might be totally different even though this person’s position is similar. Therefore, according to Bennett (1998), we need to “do more than merely change places or stand in the other person’s shoes. We need to get inside the head and heart of the other, to participate in this person’s experience as if we were really the other person” (p. 207). For example, in U.S. classrooms, given that some Asian students are quiet especially when they are new to this culture because of multi-

< previous page

page_231

next page >

< previous page

page_232

next page >

Page 232 ple factors as discussed in this book, a sympathy strategy might make American students assume that these Asian students do not know how to express their ideas or comment on the topic being discussed, and therefore they should step in and do most of the talking. This might result in more inhibition and intimidation for Asian students in classroom communication. On the other hand, an empathy strategy in this situation will enable American students to attempt to understand what comments these Asian students would have made and what prevented them from making them. By knowing what was going on in Asian peers’ minds regarding their quiet behaviors in class discussion, American students would probably try to be more supportive and encouraging in giving Asian students more opportunities for turn-taking, longer wait-time, or more interactive probing, to name but a few. To acquire an empathy strategy in intercultural communication, Bennett (1998) proposed a six-step model to guide the sequential development of empathic skills: assuming difference, knowing self, suspending self, allowing guided imagination, allowing empathic experience, and reestablishing self. As seen, the use of empathy in multicultural educational settings such as U.S. classrooms will help create a more sensitive and respectful climate of communication in which all the students, both domestic and international, and their professors will acknowledge the differences and attempt empathy. Empathy requires mutual respect and intercultural sensitivity. To understand Asian students’ classroom communication patterns and their perceptions of classroom participation in their content courses, we should also acknowledge the concept of “power,” which underscores much of the interplay between “majority” and “minority” group relations in U.S. classrooms. To promote quality- and equality-based intergroup interactions, both U.S. students and Asian students, along with other international students, need to learn to share and assert power productively, which can be manifested through a willingness to listen and a readiness to initiate topics, make comments and give feedback, express ideas and opinions, and engage in meaningful negotiation, thereby understanding Asian students’ classroom communication patterns, encouraging them to participate actively in classes, and eventually enhancing their process of adaptive cultural transformation. Such understanding, encouragement, and enhancement are joint social tasks that need support from both ESL and content teachers in U.S. classrooms, American peers and other international students, American college and university administrators, and various professional resources. Based on the findings of the study and discussions about many relevant issues throughout this book, the following recommendations are made. These recommendations are suggestions only; they serve as a starting point for us to practice what we believe, to reflect on what we practice, and to modify what we believe in what is called a reciprocal effort to enhance intercultural communication in U.S. higher education in gen-

< previous page

page_232

next page >

< previous page

page_233

next page >

Page 233 eral and Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation in American classrooms in particular. For Asian Students Asian students in U.S. universities should try to understand the similarities and differences between the target culture and their home culture in terms of beliefs, values, customs, and conventions. To be successful in U.S. universities, Asian students should be willing to acquire adaptive cultural transformation competence by skillfully negotiating their social identities in U.S. classrooms through active oral participation; by acquiring culture-sensitive knowledge through keen observation, mindful reflection, and constant practice; and by gaining communicative competence through real communication. To minimize the cultural conflicts that often occur as a result of misunderstanding, ethnocentrism, stereotypes, and prejudice, Asian students should develop intercultural sensitivity by cultivating curiosity and interest in their immediate surroundings and look at problems from as many perspectives as possible. An understanding of the relationship between commonality and diversity and between the individual and the group is necessary for the development of effective intercultural communication skills. The development of oral classroom participation skills for Asian students is related to their attitudes and preferences as well as to their ability to identify their personal needs, which are derived from their native culture and reinforced by the target culture. Therefore, to understand and to appreciate the U.S. classroom culture is of vital importance for Asian students in developing appropriate oral classroom participation behaviors. Active classroom participation as encouraged in the target culture can be self-taught through participant observation and trial and error. Asian students should be motivated to bring questions to class and to learn to ask them in class. They should be open-minded and feel free to express different ideas and opinions rather than keeping quiet because of the multiple constraints placed on them, such as their own cultural values and beliefs in how students should behave in classrooms, their introverted personality in classroom settings, their lack of English speaking abilities or communicative competence, and their undermining the importance of participation in learning. Although many orientation programs designed for international students will introduce these or similar issues, it is more effective to have students who have gone through these stages serve as informants, mentors, role models, or partners for newly arrived Asian students, especially in the initial stages of their cultural experiences. Asian students need to be aware of the ups and downs they will experience in their identity in the target culture and be aware of the multiple identities they must assume on and off campus to meet their goals and objectives for

< previous page

page_233

next page >

< previous page

page_234

next page >

Page 234 academic success, which should be expanded to include the adaptive cultural transformation competence as discussed in this book. Keeping a journal is a good means of self-reflection and introspective interaction. Many Asian students in the United States tend to develop a supportive ethnic-based friendship network to ease into the new setting, but some tend to rely too much on in-group support without seeking outside help. They should venture out of their own communities to make friends with people from the target culture and to participate in many social activities with American friends, such as art and music festivals and sporting events. Social activities beyond the classroom are of crucial importance in Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation because these activities can create many opportunities to understand and respect the target culture and feel emotionally part of it. For ESL and Content Teachers Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation requires support from people around them. Content course instructors and ESL teachers are those to whom these students often look for help and support. Therefore, it is very important for those teachers to provide an environment that is conducive to active classroom participation. The positive experiences of communication in ESL classrooms facilitate Asian students’ self-confidence and comfort levels necessary for active oral classroom participation in their content courses and vice versa. Teachers should be sensitive to Asian students’ needs in class and make an effort to balance participation among all class members, native and non-native speakers alike. For instance, oral classroom participation can be factored in to the final course grades and be specified in the course syllabus. Handouts, transparencies, and outlines of the class lecture provide a means of facilitating Asian students’ oral classroom participation, especially for those with limited linguistic competence and those who need more time to construct their meaning and formulate questions. Meanwhile, course evaluations should address and monitor the comfort level of students in oral classroom participation and the factors that affect students’ participation modes to understand Asian students’ feelings and reactions toward teachers’ facilitative efforts. In content classroom settings, professors should encourage Asian students and other students to participate actively without pushing them to speak up, affirming their efforts in classroom involvement whenever possible, providing opportunities for them to ask questions and express ideas, inviting them to share their culture and knowledge with the rest of the class when appropriate, and assigning them to groups with American peers and other international students. Such efforts will help enhance Asian students’ sense of well-being and self-esteem, their cognitive openness and flexibility and emotional richness and tolerance for

< previous page

page_234

next page >

< previous page

page_235

next page >

Page 235 ambiguity, and their communicative competence in classroom interaction. Teachers should show interest in their Asian students’ professional development and encourage their participation efforts, which means a lot to Asian students who consider the teacher an authority figure. In fact, the “authority” person can use his or her authority to minimize his or her authority. By that I mean that teachers, knowing the Asian cultural view of the teacher as an authority figure, could assume the role of authority by inviting students to participate. Opportunities should be given to students who do not speak up in class by creating such opportunities in group discussions. Teacher talk in terms of meaningful repetition of key points and pause for emphasis, as well as sensitivity to the students’ needs, can be very helpful for Asian students whose participation depends on their listening comprehension. Teachers in American classrooms should practice culture-sensitive confirmation skills by verbally restating the content meaning of a verbal message from Asian students who might have not expressed themselves clearly because of linguistic difficulties and anxiety. When the utterances made by Asian students in class are not comprehensible, teachers can try to interpret their meaning unassertively by giving them opportunities to restate or rephrase their sentences for clarification of their intended meaning or for meaning negotiation. Teachers in American classrooms can use culture-sensitive perception checking statements when they are faced with a group of Asian students who remain silent most of the time. Teachers can use this strategy to “guess’’ Asian students’ thinking process hidden in silence. Perception checking involves the use of clear, perceptual eyewitness statements and perceptual verification questions. For example, statements such as, “You seem to be puzzled by the definition of the concept I stated a minute ago. How would you interpret it?” can elicit students’ participation. Perception checking can be used in both ESL classrooms and content courses as a strategy to get Asian students to talk in class. Teachers in American classrooms can develop verbal empathy and patience for Asian students who experience linguistic difficulties in their classrooms. Besides adjusting input to facilitate comprehension, teachers should pay attention to both the verbal and nonverbal messages of the speaker before responding or evaluating. Teachers should practice mindful listening skills to help manage emotional vulnerability between teachers and Asian students, to help minimize misunderstandings and maximize mutual understanding of meaning in negotiation, and to help uncover perceptual biases in the listening process. For American Peers As Berlo (1960) posits, there must be a mutual reciprocity in achieving an understanding of each other before people can achieve the high-

