Understanding Asian Students

Understanding Asian students’

Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 10:1 (2000), 155–189. issn 0957–6851

© 2000 John Benjamins Publishing Company

<TARGET "liu" DOCINFO

AUTHOR "Jun Liu"

TITLE "Understanding Asian students’ oral participation modes in American classrooms"

SUBJECT "JAPC, Volume 10:1"

KEYWORDS ""

SIZE HEIGHT "220"

WIDTH "150"

VOFFSET "4">

oral participation modesin American classrooms*

<LINK "liu-n*">

Jun LiuUniversity of Arizona

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

Introduction

In the past few decades, the quality, scope, and sheer size of the higher educa-tion enterprise in the United States have attracted students and scholars from allparts of the world in unprecedented numbers. In the 1994–1995 academic year,when the study reported in this paper was conducted, for instance, there were452,635 international students enrolled at 2,758 accredited US institutions.Among all the foreign students, about two-fifths (42%) were enrolled in

156 Jun Liu

graduate programs, and more than half (57.8%) were from Asia (Desruisseaux

<LINK "liu-r14">

1995). In compliance with the continuing increase of international students inthe United States, there has been considerable research addressing the variousneeds of international students. Studies on US university campuses haveexplored international students’ perceived needs (e.g., Manese, Sedlacek, &

<LINK "liu-r32">

Leong 1988), academic needs (e.g., Leong & Sedlacek 1986), adjustment (e.g.,

<LINK "liu-r26">

Mallinckrodt & Leong 1992), acculturation (e.g., Schumann 1978; Hansen

<LINK "liu-r31"><LINK "liu-r47"><LINK "liu-r21">

1998), emotional well-being (e.g., Ying & Liese 1990, 1991; Parr, Bradley, &

<LINK "liu-r55"><LINK "liu-r38">

Bingi 1992), stress precipitators (e.g., Oropeza, Fitzgibbon, & Baron 1991),

<LINK "liu-r37">

coping with stress (e.g., Leong, Mallinckrodt, & Kralj 1990), help-seeking

<LINK "liu-r26">

sources (e.g., Leong & Sedlacek 1986), counseling style preferences (e.g., Exum


& Lau 1988; Merta, Ponterroto, & Brown 1992; Yau, Sue, & Hayden 1992), and


perception of counselor credibility (e.g., Sodowsky 1991). Although these

<LINK "liu-r48">

studies cover a broad spectrum of the diverse needs of international students,some of the results are problematic for the following reasons. First, manystudies tend to study international students as one cultural group rather than asspecific nationalities with distinct characteristics, so the results are not easy tointerpret as overgeneralizing and stereotyping might easily occur. Second, asmost of the studies are done via questionnaires, differences between/amonggroups are reported only as group means, thus minimizing individual differenc-es. Third, the existing studies have not investigated the attitudinal and valueorientations of international students, which are believed to be of crucialimportance in facilitating communication. Last, but not least, there is a scarcityof literature on the particular problems and needs of a specific population.Asian students in US higher education, for instance, is an area that needs specialattention as the Asian student population exceeds half of the internationalstudent population in US higher education (Desruisseaux 1995).

<LINK "liu-r14">

While Asian students contribute to the diversity and the cultural andintellectual aspects of the American campus environment, they also presentchallenges for administrators, faculty, and students alike (Council of GraduateSchools in US, 1991). International students in general, and Asian students inparticular, experience many difficulties in adjusting to an American lifestyle inthe process of completing their degrees. Their adjustment seems extremely hardbecause of the difficulty of being away from home (e.g., Leong 1984; Stafford,


Marion, & Salter 1980). They meet the challenge of learning to function in atotally different environment with limited English proficiency (e.g., Abadzi

<LINK "liu-r1">

1980; Agarwal & Winkle 1985; Miller & Winston 1990) and experience transi-


tional difficulties and culture shock (e.g., Ting-Toomey 1999). The difficulties

<LINK "liu-r50">

Understanding Asian students’ oral participation modes in American classrooms 157

most Asian students as well as other international students have in US universi-ties can be grouped into several categories: (1) academic problems in terms ofa lack of English language proficiency, completing various academic tasks, andfamiliarizing themselves with American academic norms and expectations; (2)social problems in terms of social integration, problems in daily life tasks,homesickness, and role conflicts; and (3) financial problems in terms ofinsufficient financial resources (cf. Lee, Abd-Ella, & Burke 1981; Adelegan &


Park 1985; Meloni 1986; Boyer & Sedlacek 1986; Heikinheimo & Shute 1986;

<LINK "liu-r33"><LINK "liu-r7"><LINK "liu-r22">

Reinick 1986; Pederson 1991).