< previous page

page_235

next page >

< previous page

page_236

next page >

Page 236 est level of communication. The relatively active participation modes of American peers in classrooms and their attitudes and reactions toward Asian students’ tendency to be silent in classroom communication should be closely observed, because they are related to Asian students’ classroom communication patterns. It is crucial that silence not be interpreted as the absence of thought. As revealed in this study, Asian students’ silence in classrooms has many situational meanings: time to formulate an opinion or consider the appropriate form or content of a remark, time to gather courage to speak in English, a space to wait for a peer to speak first, or the formation of a generally less confrontational, softer way to voice disagreement. To support Asian students’ classroom participation, American students should learn to become more comfortable in situations of silence and to refrain from filling in space with questions or small talk. It is also important to be able to wait longer than one is used to after inquiring about understanding or asking for a suggestion before assuming that no response is forthcoming. It is highly recommended that American peers try to listen carefully to their Asian classmates, who might struggle in expressing their ideas or have trouble using appropriate expressions in class, and to be patient and sensitive to the needs of Asian students especially when they are uncomfortable speaking up in class. Whenever possible, trying to help rephrase some incomprehensible utterances by using culture-sensitive confirmation skills is helpful. According to some survey reports (Bulthuis, 1986; Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Miller, 1971), international students try to seek social support from their American peers, but the relationship between them rarely goes beyond the most superficial contacts, and many international students, especially Asian students, quickly abandon the hope of establishing deep cross-cultural friendships. American peers’ friendship and encouragement and culturally sensitive mindfulness make a difference to Asian students who are in a relatively unfamiliar environment. Although Asian students might not feel comfortable in taking the initiative in friendship building and peer support with out-group members, American peers should be more “aggressive” in initiating activities and gatherings through which natural friendships with Asian students can be established. For U.S. Institutions When planning orientation and community relation programs, U.S. institutions should encourage Asian and other international students to be open and receptive to the target culture because adaptation to American society is related to academic, social, financial, cultural, and language issues. Helping these students with their English skills could be a

< previous page

page_236

next page >

< previous page

page_237

next page >

Page 237 starting point, and placing them in English language courses would reduce their anxiety and provide needed help. Through such language courses, American culture can be introduced and penetrated. Therefore, university personnel should support and invest in the development of ESL programs. Meanwhile, ESL program administrators and instructors should consider the cultural adjustment of Asian students and other international graduate students in their syllabus design and try to incorporate cultural components in the course tasks by acknowledging and utilizing the rich L1 backgrounds of the students instead of ignoring them. ESL courses should be designed in a way that treats language and culture integratively. Such courses will provide model activities and cultural experiences for Asian students in addition to the regular spoken English and composition courses. In this way, Asian students can expect to cope not only with linguistic competence but also with the sociocultural, pragmatic, and strategic competence needed for successful communication beyond ESL classrooms. Additionally, conversation partners and international/American roommate services should be provided to strengthen intercultural communication between American and Asian students as well as other international students. Furthermore, the establishment of an international theme hall to house only international/ American pairs and the provision of special activities and programs should be seriously considered by university personnel and offices of international students and scholars because they have a positive effect on the cultural adaptation of Asian and other international students and facilitate U.S. students’ appreciation of other cultures. Articulation workshops and panel discussions on topics concerning the adaptation and adjustment of Asian and other international students in their campus life should be held by departmental and college personnel. Experienced Asian students who are at different stages of the adaptive cultural transformation process as well as U.S. faculty members and students should be invited to discuss their experiences, perspectives, and suggestions to help new arrivals become psychologically ready to face the challenges of the culture and to embrace the differences on their journey of adaptive cultural transformation. For Professional Resources Various professional organizations in the United States, such as the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs, the Association of International Educators, Teachers of English to the Speakers of Other Languages, the Association of Asian Studies, the American Council of Learned Societies, and many funding agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, the Spencer Foundation, and the National Endowment

< previous page

page_237

next page >

< previous page

page_238

next page >

Page 238 for the Humanities, should encourage and support professional discussion and research projects designed and developed toward understanding the nature of, and enhancing the process of, adaptive cultural transformation of Asian students and other non-native English speaking groups studying in the United States. A comparative study of the attitudes of faculty members in university settings toward their Asian students’ oral classroom participation in content courses could be valuable to learn the discrepancy in perceptions of oral classroom participation between Asian students and U.S. teachers and also the effective means that have been used or suggested to enhance Asian students’ adaptive cultural transformation in U.S. classrooms. Meanwhile, the findings from a parallel study on the perceptions of American students of their own oral classroom participation in their content courses and a comparative study on the perceptions of U.S. peers of oral classroom participation of their Asian peers in their content courses could also be valuable. Furthermore, a study to compare the perceptions of Asian students of oral classroom participation in their content courses with the views of U.S. students on oral classroom participation in their content courses in Asian universities could lend support to encourage cultural awareness and increase sensitivity to cross-cultural issues. Finally, a three-part comprehensive survey among Asian students, university faculty members, and U.S. peers at multiple college and university sites would be very helpful in bringing more integrative insights to the issue under study and would lend support to enhance a dynamic academic environment in U.S. classrooms.

< previous page

page_238

next page >

< previous page

page_239

next page >

Page 239 Epilogue One of the greatest challenges I have faced over the years, from conducting the study to analyzing the results and writing this book, is an ethical dilemma: I have tried to discuss within the framework of the U.S. classroom setting what adaptive cultural transformation means to Asian students and why there is a need to develop such an adaptive cultural transformational competence. But to what extent should Asian students adapt their cultural beliefs, values, and norms to the more pervasive U.S. culture? I leave this question to the reader. Writing this book has been a challenge as well as a truly rewarding experience. I kept reflecting on my earlier experiences as an Asian student in U.S. classrooms and how I would do it differently if I went back into the classroom as a student again. I’ve enjoyed noticing many differences between my thinking then and my thinking now in the process of writing this book. My silent, introspective dialogue with my participants while telling their stories, interpreting the meanings of the interview transcripts, and going through piles of field notes has prompted my active participation in the interpretation and reinterpretation of the meaning of Asian student’s classroom communication patterns in American classrooms.

< previous page

page_239

next page >

< previous page

page_240

next page >

Page 240 This book is written, however, from an insider’s perspective because I grew up in China and consider myself an Asian cultural insider. My own adaptive cultural transformation as a result of learning, unlearning, and relearning in the United States over the past 10 years has given me an enriched emic perspective with the reflexivity of the etic view. My introspective thinking about Asian cultural patterns that have influenced Asian students’ communication patterns in U.S. classrooms has been part of my evolving intercultural communication experiences, which helped me to understand how Asian cultural beliefs, values, and norms fit into the multicultural learning environment of the U.S. classroom. We are now living in a multicultural world, and we will all become multicultural persons. A multicultural person, according to Adler (1998), possesses three unique characteristics. First, a multicultural person is psychologically adaptive. He or she maintains no clear boundaries between self and the personal and cultural contexts he or she encounters. Second, a multicultural person undergoes continual personal transitions, always being in a state of “becoming” or “un-coming” something different from before, while being mindful of his or her primary cultural reality. Third, a multicultural person maintains indefinite boundaries of the self, being responsive to temporary form and remaining open to change. It is in the process of adaptive cultural transformation that Asian students in the United States become multicultural persons. As Novak (1970) posited, a person’s cultural and social milieu conditions his or her personality, values, and actions; yet the same person is able, within limits, to choose the milieus whose conditioning will, in return, affect him or her.