Within the academic domain, a problem of growing concern is the inabilityof Asian students in English as a Second Language (ESL) settings to adequatelyadjust to active oral classroom participation in terms of speaking up in academ-ic content courses. An attendant problem is the feeling of frustration that oftencauses these students anxiety and concern. One obvious fact is that for mostAsian students, English was learned primarily as an academic subject. Eventhough these students have a fairly good command of English, as evidenced inpassing the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) requirement toenter American universities, there is still a gap between what they know (usage)and what they do (use) in highly demanding academic content courses in whichEnglish is the medium of instruction. In the past few decades, a significantamount of research has been conducted to explore and explain the possiblerelationships between the second language learner’s linguistic knowledge andhis/her language performance. Researchers (e.g., Canale & Swain 1980; Savig-


non 1983; Brown 1987; Ellis 1985, 1994; Saville-Troike 1989; Larsen-Freeman

<LINK "liu-r8"><LINK "liu-r16"><LINK "liu-r46"><LINK "liu-r24">

& Long 1991) seem to agree that the complex process of second languageacquisition cannot be solely explained by cognitive factors. Ellis (1994) dis-

<LINK "liu-r16">

cussed five key issues related to second language acquisition: learner language,external factors, internal factors, individual learner differences, and classroomsecond language acquisition. Among these five issues, both external factors(e.g., social factors, settings, and input and interaction and SLA) and internalfactors (e.g., language transfer, linguistic universals, cognitive processes, andindividual learner differences) seem to be of crucial importance to explain thedifferential success among ESL learners. Central to second language acquisitionresearch is language learners’ interaction patterns in classrooms. Chaudron

<LINK "liu-r12">

(1988) identified four major areas that depict the nature of interaction and itspossible effects on target language learning in second language classrooms: (1)selectivity of teachers’ speech to L2 learners in mixed NS and NNS classes, (2)the variability in teachers’ choice of language in addressing learners, (3) the

158 Jun Liu

pattern of questioning behavior, and (4) characteristics of feedback to learnersfollowing errors of L2 production or subject matter content. In an ethnographicstudy of teacher-student interaction in a language classroom, Enright (1984)

<LINK "liu-r17">

found that the two teachers he studied differed in their attitudes towardsclassroom interaction. While one teacher preferred his students not to speakunless they were spoken to, the other teacher gave his students opportunities tosay whatever they wanted to say in class. As a result, student interaction patternsvaried significantly. The classroom research has shown that teachers may be lesslikely to address L2 learners when they are mixed with native speakers (Chau-

<LINK "liu-r12">

dron 1988). The results of many other studies (e.g., Philips 1972; Cazen et al.

<LINK "liu-r42">

1980; Duff 1986) suggest that the different teacher-student interaction patterns

<LINK "liu-r15">

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

<LINK "liu-r44">

university-level ESL classes. She found that the teachers had a tendency to selectthe non-Asian students (60%) more than the Asian students (48%), whichsuggests that the teachers perceived that non-Asian students were more readyto participate in class. As Chaudron (1988) pointed out, “lack of attention or

<LINK "liu-r12">

negative functional treatment will at least not promote, and may inhibit,students’ progress” (p.121). In their edited volume, Voices from the languageclassroom, Bailey and Nunan (1996) devoted a section to classroom dynamics

<LINK "liu-r5">

and interaction. Some substantive issues were revealed as pertinent to class-room interaction. For example, to explore the problems many teachers face indealing with ESL students’ reticence in classroom, Tsui (1996) examined 38

<LINK "liu-r51">

teachers’ perceptions of the factors that contribute to student reticence insecondary schools in Hong Kong, and she identified five factors contributing tothe lack of students’ participatIon: (1) the students’ low English proficiency; (2)their fear of making mistakes and being ridiculed by classmates; (3) the teachers’intolerance of silence, which leads to a very short wait time for students to thinkabout a question or to come up with an answer; (4) unequal speaking opportu-nities afforded to each student by the teacher; and (5) overly difficult teacherlanguage input. The results of her study suggest that it is the interaction of thesefactors rather than any single factor that contributes to student reticence.

In order to help Asian students as well as other international students copewith American academic settings such as content classrooms, various ESLprograms and centers in American universities have been established to offercourses to help ESL learners overcome various sorts of language barriers and tobe competent in demonstrating their knowledge and abilities in their contentareas. However, once out of ESL programs, these students are no longer treated


as language learners. They are expected to do the same as everyone else in theircontent courses. Active oral classroom participation, for instance, is highlyencouraged in US universities, but the fact that many Asian students tend to bequiet in their content classrooms is often assumed to be caused by theirlinguistic incompetence, the improvement of which is often considered as a taskfor ESL instructors by content professors. Although there are some speculationsabout Asian students’ reticence in their content classrooms, there is no researchto explain why many Asian students tend to be quiet in their content courses inAmerican universities. There is no literature to date on whether Asian students’silence in classrooms is due to their being unable to participate, or their beingunwilling to participate, or a combination of both. Likewise, there is no studythat looks closely at Asian students’ perceptions towards oral classroom partici-pation as compared to their own participation modes in their content courses.Consequently, we do not know whether silence, as demonstrated by manyAsian students in their content classes, necessarily affects these students’academic achievement as these silent students are usually very serious incompleting their written tasks (Liu & Kuo 1996). Nor do we know how these