< previous page

page_240

next page >

< previous page

page_241

next page >

Page 241 References Abadzi, H. (1980). The use of multivariate statistical procedures in international student admissions. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 195–201. Abbott, K. A. (1970). Harmony and individualism. Taipei: Oriental Cultural Service. Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. (Eds.). (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. New York: Springer-Verlag. 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. Adler, N. (1981). Reentry: Managing cross-cultural transitions. Groups and Organizational Studies, 6 (3), 341–356. Adler, N. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. Adler, P. S. (1975). The transition experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15 (4), 13–23. Adler, P. S. (1998). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on multiculturalism. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts (pp. 225–246). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Agarwal, V. B., & Winkler, D. R. (1985). Migration of foreign students to the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 56, 509–522. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior . Chicago: The Dorsey Press. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

< previous page

page_241

next page >

< previous page

page_242

next page >

Page 242 Ammon, P. (1981). Communication skills and communicative competence: A neo-Piagetian process-structural view. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 13–33). New York: Academic Press. Andersen J. F., & Powell, R. (1991). Intercultural communication and the classroom. In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. Anderson, L. (1994). A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 293–328. Aneshensel, C. S. (1986). Marital and employment role-strain, social support, and depression among adult women. In S. E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress, social support, and women (pp. 91–114). New York: Hemisphere. Antler, L. (1970). Correlates of home and host country acquaintanceship among foreign medical residents in the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 80, 49–57. Argyle, M. (1975). Bodily communication. London, England: Methuen. Argyle, M. (1991). Intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. Asante, M. K., & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds.), (1989). Handbook of international and intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Atkinson, D. (1983). Ethnic similarity in counseling psychology: A review of research. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 79–92. Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (1996). Voices from the language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. Banks, T. L. (1988). Gender bias in the classroom. Journal of Legal Education, 38, 137–46. Barna, L. M. (1991). Stumbing blocks in intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. Barnlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press. Becker, C. B. (1991). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. Beebe, L. M. (1983). Risk-taking and the language learner. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind . New York: Basic. Bennett, M. J. (1972). Empathic perception: The operation of self-awareness in human perception. Unpublished M.A. thesis. San Francisco State University. Bennett, M. J. (1998). Overcoming the golden rule: Sympathy and empathy. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp. 191–214). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

< previous page

page_242

next page >

< previous page

page_243

next page >

Page 243 Berry, J., Kim, U., & Boski, P. (1987). Psychological acculturation of immigrants. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation (pp. 62–89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bialystok, E. (1983). Inferencing: Testing the hypothesis testing hypothesis. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 104–23). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use . Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, Inc. Bialystok, E., & Frohlich, M. (1980). Oral communication strategies for lexical difficulties. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5 , 3–30. Biber, D. (1994). An analytical framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 31–56). New York: Oxford University Press. Blom, J.-P. & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Codeswitching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 407–434). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Boersma, P. D., Gay, D., Jones, R. A., Morrison, L., & Remick, H. M. (1981). Sex differences in college studentfaculty interactions: Fact or fantasy? Sex roles, 7 , 775–784. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods . Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bond, M. (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bond, M. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Bond, M. (1996). The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213–264). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bongaerts, T., Kellerman, E., & Bentlage, A. (1987). Perspective and proficiency in L2 referential communication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9 , 171–200. Boyer, S. P., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1986). Attitudes and perceptions of incoming international students. ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 278935. Boyer, S. P., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Noncognitive predictors of counseling center use by international students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 404–407. Brewer, M., & Miller, N. (1996). Intergroup relations . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Brooks, V. R. (1982). Sex differences in student dominance behavior in female and male professors’ classrooms. Sex Roles, 8 , 683–690. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. III. Cognitive development (pp. 77– 166). New York: John Wiley. Brown, G. D. A., Sharkey, A. J. C., & Brown, G. (1987). Factors affecting the success of referential communication. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 535–549.

< previous page

page_243

next page >

< previous page

page_244

next page >

Page 244 Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruneau, T. J. (1973). Communicative silences: Forms and functions. The Journal of Communication 23, 17–46. Bull, P. (1987). Posture and gesture. Oxford: Pergamon. Bulthuis, J. D. (1986). The foreign student today: A profile. In K. R. Pyle (Ed.), Guiding the development of foreign students (pp. 65–82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burgess, T. C., & Greis, N. B. (1970). English language proficiency and academic achievement among students of English as a second language at the college level. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 074812. Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness to communicate scale: Development and validation. Communication Monographs, 43, 60–69. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1989). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: Harper & Row. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). New York: Longman. 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. Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 , 5–35. Chapman, D., Wan, T. Y., & Xu, M. (1988). Academic adjustment of international students in American universities. Education and Research, 6 (2): 96–102. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning . New York: Cambridge University Press. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 213–250). New York: Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39. Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147–154). Oxford: Pergamon. Clément, R. (1984). Aspects socio-psychologiques de la communication inter-ethnique et de l’identite sociale [Social psychological aspects of interethnic communication and social identity]. Researches Sociologiques, 15, 293–312.

< previous page

page_244

next page >

< previous page

page_245

next page >

Page 245 Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1985). Aptitude, attitude and motivation in second language proficiency: A test of Clément’s model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4 , 21–37. Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1991). Langue, statut et acculturation: Une etude d’individus et de groupes en contact [Language, status and acculturation: A study of individuals and groups in contact]. In M. Lavallée & F. Larose (Eds.), Identité, culture et changement social: Actes du zième colloque de l’Association pour la recherche interculturelle (pp. 315–326). Paris: Editions L’Harmattan. Coelho, G. V. (1958). Changing images of America: A study of Indian students’ perceptions. New York: Free Press. Condon, J. C., & Yousef, F. (1975). An introduction to intercultural communication. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. Constantinides, J. (1992). Academic challenges and opportunities. In D. McIntire & P. Willer (Eds.), Working with international students and scholars on American campuses (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Constantinople, A. P., Cornelius, R. R., & Gray, J. M. (1988). The chilly climate: Fact or artifact? Journal of Higher Education, 59 (September/October), 527–550. Corder, S. P. (1977). Simple codes and the source of the second language learner’s initial heuristic hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1 , 1–10. Corder, S. P. (1983). Strategies of communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 14–19). London: Longman. Cornelius, R. R., Gray, J. M., & Constantinople, A. P. (1990). Student-faculty interaction in the college classroom. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23, 189–197. Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S., Washington, DC (1991). International graduate students: A guide for graduate deans, faculty and administrators. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331418. Crawford, M., & MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the ‘‘chilly climate” for women. Sex Roles, 23, 101–122. Crispin, D. P. (1969). Profile of interaction in the classroom. Educational Testing Service , TC 006177 ETS 8410. Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175–188. Davis, J. R. (1992). Voice of Authority. TETYC , May, 113–122. DeArmond, M. M., & Stevenson, J. H. (1992). Health care for international students. In D. McIntire & P. Willer (Eds.), Working with international students and scholars on American campuses (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Dendrinos, B. (1986). Cross-cultural issues in conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 , 37–50. 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.

< previous page

page_245

next page >

< previous page

page_246

next page >

Page 246 Dickson, W. P. (1982). Two decades of referential communication research: A review and meta-analysis. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal process in children (pp. 1–33). New York: Springer. Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. Tokyo/New York: Kodansha International. Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Talking task to task. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147–181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Dunnett, S. (1985). Current communicative needs of foreign students in the college/university classroom. International Programs Quarterly, 1 (2), 22–26. Eakins, B. W., & Eakins, R. G. (1991). Nonverbal interaction: Action, sound, and silence. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. Educational Testing Service (1995). 1995–96 Bulletin of Information for TOEFL, TWE, and TSE . Princeton, NJ: Author. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the human face: Guidelines for research and an integration of the findings . New York: Pergamon. El-Lakany, F. A. (1970). Prediction of academic achievement of foreign students at Iowa State University, 1969–70. Ph.D. Dissertation. Iowa State University. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: 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, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ’83: The question of control (pp. 23–38). Washington, DC: TESOL. Exum, H. A., & Lau, E. Y. (1988). Counseling style preference of Chinese college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 16, 84–92. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983a). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983b). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 210–238). London: Longman. Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82–96. Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996a). Academic oral communication needs of EAP learners: What subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 31–58. Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996b). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 297–320. Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. E. Howe, Jr. & N. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 65–116). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236. Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93–109.

< previous page

page_246

next page >

< previous page

page_247

next page >

Page 247 Furnham, A. (1988). The adjustment of sojourners. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interactions (pp. 161–198). New York: Pergamon. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation . London: Edward Arnold. Gibson, W. (1985). English language proficiency for foreign graduate students (Memorandum). Albany: State University of New York, Office of Graduate Admissions and Policy. Gilbert, L. A., & Holahan, C. K. (1982). Conflicts between student/professional, parental and self-development roles: A comparison of high and low effective copers. Human Relations, 35, 635–648. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group formations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup formations (pp. 307–348). London: Academic Press. Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 199–243). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gilmore, P. (1985). Silence and sulking: Emotional displays in the classroom. In M. Saville-Troike & D. Tannen (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 139–162). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction rituals: Essays on face-to-face behavior . New York: Anchor Books. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins . New York: Oxofrd University Press. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40–53. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Gu, Y. G. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237–257. Guan, S. J. (1995). Intercultural communication. Beijing: Peking University Press. Gudykunst, W. B. (1986). Intergroup communication. London: Edward Arnold. Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Cross-cultural comparison. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 847–889). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: Random House. Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1994). Bridging Japanese North American differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.

< previous page

page_247

next page >

< previous page

page_248

next page >

Page 248 Guglielmino, L., & Perkins, C. (1975). Problems of international students attending the University of Georgia. Athens, GA: Office of International Students Affairs, University of Georgia. Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An extension of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 19, 33– 47. Gumperz, J. J. (1970). Verbal strategies in multilingual communication. University of California at Berkeley Institute of International Studies. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 042173. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 1–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haastrup, K., & Phillipson, R. (1983). Achievement strategies in learner/native speaker interaction. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 140–158). London: Longman. Hale, G., Stansfield, C., & Duran, R. (1983). Summaries of TOEFL studies, 1963–1982 (Research Rep. No. 16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Hall, E. T. (1991). Monochronic and polychronic time. In L. A. Samouar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 264–271). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1987). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, DC: Project on the status and education of women, Association of American Colleges, 1982. Hanson, F. A. (1975). Meaning in culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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. Heil, D. K., & Aleamoni, L. M. (1974). Assessment of proficiency in the use and understanding of English by foreign students as measured by the Test of English as a Foreign Language. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 039948. Heller, M. (1982). Language, ethnicity and politics in Quebec. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Heller, M. (1987). The role of language in the formation of ethnic identity. In J. Phinney & M. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization (pp. 180–200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Heller, M. (1988). Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. New York: Mouten de Gruyter. Heller, J. F., Puff, C. R., & Mills, C. J. (1985). Assessment of the chilly college climate for women. Journal of Higher Education, 56, 446–461. Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347–371.

< previous page

page_248

next page >

< previous page

page_249

next page >

Page 249 Ho, D. Y. F., & Spinks, S. (1985). Multivariate prediction of academic performance by Hong Kong University students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 249–259. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind . London: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417–433. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132. Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. House, J., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), (1986). Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr. Hsu, F. L. K. (1971). The challenge of the American dream: The Chinese in the United States. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46, 45–64. Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 17–36. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225–248. Huntley, H. S. (1993). Adult international students: Problems of adjustment. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355886. Hwang, K., & Dizney, H. F. (1970). Predictive validity of the Test of English as a Foreign Language for Chinese students at American University. Educational Psychological Measurement, 30, 457–477. Hyde, M. (1993). Pair work—A blessing or a curse? An analysis of pair work from pedagogical, cultural, social and psychological perspectives. System, 21(3), 343–348. Hymes, D. H. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269– 293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Ibrahim, F. (1983). Effective cross-cultural counseling and psychotherapy: A framework. The Counseling Psychologist, 13, 625–683. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8 , 223– 248. Ishii, S., & Bruneau, T. (1991). Silence and silences in cross-cultural perspectives: Japan and the United States. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. Jaworski, A. (1997). Introduction: An overview. In A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 3– 14). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jensen, V. J. (1973). Communicative functions of silence. ETC, 30, 249–257.

< previous page

page_249

next page >

< previous page

page_250

next page >

Page 250 Kahan, L. D., & Richards, D. D. (1986). The effects of context on referential communication strategies. Child Development, 57, 1130–1141. Karp, D. A., & Yoels, W. C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421–439. Kasper, G., & Kellerman, E. (Eds.). (1997). Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. New York: Longman. Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuition as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, 59–89. Kellerman, E. (1984). The empirical evidence for the influence of the L1 in interlanguage. In A. Davies & C. Criper (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 98–122). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kellerman, E., Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (1987). Strategy and system in L2 referential communication. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context (pp. 100–112). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kellerman, E., & Sharwood-Smith, M. (Eds.). (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kealey, D., & Ruben, B. D. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection criteria, issues and methods. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training: Vol. 1. Issues in theory and design (pp. 155–175). New York: Pergamon. Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Kim, Y. Y. (1991). Intercultural communication competence. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 259–275). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. Y. (1995). Cross-cultural adaptation. In R. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 170– 194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. Y., & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds.). (1988). Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kim, Y. Y., & Ruben, B. D. (1988). Intercultural transformation: A systems theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Klineberg, O., & Hull, W. F. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of adaptation and coping . New York: Macmillan. Klopf, D. W. (1995). Intercultural encounters: The fundamentals of intercultural communication. Englewood, CO: Norton. Kluckhohn, C., & Strodbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Knox, A. B. (1973). Classroom interaction rating form. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 091537. Kramarae, C., & Treichler, P. A. (1990). Power relationships in the classroom. In S. Babriel, & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy (pp. 41–59). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kraus, E. (1991). The contradictory immigrant problem: A socio-psychological analysis. New York: Lang. Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1 , 113–114.

< previous page

page_250

next page >

< previous page

page_251

next page >

Page 251 Krishnan, A., & Berry, J. (1992). Acculturative stress and acculturative attitudes among Indian immigrants to the United States. Psychology and Developing Societies, 4 , 187–212. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9 , 292–305. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper & Row. Lakoff, R. (1979). Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. In J. Orasanu, M. Slater, & L. L. Adler (Eds.), Language, sex, and gender (pp. 53–80). New York: The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Langer, E. (1997). The power of mindful learning . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Laosa, L. M. (1979). Inequality in the classroom: Observational research on teacher-student interaction. Aztlan 8 : 51–67. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Longman. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior . Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lee, M. Y., Abd-Ella, M., & Burke, L. (1981). Needs of foreign students from developing nations at U.S. colleges and universities. Washington, DC: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs. Leech, J. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Harper & Row. Leong, F. T. L. (1984). Counseling international students: Searchlight plus #56. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, ERIC Counseling and Personnel Services Clearinghouse. Leong, F. T. L., 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 U.S. students’ preferences for help sources. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 426–430. Leong, F. T. L., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Academic and career needs of international and United States college students. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 106–111. Liberman, K. B. (1984). The hermeneutics of intercultural communication. Anthropological Linguistics, 26(1), 53–83. Light, R. L., Xu, M., & Mossop. J. (1987). The relationship between English proficiency and academic performance of international students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2): 251–261. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 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. Losey, K. M. (1997). Listen to the silences: Mexican American interaction in the composition classroom and the community . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society. International Social Science Bulletin, 7 , 45–51.

< previous page

page_251

next page >

< previous page

page_252

next page >

Page 252 MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26. MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Nõrnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 555–562. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety in language learning: A review of literature. Language Learning, 41, 85–117. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The effects of induced anxiety in three stages of cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(1), 1–18. Malcolm, I. (1986). Continuities in communicative patterns in cross-cultural classrooms. Paper presented at the RELC Regional Seminar on Patterns of Classroom Interaction in Southeast Asia, Singapore, April 21–25. Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). International graduate students, stress, and social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33(1), 71–78. Manese, J. E., Sedlacek, W. E., & Leong, F. T. (1988). Needs and perceptions of female and male international undergraduate students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling Psychology, 39, 214–218. Mao, L. M. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451–486. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of the face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426. Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals—observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8 , 207– 221. McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1978). Identities and interaction. New York: Free Press. McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985, November). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO. McCrosky, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition, and anxiety (pp. 19–37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 189–200. Mead, M. (1970). Culture and commitment: A study of the generation gap. Garden City, NY: National History Press, Doubleday & Company. Meloni, C. F. (1986). Adjustment problems of foreign students in U.S. colleges and universities. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 276296. Merta, R. J., Ponterotto, J. G., & Brown, R. D. (1992). Comparing the effectiveness of two directive styles in the academic counseling of foreign students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 214–218. Mestre, J. P. (1981). Predicting academic achievement among bilingual Hispanic college technical students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1255–1264. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Miller, M. H. (1971). The cross-cultural student—lessons in human nature. Bulletin of Menninger Clinic, 34(2), 128.