<LINK "liu-r28">

silent Asian students perceive their oral classroom participation in relation totheir American counterparts who are active in classroom participation. It is myfirm belief that the ultimate purpose of English language teachers is to helplearners improve their communicative competence (Swain & Canale 1980) so

<LINK "liu-r9">

that these students will feel comfortable and confident beyond their languageclassrooms. The study reported in this paper addresses ESL learners outsidetheir ESL classrooms. By focusing on a group of Asian students’ perceptionstowards and modes in oral classroom participation in their content courses, thisstudy looks at second language learners (Asian students) in a broader socialcontext (content classes) where they are not treated and judged solely aslanguage learners, but rather as intellectual individuals. By means of variousinterview schedules and observations, this study attempts to increase theunderstanding of the oral classroom participation perceptions of Asian studentspursuing advanced studies in the United States. The significance of this study is,therefore, to help raise the consciousness of both ESL instructors and contentprofessors, as well as American students, in understanding Asian students’perceptions towards, and modes in, oral classroom participation so as to createa supportive means to help them build up confidence and competence inreaching their academic goals. This, in turn, attempts to promote harmoniousclassroom environments, and strengthen intercultural communication.

160 Jun Liu

Method

This study was conducted on the main campus of a major US Midwesternuniversity in the 1994–1995 academic year. Both the diversity of the interna-tional graduate students as well as the total number of Asian graduate studentsat this university were on the top ten list among all the universities in theUnited States at the time of the study. I chose Asian graduate students as thefocus of the study for several reasons. First, the very topic under study, oralclassroom participation, is closely related to the Asian population. Asianstudents’ silence in American classrooms has become a concern for manycollege and university professors in US higher education, and yet studies aboutAsian students outside ESL classrooms in American universities are scarce.Second, my Asian background as an ESL learner, ESL teacher, and a Americanuniversity professor provide me with cultural knowledge to address this issuefrom an emic as well as an etic perspective. As an in-group member of an Asianculture, I felt comfortable in building rapport with the Asian students in thestudy, and my initial attempts in developing instruments and gaining fieldexperiences in classroom observation and interviews enabled me to treat everystep of the study with competence and confidence.1 Third, narrowing down theparticipants to a specific group (Asian graduate students) allows me to get morein-depth data and more focused analysis to maintain trustworthiness (Lincoln

<LINK "liu-r27">

and Guba 1985) of the study.The overall purpose of this study is two-fold: One is to describe, analyze,

and interpret Asian students’ perceptions of classroom participation in terms ofspeaking up in their content courses. The other is to suggest ways to help thesestudents adapt more adequately and effectively to the culture of Americanhigher education, and to help raise the consciousness of both college anduniversity ESL instructors, content professors, and American peers in helpingthese Asian students with their intercultural communicative competence andcomfort level in class. The objectives are: (1) to describe the oral classroomparticipation modes of the participants in the study via classroom observations;(2) to analyze these students’ perceptions towards their participation in theiracademic content courses via different interview schedules; (3) to interpret theirperceptions towards, and modes in, their content courses through factoranalysis, and (4) to discuss some salient patterns unique to the understandingof Asian students in American universities.

To describe the central themes or principal outcomes that cut across a greatdeal of participant variation, I used “maximum variation sampling” (Patton

<LINK "liu-r39">


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

162 Jun Liu

theoretical framework of the data analysis in this study was influenced by

Table 1. Pseudonyms and codes of the participants

GenderIntendedDegree Nationality Major

In-groupOrder Pseudonym Code

MMFM

Ph.D.MAPh.D.Ph.D.

China Ex. PhysiologyGeodetic SciencePharmacyFamily ResourceManagement

1234

Mr. Ex. PhysiologistMr. Geo ScholarMs. PharmacistMr. Ecologist

MPHDC1MMAC2FPHDC3MPHDC4

F MA Hong Kong Ed. Administration 1 Ms. Ed. Administra-tor

FMAHK1

M

F

MA

MA

Taiwan ChemicalEngineeringMusic

1

2

Mr. ChemicalEngineerMs. Musician

MMAT1

FMAT2

M

F

MF

FM

MA

Ph.D.

Ph.D.MA

Ph.D.Ph.D.

Korea MechanicalEngineeringConsumerScienceGeographyTextile andClothingHuman NutritionGeodetic Science

1

2

34

56

Mr. MechanicalEngineerMs. ConsumerScientistMr. GeologistMs. FashionDesignerMs. NutritionistMr. GeodeticScientist

MMAK1

FPHDK2

MPHDK3FMAK4

FPHDK5MPHDK6

MFF

Ph.D.MAMA

Japan BiophysicsSocial WorkCounseling Ed.

123

Mr. BiophysicistMs. Social WorkerCounselor

MPHDJ1FMAJ2FMAJ3

MFM

M

MAMAMA

MA

Indonesia Ag. Ed.Early Childhood Ed.Early Childhood Ed.

Early and MiddleChildhood Ed.

123

4

Mr. Ag. SpecialistMs. English TeacherMr. Political ScienceTeacherMr. Social StudiesTeacher

MMAI1FMAI2MMAI3

MMAI4

Wolcott (1994) and Miles and Huberman (1994). From Wolcott, I tried to


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


Table2.

Clu

ster

ofth

epa

rtic

ipat

ion

mod

esof

the

part

icip

ants

Clustersof

thepa

rtici-

pation

mod

esNo.

ofstude

nts

inthecluster

Participa

nts

Quotes

from

thepa

rticipan

tsfrom

interviews

1.Veryactive

3M

r.G

eolo

gist

(MP

HD

K3)

Mr.

Geo

deti

cSc

ien

tist

(MP

HD

K6)

Ms.

En

glis

hTe

ach

er(F

MA

I2)

“Ipa

rtic

ipat

eve

ryac

tive

lyin

clas

s.”

“Act

ual

lyI

amon

eof

thos

ew

ho

part

icip

ate

acti

vely

incl

ass.

”“I

part

icip

ated

acti

vely

inm

ycl

asse

s,es

pec

ially

wh

enth

ere

are

man

yot

her

non

nat

ive

En

glis

hsp

eake

rs.”

2.So

mew

hat

active

5M

r.G

eoSc

hol

ar(M

MA

C2)

Mr.

Eco

logi

st(M

PH

DC

4)M

r.M

ech

anic

alE

ngi

nee

r(M

MA

K1)

Mr.

Bio

phys

icis

t(M

PH

DJ1

)M

r.Po

litic

alSc

ien

ceTe

ach

er(M

MA

I3)

“Ias

kqu

esti

ons

sele

ctiv

ely.

Ias

kqu

esti

ons

wh

enI

thin

kth

eyca

nen

gage

furt

her

disc

us-

sion

.”“I

nso

me

ofth

ecl

asse

sI

amve

ryac

tive

,bu

tso

me

not

.”“I

amve

ryac

tive

part

icip

atin

gin

som

eco

urs

esfr

omm

yow

nm

ajor

,bu

tso

soin

oth

eron

es.”

“Ith

ink

Ipa

rtic

ipat

e,de

pen

din

gon

man

yfa

ctor

s.”

“Ias

ked

ques

tion

san

dso

met

imes

Iga

vem

yop

inio

ns,

som

etim

esI

answ

ered

ques

tion

sfr

ompr

ofes

sors

.Bu

tit

dep

ende

don

cou

rses

.”

3.Not

active

5M

r.E

x.P

hysi

olog

ist

(MP

HD

C1)

Mr.

Ch

emic

alE

ngi

nee

r(M

MA

T1)

Ms.

Con

sum

erSc

ien

tist

(FP

HD

K2)

Ms.

Nu

trit

ion

ist

(FP

HD

K5)

Ms.

Cou

nse

lor

(FM

AJ3

)

“Ise

ldom

part

icip

ated

incl

assr

oom

disc

uss

ion

.”“I

don

otta

lka

lot

incl

ass,

but

som

etim

esI

ask

ques

tion

s.”

“Th

e1s

tqu

arte

rI

did

not

ask

any

ques

tion

s,bu

tth

ese

con

dqu

arte

rI

feel

bett

er.I

fIh

ave

ques

tion

,I’d

like

toas

k.”

“IfI

wer

em

ore

acti

ve,m

aybe

the

tim

eto

adju

stw

ould

bequ

icke

ran

dsh

orte

r.”

“Ith

ink

ifth

ete

ach

eras

ksu

sop

inio

ns,

Iw

illn

otvo

lun

teer

tosp

eak

up

imm

edia

tely

.”

4.Extremelyinactive

7M

s.P

har

mac

ist

(FP

HD

C3)

Ms.

Ed

Adm

inis

trat

or(F

MA

HK

1)M

s.M

usi

cian

(FM

AT

2)M

s.Fa

shio

nD

esig

ner

(FM

AK

4)

Ms.

Soci

alW

orke

r(F

MA

J2)

Mr.

Ag.

Spec

ialis

t(M

MA

I1)

Mr.

Soci

alSt

udi

esTe

ach

er(M

MA

I4)

“Ith

ink

Iam

very

inac

tive

one.

Ise

ldom

talk

incl

ass,

and

usu

ally

Iju

stke

epsi

len

t.I

don’

tw

ant

tosp

eak

too

mu

chin

clas

s.”

“Iu

sual

lyta

lkin

smal

lgro

up,

but

nev

erin

big

clas

ses

befo

re.”

“Iam

afra

idth

atI

don

otpa

rtic

ipat

ein

cou

rses

inm

yar

eaa

lot.