< previous page

page_252

next page >

< previous page

page_253

next page >

Page 253 Miller, T. K., & Winston, R. B., Jr. (1990). Assessing development from a psychosocial perspective. In D. G. Creamer (Ed.), College student development theory and practice for the 1990s (pp. 99–126). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association . Mishler, E. G. (1991). Representing discourse: The rhetoric of transcription. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1 (4), 255–280. Morgenstern, L. (1992). Action and inaction: Student and teacher roles in classroom participation. ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 346534. Moutland, C., & Ledgerwood, J. (1981). Mutual understanding of different cultures. Tokyo: Taishukan. Mulligan, A. C. (1966). Evaluating foreign credentials. College and University, 41, 307–313. Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Neill, S. (1991). Classroom nonverbal communication. New York: Routledge. Nemetz Robinson, G. L. (1988). Crosscultural understanding. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall. Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1994). Second language anxiety: A socio-communicative model of affect, cognition and behavior . Unpublished manuscript. Noels, K. A., Pon, G., & Clément, R. (1996). Language, identity, and adjustment: The role of linguistic self-confidence in the acculturation process. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 15, 246–264. Novak, M. (1970). The experience of nothingness. New York: Harper & Row. Novak, M. (1971). The rise of the unmeltable ethnics . New York: Macmillan. Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7 , 170–179. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning . New York: Cambridge University Press. O’Hair, M. J., & Rope, E. (1994). Unspoken messages: Understanding diversity in education requires emphasis on nonverbal communication. Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer, 91–112. O’Keefe, T. F., & Faupel, C. E. (1987). The other face of the classroom: A student ethnography. Sociological Spectrum, 7 , 141–155. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Mananares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985a). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557–584. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Mananares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985b). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21–46. Oropeza, B. C., Fitzgibbon, M., & Baron A. (1991). Managing mental health crises of foreign college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 280–284. Oyama, S. (1975). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5 (3), 261–283. Padilla, A. M. (ed.). (1980). Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings . Washington, DC: Westview. Paribakht, T. (1982). The relationship between the use of communication strategies and aspects of target language proficiency: A study of Persian ESL students . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto. Paribakht, T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 6 , 132–146.

< previous page

page_253

next page >

< previous page

page_254

next page >

Page 254 Parr, G., Bradley, L., & Bingi, R. (1992). Concerns and feelings of international students. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 20–25. Parrillo, V. N. (1966). Strangers to these shores: Race and ethnic relations in the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Pederson, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19, 10–49. Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–32. Philips, S. (1972). Participation structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. H. Hymes (Eds.). Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370–394). New York: Teachers College Press. Pitton, D., Warring, D., Frank, K., & Hunter, S. (1993). Multicultural messages: Nonverbal communication in the classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Los Angeles, CA. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (1986). Power in the classroom. VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43–55. Poulisse, N. (1987). Problems and solutions in the classification of communication strategies. Second Language Research, 3 , 141–153. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English (pp. 252–266). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications. Puentha, D., Giles, H., & Young, L. (1987). Interethnic perceptions and relative deprivation: British data. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Crosscultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 252–266). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Quinn, W. A. (1975). A study of selected sojourn preferences and priorities: Stanford University foreign students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Stanford University. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Outline for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149–152. Reinick, M. J. (1986). Cultural adjustment of international students in the U.S.: A reevaluation using reformulated learned helplessness. ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 274939. Rich, A. (1974). Interracial communication. New York: Harper & Row. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1985, November). Power in the classroom. VII: Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Paper presented at meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, Colorado. Ringbom, H. (1987). Modular patterns in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8 , 281–308. Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and communities. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass. Rowland, S. (1991). The power of silence: An enquiry through fictional writing. British Educational Journal, 17(2), 95–111.

< previous page

page_254

next page >

< previous page

page_255

next page >

Page 255 Rudduck, J. (1978). Learning through small group discussion: A study of seminar work in higher education. Guildford, UK: Research Into Higher Education. Saidla, D. D. (1982). Cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal correlational educational relationship quality. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. Saidla, D. D. (1989). Roommates’ cognitive development, interpersonal understanding, and relationship rapport. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 300–306. Saidla, D. D., & Parodi, R. (1991). International and American roommate relationships. The College Student Affairs Journal, 10, 54–69. Saidla, D. D., & Grant, S. (1993). Roommate understanding and rapport between international and American roommates. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 335–340. Samimy, K., Liu., J., and Matsuda, K. (1994). Gambre, Amae , and Giri : A cultural explanation for Japanese children’s success in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 261–271. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (Eds.). (1988). Intercultural communication: A reader (6th ed.). Stamford, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Sato, C. (1982). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL ’81 (pp. 11– 24). Washington, DC: TESOL. Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. New York : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Saville-Troike, M. (1985). The place of silence in an integrated theory of communication. In M. Saville-Troike & D. Tannen (Eds.), Perspectives on Silence (pp. 3–18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Publishers Inc. Saville-Troike, M., & Tannen, D. (1985). Perspectives on silence . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Schneider, M. L., & Fujishima, N. K. (1994). When practice doesn’t make perfect: The case of a graduate ESL student. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R. C. Gingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27–50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Scollon, R. (1985). The machine stops: Silence in the metaphor of malfunction. In M. Saville-Troike & D. Tannen (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 21–30). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. K. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. K. (1995). Intercultural communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Selltiz, C., Christ, J. R., Havel, J., & Cook, S. W. (1963). Attitudes and social relations of foreign students in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Selltiz, C., Hopson, A. L., & Cook, S. W. (1956). The effects of situational factors on personal interaction between foreign students and Americans. Journal of Social Issues, 12, 33–44.

< previous page

page_255

next page >

< previous page

page_256

next page >

Page 256 Shamim, F. (1996). In or out of the action zone: Location as a feature of interaction in large ESL classes in Pakistan. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 123–144). New York: Cambridge University Press. Shatz, M. (1978). The relation between cognitive processes and the development of communication skills. In C.B. Keasy (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 25. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Sheehan, O. T. O., & Pearson, F. (1995). Asian international and American students’ psychological development. Journal of College Student Development, 36(6), 522–530. Sifianou, M. (1997). Silence and politeness. In A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 63–84). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sitaram, K. S., & Haapanen, L. W. (1979). The role of values in interculrual communication. In M. K. Asante & C. A. Blake (Eds.), The handbook of intercultural communication (pp. 147–160). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 180– 190. Sobkowiak, W. (1997). Silence and markedness theory. In A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 39–62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sodowsky, G. R. (1991). Effects of culturally consistent counseling tasks on American and international student observers’ perception of counselor credibility: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Counseling and Development , 69, 253–256. Spaulding, S., & Flack, M. (1976). The world’s students in the United States: A review and evaluation of research on foreign students. New York: Praeger. Spaulding, R. L. (1978). Spaulding Teacher Activity Rating Schedule. Educational Testing Service TC 012238 ETS 8410. Spicer, E. H. (1968). Acculturation. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 21–27). New York: Macmillan. Spindler, G. D. (1955). Sociocultural and psychological processes in Menomini acculturation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). Issues in the development of a theory of interpersonal competence in intercultural context. Intercultural Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 241–268. Stafford, T. H., Jr., Marison, P. B., & Salter, M. L. (1980). Adjustment of international students. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 18, 40–45. Statham, A., Richardson, L., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Gender and university teaching: A negotiated difference . Albany: State University of New York Press. Sternglanz, S. H., & Lyberger-Ficek, S. (1977). Sex differences in student-teacher interactions in the college classroom. Sex Roles, 3 , 345–352. Stonequist, E. V. (1964). The marginal man: A study in personality and culture confllict. In E. W. Burgess & D. J. Bogue (Eds.), Contributions to urban sociology (pp. 327–345). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Stover, A. D. (1982). Effects of language admission criteria on academic performance of non-native English speaking students. Dissertation Abstract International 42, 4374A–4375A. University Microfilm No. 67-8032. Strauss, J. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