”“B

ecau

seI

ama

shy

per

son

and

Ih

ave

no

con

fide

nce

insp

eaki

ng

En

glis

han

dm

yE

ngl

ish

isst

illpo

or,s

oye

ah,I

hes

itat

eto

spea

kan

dI

amn

ota

part

icip

atin

gp

erso

n.”

“In

ever

talk

incl

ass.

”“I

amn

otpa

rtic

ipat

ing

very

mu

chin

my

maj

orcl

ass.

”“I

don’

tsp

eak

up

incl

ass

orta

lka

lot

incl

ass.

”

164 Jun Liu

Findings

This study identified 110 factors among the twenty participants across fourmajor clusters of oral classroom participation modes. These 110 identifiedfactors are classified into five major categories: 1. cognitive, 2. pedagogical, 3.affective, 4. socio-cultural, and 5. linguistic. The factors within each categorycan be subdivided into three groups: Facilitative factors that contribute topositive perceptions towards oral classroom participation, debilitative factorsthat are responsible for negative perceptions towards oral classroom participa-tion, and neutral factors that can go either way depending on particularcircumstances.

Cognitive factors refer to the cognitive processing of information andknowledge, and the cognitive learning styles and strategies the participants wereaccustomed to. Cognitive factors that contribute to positive perceptionstowards oral classroom participation include, for example, professionalengagement due to prior teaching experiences (Factors 12 & 107) and inquisi-tiveness due to in-depth discussion of the topic (Factor 25). On the other hand,factors such as being textbook-dependent, and only asking questions related totexts (Factors 23, & 53), lack of background knowledge or schemata and workexperience (Factors 83, 91, & 98), and tactfully using avoidance strategies(Factor 36), all had negative impact on some participants’ perceptions towardsoral classroom participation. However, the neutral factors in this category, suchas the interest level in, and knowledge about, the subject matter under discus-sion (Factor 20), and the readiness to ask questions (Factor 43), are dependenton individual participants as constrained by multiple factors.

Pedagogical factors refer to the educational experiences of the participantsin terms of teaching styles of their former professors in their home countries aswell as the professors they had in the US, the class size and composition, as wellas the educational environment. Facilitative factors in this domain includeencouragement of US professors for participation (Factor 21), participation asa requirement (Factor 41), and a relaxed classroom atmosphere when morenon-native English speaking peers are in class (Factor 27). Conversely, negativefactors can be attributed to the dominance of native English speaking peers(Factors 26 & 84) and stress due to heavy course loads (Factor 51). Othereducational factors which are considered to be neutral in forming participants’perceptions and determining their participation modes are lesson type (Factor74) and class size (30).

Affective factors refer to participants’ personality traits, motivation and


attitude, anxiety, and risk-taking. Some participants’ positive perceptionstowards oral classroom participation can be associated with their extrovertedpersonality (Factor 25), risk-taking (Factor 34), feeling making mistakes isunavoidable (Factor 54), and concern about the professor’s impression onstudents based on participation modes (Factor 71). On the other hand, affectivefactors came into play when participation was perceived negatively. Forinstance, some participants considered themselves introverted (Factor 17),having a lack of confidence in speaking (Factors 47 & 92), shy in nature andpassive in communication (Factors 68 & 76), over-relying on native speakers ofEnglish (Factor 87), or feeling overwhelmed by native English speakers in class(Factor 26), thus causing inhibition and/or intimidation (Factor 84). Students’comfort level, which is a neutral affective factor, such as feeling comfortableparticipating only when the majority of the students were Asian (Factor 27),largely depended on how individual students felt about the composition ofstudents in a class.

Socio-cultural factors refer to the participants’ cultural beliefs, values, andmoral judgments that are heavily influenced by their cultural backgrounds andformer education in their home countries. Socio-cultural factors had a stronginfluence on the perceptions the participants held towards oral classroomparticipation. For instance, some participants in this study had a strong sense ofresponsibility and obligation to participate in classrooms (Factor 42), and theymade efforts to participation due to peer pressure (Factor 24). The priorexperiences in the target culture and in American colleges (e.g., Mr. Biophysi-cist, or Mr. Geologist) and graduate school (e.g., Mr. Mechanical Engineer) alsoshaped their positive perceptions towards participation. On the other hand,factors such as being a good student means taking notes and listening to theteacher carefully without asking questions as a sign of respect for teachers(Factor 72), lack of participation experiences in their own countries (Factor 18),discouragement of oral participation in the native culture (Factors 88 and 89),over-reliance on the L1 community (Factor 44), viewing class time too valuableto ask questions (Factor 52), receiving their education from women’s colleges(Factor 55), the role of women in countries such as in Korea (Factor 64), and tosave face by avoiding mistakes (Factors 49 & 78), inhibited the participants’positive perceptions towards oral classroom participation. No neutral factors inthis study were found within the socio-cultural domain although the nature ofthe identified factors could change over time.

Linguistic factors refer to the participants’ linguistic abilities and communi-cative competence. The results of the study show that linguistic abilities of each

166 Jun Liu

individual student alone do not match their participation modes. However,some participants clearly associated their active participation modes and theirpositive perceptions towards participation with their good English speakingskills (Factor 31) while others felt their poor English skills disadvantaged them(Factors 58, 61, 62, and 77). The frustrations and inhibitions affected by thelinguistic deficiencies of many participants influenced their perceptions andparticipation modes to a great extent. Nevertheless, linguistic factors alonecannot determine the cause of the negative perceptions of the participants.

To understand the relationship between the participants in the four clustersaccording to their participation modes (Cluster I: Active; Cluster II: Somewhatactive; Cluster III: Inactive; and Cluster IV: Extremely inactive) and the fivecategories (1. cognitive, 2. pedagogical, 3. affective, 4. socio-cultural, and 5.linguistic) delineated from 110 factors listed above, the following table (Table 3)shows the mean percentage of each category distributed within each cluster:

Table 3 shows that among all the factors in five major categories, socio-cultural

Table 3. Frequency percentage of factors in 5 categories across 4 clusters

Category 1Cognitive

Category 2Pedagogical

Category 3Affective

Category 4Socio-cultural

Category 5Linguistic Total %

Cluster ICluster IICluster IIICluster IV

05.2647.3721.0526.32

09.5242.8623.8123.81

24.0020.0012.0044.00

06.4522.5838.7132.26

00.0028.5721.4350.00

010.00030.91024.55034.55

Total % 17.27 19.09 22.73 28.18 12.73 100.00

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


extremely inactive in classroom participation in Cluster IV had the highestfrequency percentage of all factors (34.55%), followed by the five students inCluster II (30.91%), and the five students in Cluster III (24.55%), with thelowest frequency percentage of all factors (10%) for the three students inCluster I.

While these descriptive statistics can help understand the distribution ofcategorical factors within the students in each of the four clusters, and under-stand the overall distribution of factors across all the students in the fourclusters, they do not provide us with the detailed information with which toexplain the differences in the above table. In the following table (Table 4), allthe factors in each category are divided into three kinds according to theirfunctions, namely, facililtative (factors that affect students’ positive perceptionstowards oral classroom participation), debilitative (factors that affect theirnegative perceptions), and neutral (factors that could lead to either positive ornegative perceptions of students towards oral classroom participation and theirparticipation modes). The frequency percentage of each function against eachcategory will then be revealed.

As Table 4 indicates, among all factors, about two-thirds (64.55%) are debilita-

Table 4. Frequency percentage of factors in 5 categories at 3 functional levels

Functionallevels

Category 1Cognitive

Category 2Pedagogical

Category 3Affective

Category 4Socio-cultural

Category 5Linguistic Total %

Debilitativefactors (3)

52.63 38.10 60.00 80.65 92.86 64.55

Neutral fac-tors (2)

15.79 23.81 00.00 00.00 00.00 07.27

Facilitativefactors (1)

31.58 38.10 40.00 19.35 07.14 28.18

tive, and a bit more than one fourth (28.18%) are facilitative, with less thanone-tenth being neutral, suggesting that all factors identified in this study havean overall negative effect on oral classroom participation. When debilitativefactors are put into perspective, linguistic (92.86%) as well as socio-culturalfactors (80.65%) dominate, suggesting that students’ linguistic abilities andcommunicative competence are very important in determining their participa-tion modes, and being aware of one’s poor speaking ability, for instance, willtrigger affective concerns such as face saving, and using avoidance strategies.Moreover, a large number of socio-cultural factors, such as keeping quiet in

168 Jun Liu

class as a sign to show respect for teachers, trying to resolve questions throughattentive listening and thorough lesson preparation, or maintaining harmonyby holding off one’s different opinions, are all very crucial in shaping students’perceptions towards oral classroom participation, which help produce morelisteners than speakers in class. But among all the facilitative factors, affective(40%) as well as pedagogical factors (38.10%) are the most crucial, suggestingthat affective factors such as students’ high motivation, positive attitudes,willingness to speak up in class, good risk-taking strategies, and extrovertedpersonalities all play important roles in helping students form positive percep-tions towards oral classroom participation. These positive perceptions will likelyaffect the students’ oral classroom participation modes from being inactive tomore active. Likewise, pedagogical factors, such as a lively and relaxed classatmosphere, lesson type, encouraging professors, small class size, supportiveenvironment, and giving credit to oral participation, all contribute to activeparticipation modes of the students. Interestingly, only a small number offactors in cognitive (15.79%) as well as pedagogical (23.81%) categories areidentified as neutral. This suggests that students’ perceptions and their subse-quent participation modes will be either partially or totally dependent uponboth internal value judgments, e.g., the worth of the participation againstknowledge enhancement, as well as the external situation, e.g., the class size, thelesson type, or the teaching style. Chart 1 below demonstrates the frequencydistribution of the 3 functional levels of the factors across the 5 categories.