< previous page

page_256

next page >

< previous page

page_257

next page >

Page 257 Stryker, S. (1981). Symbolic interactionism: Themes and variations. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives. New York: Basic Books. Stryker, S. (1991). Exploring the relevance of social cognition for the relationship of self and society: Linking the cognitive perspective and identity theory. In J. Howard & P. Callero (Eds.), Self-society dynamic: Emotion, cognition and action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Surdam, J. C., & Collins, J. R. (1984). Adaptation of international students: A cause for concern. Journal of College Students Personnel, 25(3), 240–245. Taft, R. (1957). A psychological model for the study of social assimilation. Human Relations, 10(2), 141–156. Taft, R. (1977). Coping with unfamilar cultures. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. I) (pp. 121–153). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13, 65–93. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 121–153). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 144–167). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Tannen, D. (1985). Silence: Anything but. In M. Saville-Troike & D. Tannen (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 93– 111). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. C. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77. Washington, DC: TESOL. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417–431. Tarone, E., Cohen, A., & Dumas, G. (1976). A closer look at some interlanguage terminology: A framework for communication strategies. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9 , 76–90. Teske, R. H. C., & Nelson, B. H. (1974). Acculturation and assimilation: A clarification. American Anthropologist, 1 , 351–367. Thich, N. H. (1991). Peace in every step: The path of mindfulness in everyday life. New York: Bantam Books. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4 , 91–112. Ting-Toomey, S. (1986). Japanese communication patterns: Insider versus the outsider perspective. World Communication, 15, 113–126. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan, and the United States. Intercultural Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 29–46. Ting-Toomey, S. (1993). Communicative resourcefulness: An identity negotiation perspective. In R. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 72–111). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.

< previous page

page_257

next page >

< previous page

page_258

next page >

Page 258 Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., et al. (1986). The measurement of the ethnic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257–267. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asia, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism-collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 23–38. Triandis, H. C., Brislin, R., & Hui, C. H. (1988). Cross-cultural training across the individualism-collectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 269–289. Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 145–167). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tu, W. M. (1985). Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 231–251). New York: Tavistock Publications. Turner. J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorizing theory. London: Basil Blackwell. Ulijn, J. M., & Gorter, T. R. (1989). Language, culture and technical-commercial negotiating. In Coleman, H. (Ed.), Working with language: A multi-disciplinary consideration of language use in work contexts (pp. 479–505). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vanfossen, B. E. (1986). Sex differences in depression: The role of spouse support. In S. E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress, social support, and women (pp. 69–84). New York: Hemisphere. Varadi, T. (1980). Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 59–71. Vernon, P. E. (1982). The abilities and achievements of Orientals in North America . New York: Academic Press. Wan, T. Y., Chapman, D. W., & Biggs, D. A. (1992). Academic stress of international students attending U.S. universities. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 607–624. Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed.) (pp. 124–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the culture in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 221–249. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. Intercultural Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–343. Wayne, M. S. (1974). The meaning of silence in conversations in three cultures. In International Christian University Communication Student Group (Ed.), Patterns of communication in and out of Japan (pp. 127–130). Tokyo: ICU Communication Department. Wilson, R. (1999). In a lab without American students, a professor urges assimilation. The Chronicle of Higher Education , May 14, p. A15. Wingate, N. (1984). Sexism in the classroom. Integrated Education, 22, 150–160.

< previous page

page_258

next page >

< previous page

page_259

next page >

Page 259 Wispé, L. G. (1968). Sympathy and empathy. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 5) (pp. 441–447). New York: Macmillan. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Wolf, M. (1992). A thrice told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Xu, M. (1991). The impact of English-language proficiency on international graduate students’ perceived academic difficulty. Research in Higher Education, 32(5), 557–569. Yau, T. Y., Sue, D., & Hayden, D. (1992). Counseling style preferences of international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 100–104. Ying, Y. W., & Liese, L. H. (1990). Initial adaptation of Taiwan foreign students to the United States: The impact of prearrival variables. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 825–845. Ying, Y. W., & Liese, L. H. (1991). Emotional well-being of Taiwan students in the U.S.: An examination of pre- to post-arrival differential. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 345–366. Zuengler, J. (1993). Encouraging learners’ conversational participation: The effect of content knowledge. Language Learning, 43, 403–432.

< previous page

page_259

next page >

< previous page

page_260

next page >

page_260

next page >

Page 260 This page intentionally left blank.

< previous page

< previous page

page_261

next page >

page_261

next page >

Page 261 Author Index Abadzi, H., 3 Abbott, K. A., 177 Abd-Ella, M., 3 Abrams, D., 225 Adelegan, F. O., 3 Adler, N., 12, 41, 221, 240 Agarwal, V. B., 3 Ajzen, I., 210 Aleamoni, L. M., 4 Ammon, P., 37 Andersen, J. F., 24, 25 Anderson, L., 221 Aneshensel, C. S., 6 Antler, L., 8 Argyle, M., 17, 30 Asante, M. K., 23 Asia, M., 21 Atkinson, D., 3 Baer, J. E., 209, 216 Bailey, K. M., 26 Banks, T. L., 45 Barna, L. M., 23 Barnlund, D. C., 190, 191 Baron, A., 3 Baxter, L. A., 225 Becker, C. B., 25 Beebe, L. M., 36 Belenky, M. F., 43 Bennett, M. J., 230, 231, 232 Bentlage, A., 36 Berlo, D. K., 23, 235 Berry, J., 221 Bialystok, E., 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Biber, D., 213 Biggs, D. A., 5 Biklen, S. K., 49, 51 Bingi, R., 2, 6 Blom, J.-P., 226 Blum-Kulka, S., 23 Bochner, S., 7 Boersma, P. D., 44, 45 Bogdan, R. C., 49, 51 Bond, M., 21, 22, 176, 203

< previous page

< previous page

page_262

Page 262 Bongaerts, T., 36 Bontempo, R., 21 Boski, P., 221 Bourhis, R. Y., 12, 225 Boyer, S. P., 6 Bradley, L., 2, 6 Bransford, J. D., 37 Brewer, M., 225 Brislin, R., 21 Brooks, V. R., 45 Brown, A. L., 37 Brown, G., 37 Brown, G. D. A., 37 Brown, H. D., 40, 41 Brown, P., 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 Brown, R. D., 3 Bruneau, T. J., 28, 29, 190, 191 Bull, P., 30 Bulthuis, J. D., 6, 236 Burgess, T. C., 4 Burgoon, J. K., 30, 209 Burke, L., 3 Campione, J. C., 37 Canale, M., 4, 40, 215, 224, 228 Carson, J. G., 181 Celce-Murcia, M., 229 Chamot, A. U., 37 Chapman, D., 4, 5 Chaudron, C., 25, 26 Chen, G. M., 16, 18, 22, 28 Chomsky, N., 228 Clancy, P. M., 203 Clark, H. H., 35 Clément, R., 209, 211, 212, 213 Clinchy, B., 43 Coelho, G. V., 3, 12 Cohen, A., 32 Collins, J. R., 7 Condon, J. C., 19, 20 Constantinides, J., 5 Constantinople, A. P., 26, 27, 44, 45, 46 Cook, J. A., 44 Cook, S. W., 8 Cook-Gumperz, J., 226 Cope, J., 212 Corder, S. P., 31, 32 Cornelius, R. R., 26, 27, 44, 45 Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S., Washington, D.C., 2, 3 Crawford, M., 45 Crispin, D. P., 27 Cummins, J., 4 Davis, J. R., 27 De Armond, M. M., 3 Dendrinos, B., 193, 194 Desruisseaux, P., 1, 2, 3 Dickson, W. P., 35 Dizney, H. F., 4 Doi, T., 203, 207 Dornyei, Z., 229 Duff, P., 26 Dumas, G., 32 Dunnett, S., 4 Duran, R., 4 Eakins, B. W., 28 Eakins, R. G., 28 Educational Testing Service, 27 Ekman, P., 30 El-Lakany, F. A., 8 Ellis, R., 40, 41 Ellsworth, P., 30 Enright, D. S., 26 Exum, H. A., 3 Faerch, C., 32, 33, 34

next page >

Fassinger, P. A., 27, 46, 181 Faupel, C. E., 45 Ferrara, R. A., 37 Ferris, D., 186 Fishbein, M., 210 Fitzgibbon, M., 3 Flack, M., 4 Fraser, B., 200, 201, 202 Friesen, W. V., 30 Frohlich, M., 34, 35 Fujishima, N. K., 4 Furnham, A., 7, 223 Gardner, R. C., 49, 212, 213 Gay, D., 44, 45 Gibson, W., 4

< previous page

page_262

next page >

< previous page

page_263

Page 263 Gilbert, L. A., 6 Giles, H., 12, 221, 225 Gilmore, P., 194, 198 Glesne, C., 50, 54 Goffman, E., 200, 202, 205 Goldberg, L. R., 216 Goldberger, N., 43 Gordon, M. M., 10, 11 Gorham, J., 30 Gorter, T. R., 23 Grant, S., 8 Gray, J., 26, 27, 44, 45 Greis, N. B., 4 Grice, P., 201 Gu, Y. G., 203 Guan, S. J., 17 Guba, E. G., 53, 54 Gudykunst, W. B., 23, 190 Guglielmo, L., 9 Gullahorn, J. E., 222 Gullahorn, J. T., 222 Gumperz, J. J., 226 Haapanen, L. W., 18 Haastrup, K., 34 Hale, G., 4 Hall, R. M., 16, 17, 20, 26, 44 Hanson, F. A., 23 Hatch, E., 213 Hayden, D., 3 Heikinheimo, P. S., 3, 4, 6, 29, 236 Heil, D. K., 4 Heller, M., 26 Herskovits, M. J., 10 Hill, B., 203 Ho, D. Y. F., 4 Hofstede, G., 20, 21, 22 Hogg, M., 225 Holahan, C. K., 6 Hopson, A. L., 8 Horwitz, E. K., 212 Horwitz, M. B., 212 House, J., 23 Hsu, F. L. K., 10 Hu, H. C., 203, 204 Huberman, A. M., 51 Hui, C. H., 21 Hull, W. F., 13 Huntly, H. S., 4, 8, 9 Hwang, K., 4, 203 Hyde, M., 24 Hymes, D. H., 198, 228 Ibrahim, F., 3 Ide, S., 203 Ishii, S., 28, 29 Jaworski, A., 28 Jensen, J. V., 29, 193, 194, 195 Johnson, P., 12, 225 Jones, R. A., 44, 45 Kahan, L. D., 37 Karp, D. A., 43, 44, 45 Kasper, G., 31, 32, 33, 34 Kealey, D., 13 Kearney, P., 30 Kellerman, E., 31, 35, 36 Kennedy, A., 221 Kim, Y. Y., 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 215, 221, 222, 223 Klineberg, O., 13 Klofp, D. W., 18 Kluckhohn, C., 19 Knox, A. B., 27 Kralj, M. M., 3 Kramarae, C., 45 Kraus, E., 221

next page >

Krauss, R. M., 35 Krishnan, A., 221 Kruidenier, B. G., 212 Kuo, L. F., 8, 48, 178 Kupper, L., 37 Lakoff, R., 200 Langer, E., 228 Laosa, L. M., 26 Larsen-Freeman, D., 40 Lau, E. Y., 3 Lazarus, R. S., 221 Lebra, T. S., 203 Ledgerwood, J., 221 Lee, M. Y., 3 Leech, J., 200, 201 Leong, F. T. L., 2, 3, 6, 7

< previous page

page_263

next page >

< previous page Page 264 Levinson, S. D., 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 Liberman, K. B., 23 Liese, L. H., 2 Light, R. L., 4 Lincoln, Y. S., 53 Linton, R., 10 Liu, J., 8, 48, 178, 203 Long, M. H., 40 Losey, K. M., 195, 196, 197 Lucca, N., 21 Lyberger-Ficek, S., 44, 45 Lysgaard, S., 222 MacIntyre, P. D., 49, 209, 210, 211, 212, 216 MacLeod, M., 45 Malcolm, I., 26 Mallinckrodt, B., 2, 3, 6, 7 Manese, J. E., 2 Mao, L. M., 203, 205 Marison, P. B., 3 Matsuda, K., 203 Matsumoto, Y., 203, 207, 208 McCall, G., 225 McCroskey, J. C., 30, 209, 215, 216 McKeachie, W. J., 43 Mead, M., 24 Meloni, C. F., 3 Merta, R. J., 3 Mestre, J. P., 4 Miles, M. B., 51 Miller, M. H., 6, 236 Miller, N., 225 Miller, T. K., 3 Mills, C. J., 26 Mishler, E. G., 52 Montgomery, B. M., 225 Morgenstern, L., 43, 44 Morrison, L., 44, 45 Mossop, J., 4 Moutland, C., 221 Mulligan, A. C., 4 Nakane, C., 207 Neill, S., 29 Nelson, G. L., 11, 181 Nemetz Robinson, G. L., 25 Nishida, T., 190 Nõrnyei, Z., 209 Noels, K. A., 209, 212, 213 Nolen, W., 200, 202 Novak, M., 11, 240 Nunan, D., 26 Oberg, K., 12 O’Hair, M. J., 29, 30, 31 O’Keefe, T. F., 45 O’Malley, J. M., 37 Odlin, T., 35 Oropeza, B. C., 2 Oyama, S., 184 Padilla, A. M., 12 Paribakht, T., 34, 35, 36 Parks, D. J., 3 Parodi, R., 8 Parr, G., 2, 6 Parrillo, V. N., 10 Patton, M. Q., 50 Pearson, F., 24 Pederson, P. B., 3, 6 Peirce, B. N., 181 Perkins, C., 9 Peshkin, A., 50, 54 Philips, S., 26 Phillipson, R., 34 Pitton, D., 30 Plax, T. G., 30

page_264

next page >

Pon, G., 212 Ponterotto, J. G., 3 Porter, R. E., 28 Poulisse, N., 36 Powell, R., 24, 25 Puentha, D., 221 Puff, C. R., 26 Quinn, W. A., 8 Redfield, R., 10 Reinick, M. J., 3, 4 Remick, H. M., 44, 45 Rich, A., 16 Richards, D. D., 37 Richardson, L., 44 Richmond, V. P., 30, 215

< previous page

page_264

next page >

< previous page

page_265

Page 265 Ringbom, H., 35 Rope, E., 29, 30, 31 Rothman, J., 228 Rowland, S., 28 Ruben, B. D., 13 Rudduck, J., 28 Russo, R. P., 37 Saidla, D. D., 8 Salter, M. L., 3 Samimy, K., 203 Samovar, L. A., 28 Sandler, B. R., 44 Sato, C., 26 Savignon, S., 224, 228, 229 Saville-Troike, M., 29, 47, 190, 191, 198, 199, 228 Schneider, M. L., 4 Schumann, J. H., 215 Scollon, R., 17, 190, 204 Scollon, S. B. K., 17, 204 Sedlacek, W. E., 2, 3, 6, 7 Selltiz, C., 8, 12 Shamim, F., 26 Sharkey, A. J. C., 37 Sharwood-Smith, M., 35 Shatz, M., 37 Sheehan, O. T. O., 24 Shute, J. C. M., 3, 4, 5, 6, 236 Sifianou, M., 190, 191, 193 Simmons, J., 225 Sitaram, K. S., 18 Smith, D. G., 43 Sobkowiak, W., 190, 192 Sodowsky, G. R., 2, 3 Spaulding, R. L., 27 Spaulding, S., 4 Spicer, E. H., 10 Spindler, G. D., 10 Spinks, S., 4 Spitzberg, B. H., 23 Stafford, T. H., Jr., 3 Stansfield, C., 4 Starosta, W. J., 16, 18, 22, 28 Statham, A., 44 Sternglanz, S. H., 44, 45 Stevenson, J. H., 3 Stewner-Mananares, G., 37 Stonequist, E. V., 11 Stover, A. D., 4 Strauss, J., 49 Strodbeck, F., 19 Stryker, S., 225 Sue, D., 3 Surdam, J. C., 7 Swain, M., 40, 215, 224, 228 Taft, R., 11, 12 Tagg, T., 186 Tajfel, H., 12, 223 Tannen, D., 29, 47, 191, 192, 195, 198, 199 Tarone, E., 32, 33, 35, 36 Tarule, J., 43 Taylor, D., 12, 225 Teske, R. H. C., 11 Thich, N. H., 227 Thomas, J., 229 Thurrell, S., 229 Ting-Toomey, S., 16, 21, 23, 24, 177, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227 Treichler, P. A., 45 Triandis, H. C., 21 Tsui, A. B. M., 43 Tu, W. M., 206 Turner, J. C., 12 Ulijn, J. M., 23 Vanfossen, B. E., 6

next page >

Varadi, T., 32, 35 Vernon, P. E., 177 Villareal, M., 21 Wan, T. Y., 4, 5 Ward, C., 221 Wayne, M. S., 29 Weinheimer, S., 35 Wilkes-Gibbs, D., 35 Wilson, R., 2, 8 Wingate, N., 45 Winkler, D. R., 3 Winston, R. B., Jr., 3 Wispé, L. G., 230 Wolcott, H. F., 51 Wolf, M., 52