As can be seen from the Chart 1, the distribution among the three function-al levels within each category is different. For instance, in Category 2, Pedagogi-cal factors, both facilitative and debilitative, are evenly distributed, and are closein number to its neutral function, suggesting that pedagogical factors arepermeable for change. It also implies that college professors and native Englishspeaking students can make an impact on Asian students’ oral classroomparticipation modes from being inactive to more active. In Category 5, forLinguistic factors, the distribution between facilitative and debilitative functionsis dramatically apart, suggesting that those who have difficulties in speakingEnglish will not easily overcome their perceived linguistic deficiencies. It takestime and effort for them to feel comfortable about their communicative compe-tence to speak up in their content classes. This implies that Asian students,especially those who are concerned about their speaking abilities, should makeefforts in risk-taking, confidence-building, and in seeking opportunities such asoral classroom participation to improve their communicative competence. Italso suggests that college and university professors should provide such opportu-


nities and encouragement, and that native English speaking peers should

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cat

egor

y1

Cog

nitiv

e

Cat

egor

y2

Ped

agog

ical

Cat

egor

y3

Aff

ectiv

e

Cat

egor

y4

Soc

iocu

ltura

l

Cat

egor

y5

Ling

uist

ic

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

Chart 1. The distribution of 3 functions of factors in 5 categories

understand, and support their Asian peers’ efforts. As seen, the debilitative andfacilitative functions of socio-cultural factors are also widely scattered, with anegative impact, overall, on Asian students’ participation modes. This suggestsa distance, rather than a conflict, between Asian educational beliefs and philoso-phies and those of the American culture. Such a distance shall be acknowledged,and reflected in intercultural communication settings such as American class-rooms in which culture-sensitive knowledge and mindful reflexivity areessential for successful classroom interaction. For Asian students, the crucialpoint is their willingness to communicate and willingness to acculturatethemselves to the American academia in terms of adjusting to the oral discoursecommunities in American classrooms as a symbol of their cultural transforma-tion.

Although Chart 1 demonstrates the frequency percentage of factors in 5categories at 3 functional levels, we do not know the variation of the frequencypercentage of factors in 5 categories among the twenty participants across 4distinctive clusters. Therefore, the following 4 charts have been created in orderto provide a clear picture of how the factors at 3 functional levels are distributed

170 Jun Liu

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

Chart 2 shows that there are altogether 11 factors that affected the active oral

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cog. Affec. Ling.

Facilitative

Debilitative

Neutral

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

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


exert the greatest influence, followed by linguistic and affective factors, with

Peda. Affec. Socio. Ling.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Cog.

Facilitative

Debilitative

Neutral

Chart 3. Distribution of factors across 5 categories in Cluster II

cognitive and pedagogical factors being least frequently mentioned.

Chart 4 reveals that there are altogether 27 factors that affected the percep-

Cog. Peda. Affect. Socio. Ling.0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Facilitative Debilitative Neutral

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

tions as well as the active oral classroom participation modes of the fivestudents in Cluster III. Facilitative factors are distributed at an unusually lowrate across 3 categories (pedagogical, affective, and socio-cultural). Debilitativefactors run across all 5 categories with socio-cultural factors being the most

172 Jun Liu

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

As shown in Chart 5, the seven participants in Cluster IV were influenced

Cog. Peda. Affect. Socio. Ling.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Facilitative

Debilitative

Neutral

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

by 38 factors that are all debilitative in nature. Obviously, affective and cogni-tive as well as linguistic factors are relevant, suggesting that the interactionamong these factors is crucial to students’ perception formation and theirclassroom reticence. These students who are extremely inactive in oral class-room participation not only have weak listening and speaking abilities inEnglish, but also are constrained by their socio-cultural values and priorexperiences in believing how students should behave in class. Their inhibitionin classroom participation and high level of anxiety caused by linguisticconcerns should be examined integratively.

In summary, there are approximately 110 factors over 5 categories (cogni-tive, pedagogical, affective, socio-cultural, and linguistic) among twentystudents in 4 clusters (active, somewhat active, inactive, and extremely inactive)according to their participation modes. These factors are observed at threefunction levels: facilitative, debilitative, and neutral. In the cognitive domain,the main facilitative factors include the impact of students’ prior teaching andwork experience, their interest in and knowledge about the subject matter, theirstrong belief in the benefits of oral classroom participation, their sufficientlesson preparation, and their curiosity about the content and the professor’s


explanations. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge of the subject matter,over-dependence on textbooks, considering listening and understanding as thepriority in classrooms, and being overly concerned about the quality of thequestions to be raised are all main debilitative factors. The neutral factors aremainly related to the quality of questions and the knowledge enhancement ofthe class discussion based on individual students’ judgments. Although cogni-tive factors are outnumbered by socio-cultural, affective and pedagogical factorsoverall, more than half (52.63%) of the cognitive factors are debilitative innature, suggesting that Asian students’ perceptions towards oral classroomparticipation as well as their actual participation modes in class are likely to beinfluenced by cognitive factors, which are overall debilitative.