< previous page

page_265

next page >

< previous page

page_266

next page >

page_266

next page >

Page 266 Xu, M., 4, 5 Yau, T. Y., 3 Ying, Y. W., 2 Yoels, W. C., 43, 44, 45 Young, D. J., 212 Young, L., 221 Yousef, F., 19, 20 Zuengler, J., 214

< previous page

< previous page

page_267

next page >

Page 267 Subject Index acculturation theory, 10 adaptive cultural transformation, 38, 219–230 concept of, 221–222 individual-level, 221–222 interpersonal-level, 221–222 system-level, 221 process of, 220, 222 U-curve model of, 222 W-shaped model, 222 adaptive cultural transformation competence, 224–230 communicative competence, 215–216, 228–230 actional competence, 229 definition of, 228 discourse competence, 228–229 linguistic/grammatical competence, 228 sociolinguistic competence, 228 strategic competence, 229 culture-sensitive knowledge, 227–228 definition of, 227 model of, 224 mindful reflexivity, 227–228 codeswitching, 226 definition of, 227 ethnolinguistic identity, 225–226 group membership, 225 identity negotiation perspective, 224 identity threat, 224–225 self-image identities, 225 situation-specific identities, 226 social identity, 223, 224 social-identity negotiation skills, 224–227 theory of, 224–225 adjustment problems of international students, 3–9 academic problems, 3–5 financial problems, 8–9 social problems, 5–8 Asian culture, 176 achievement motivation, 176–177

< previous page

page_267

next page >

< previous page

page_268

Page 268 Buddhism, 25 collectivism, 176–177 face-saving, 176, 178 ( see also face-saving ) silence, 28, 39, 177 ( see also silence ) social obligations, 176 sociocultural beliefs, 177 sociocultural training, 177 classroom communication patterns, 24–25, 41–42, 71, 72 classifying, 73 conditional participation, 72, 85, 175 continuum, 73, 176 factors affecting, 155–175 factors in categories, 166–171 affective, 167 cognitive, 166 linguistic, 168–169 pedagogical, 166–167 sociocultural, 168 functional impact, 166–169 debilitating, 166 facilitative, 166 neutral, 166 marginal interaction, 72, 110, 129, 175 silent observation, 72, 128, 151, 175 total integration, 72, 73, 86, 175 classroom interaction, 25 areas and effects of, 26 instruments, 27 classroom nonverbal communication, 28–29 classroom settings, 29 communication avoidance, 30, 31 facial expressions, 30 functions in the classrooms, 31 gender differences, 28, 179–181 silence, 28–31 ( see also silence) classroom participation, 40, 41, 43 benefits, 41, 43 consolidation of responsibility, 43, 44 factors affecting, 46 gender differences in, 44, 46 interdisciplinary nature, 41 modes, 155, 182, 183, 185 oral communication skills, 64–65 organizational features, 43 synthesis of perception, 150–154 communication, 230 empathy, 230–232 sympathy, 230–232 communication strategies, 31–38 identifying taxonomy of, 31, 34 adjusting the form of expression, 32 adjusting the meaning, 32 appeal for assistance, 32 avoidance, 32 conscious transfer, 32 message adjustment/reduction strategies, 31 mime, 32 paraphrase, 32 resource expansion/achievement strategies, 31–32 selecting, 33 elicitation tasks, 34 factors affecting, 33 language backgrounds, 35 the nature of communication problem, 34–35 the target concept, 36 teaching communication strategies, 36 moderate views, 36–37 strong views, 36–37 cross-culture adaptation, 9–16, 41 anthropological and sociological approaches, 10–11 assimilation model, 11 definition of adaptation, 9

next page >

integrative theory of, 13–16 process, 41 social psychological approaches, 11–13 cross-cultural conflicts, 219 cultural perception, 17–18 organization, 17 selection, 17 selective attention, 17 culture shock, 12, 222–223 cultural dislocation, 12 re-entry shock, 12 cultural value orientations, 18

< previous page

page_268

next page >

< previous page Page 269 Condon and Yousef’s model, 19 Confucian dynamism, 22 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model, 20–21 Kluckhohn and Strodbeck’s model, 19 ESL (English as a second language), 40 EFL (English as a foreign language), 41 face, 203–209 Chinese face, 204–207 content of, 205 notion of, 203 universality of, 204 face-saving Chinese concept of, 204–207 , 203–206 Miànzi , 203–207 Japanese concept of, 207–209 Amae , 207 horizontal society, 207 vertical society, 207 face-threatening acts (FTAs), 203 negative face, 203 positive face, 203 factors influencing participation, 175–187 affective constraints, 175–178 class size, 197 communicative competence, 178–179 content knowledge, 183–184 environmental support, 178 gender, 179–184 lesson type, 185 linguistic constraints, 175 peers, 184–185 personality, 179–183 ( see also personality characteristics ) potential to speak up, 178 prior experience, 184 sociocultural backgrounds, 175–178 teaching style, 185 GRE (Graduate Record Examination), 40, 42 intercultural communication, 16–23 content of, 16 contracultural communication, 16 cultural perception, 17 cultural value orientations, 19–23 Bond’s Confucian dynamism, 22 Condon and Yousef’s model, 19 Hall’s classification, 20 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model, 20 Kluckhohn and Strodbeck’s model, 19 definition of, 17 interethnic or minority communication, 16 international communication, 16 interracial communication, 16 causes of communication breakdown, 23 interview process, 51 interview schedules, 51, 52 maximum variation sampling, 50 native English speakers (NESs), 213–214 non-native English speakers (NNESs), 213–214 participants, 74–154 The Ag. Specialist, 143–146 The Biophysicist, 100–104 The Chemical Engineer, 115–117 The Consumer Scientist, 117–120 The Counselor, 124–128 The Ecologist, 91–96 The Ed. Administrator, 133–136 The English Teacher, 80–85 The Ex. Physiologist, 111–115 The Fashion Designer, 138–141

page_269

next page >

The The The The The The The The The The

Geo Scholar, 86–91 Geodetic Scientist, 77–80 Geologist, 74–77 Mechanical Engineer, 96–100 Musician, 136–138 Nutritionist, 120–124 Pharmacist, 128–133 Political Science Teacher, 104–110 Social Studies Teacher, 146–150 Social Worker, 141–143

< previous page

page_269

next page >

< previous page

page_270

next page >

Page 270 personality characteristics, 215 personality scales/traits, 64, 181–182, 216 politeness, 200–202 conversational-contract view, 202 conversational maxim view, 201 face-saving view, 203 ( see also face-saving ) social-norm view, 200 second language acquisition, 40 external factors, 40 internal factors, 40 silence, 28 function of, 193–195 activating, 195 affecting, 194 judgmental, 195 linkage, 193 revelational, 194 theoretical framework of, 189–195 as power, 193 categorizing, 190 culturally defined, 189–193 interpretation of, 190–191 in U.S. academia, 195–199 effects of classroom communication patterns, 195–196 effects of peers, 197–198 effects of teachers, 196–197 silence transfer, 198–199 U.S. interpretations of, 29 situation-based variables, 216 social identity, 215 TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), 39, 42 transferability, 54 trustworthiness, 53 participant-observer, 54 progressive subjectivity, 54 validity, 53 willingness to communicate (WTC), 209–216 authentic communication, 210 theory of planned behavior, 210 enduring influences, 210 motivational propensities, 212 interpersonal, 212 intergroup, 212 L2 self-confidence, 212 situated antecedents of communication, 211 affiliation, 211 control, 211 state self-confidence, 211 task-related situation, 211 trait self-confidence, 211 situational influences, 210 situational model, 209, 210

< previous page

page_270

next page >

< previous page

page_271

Page 271 About the Author JUN LIU is Assistant Professor in the English Department of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

< previous page

page_271