In the pedagogical domain, facilitative and debilitative factors are evenlydistributed (32.10% for each). The main facilitative factors include the use ofclass discussion as the lesson type, opportunities and encouragement providedby the professor, peer support, and oral class participation built into grading.On the other hand, if lectures are used as the lesson type, if students areunderprepared for class, if students over-rely on the native speakers of Englishto ask questions in class, or if they do not receive any support from their nativeEnglish-speaking peers, then these conditions will turn into debilitative factorsin shaping students’ perceptions towards oral classroom participation, andinhibiting students’ active oral classroom participation. However, factors suchas the class size, the lesson type, and the chemistry as well as dynamics of theclass are all neutral leading to either positive or negative perceptions andparticipation modes of students in class. For instance, many students in thestudy expressed their concern about oral classroom participation in big classes,especially those students in natural science majors. The classes are usuallyattended by many students, i.e., from 20 to 200 students. The students in theseclasses care more about other students’ time and interest levels, and they onlychose to participate in relatively small classes or in small groups.

In the affective domain, the main facilitative factors include high levels ofmotivation, willingness to speak up in class, self-confidence, strong self-determination, lack of concern about making mistakes in speaking, extrovertedand outgoing personality traits, and trying to impress professors by participat-ing. Conversely, a lack of confidence in speaking and concern about not beingunderstood, introverted personality traits, anxiety in speaking English in class,intimidation due to a lack of experience, being slow to react to questions, stressdue to heavy course-loads, and insecurity due to few non-native speakers inclass, are the main debilitative factors. The competitiveness among peers is one

174 Jun Liu

of the main neutral affective factors. For instance, some students are morecomfortable in participating in classes where the majority of the students arenative English speakers. These students are eager to demonstrate their contentknowledge about the subject matter under discussion (e.g., Mr. Geo. Scholar,and Mr. Geologist) with native English speakers. Such competitiveness thusbecomes a facilitative factor for oral classroom participation. Conversely, otherstudents are intimidated in participating in class as soon as they realize that allor the majority of their classmates are native English speakers. Therefore,competitiveness becomes debilitative because of the linguistic inferiority felt bythese students (e.g., Mr. Ag. Specialist, Ms. Ed. Administrator, or Ms. SocialWorker). On the other hand, some students feel more competitive if themajority of the classmates are non-native English speakers. In the case of Ms.English Teacher, for instance, she felt extremely motivated to speak up in frontof other English as a second language speakers. Her competitiveness, which ismore of a linguistic than a cognitive factor in this particular classroom environ-ment, serves as a facilitative factor for her participation. Among all the affectivefactors identified in the study, about two-fifths are debilitative to the students’perceptions towards oral classroom participation and their actual classroomparticipation.

In the socio-cultural domain, the main facilitative factors include socialobligation and responsibility in lesson preparation, prior exposure to the targetculture and prior learning experiences in the US, willingness to accommodateand acculturate to fit into the norm of American classrooms, and peer supportfrom both American students and international students. However, themajority of the socio-cultural factors are debilitative. Among them, the mostsalient one is avoiding speaking up in class in order to be polite and to save face,a concept deeply rooted in Asian culture. Other debilitative factors includeconcerns about other students’ interest and time, lack of participation experi-ence as it was not emphasized in Asian culture, believing in attentive listeningand note-taking, being obedient to the teacher as authoritative figure bykeeping quiet, believing that valuable class time should not be taken by ques-tions, a belief that questions and problems shall be resolved through self-studyand lesson preparation, lack of cultural schemata of how to engage in classdiscussion, believing that the lack of oral classroom participation can becompensated by a good grade, and over-relying on L1 study groups.

In the linguistic domain, the main facilitative factors are: Good Englishspeaking skills, regarding speaking up in class as an opportunity to practice English,and being able to communicate with body language. The main factors that are


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

Discussion

Although the factors identified can help understand and explain the students’participation modes in their content courses, the interplay among these factorsacross five categories (cognitive, pedagogical, affective, socio-cultural, andlinguistic) as well as the interchange of factors at three functional levels (facili-tative, debilitative and neutral) within each category are very complex. However,there are some recurring patterns and themes that can help us understand thecomplexity of the nature of Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes.

First, among all the factors that affect the participants’ perceptions towardsoral classroom participation and their differential participation modes, socio-cultural and affective factors are the most salient in shaping the negativeperceptions of the students towards oral classroom participation. This findingbelies the assumption that students’ linguistic abilities usually determine theirinactive oral participation modes. It also challenges the assumption that Asianstudents’ reticence means that the students are passive or less able as thesestudents are too often regarded and treated as ESL learners. Such assumptionstowards Asian students based on their silence in class might have a negativeimpact on these students’ self-esteem, and risk-taking. The participants in thestudy, though from different countries in Asia, share similar socio-culturalconcepts, attitudes, and beliefs, which was cross-validated through interviewsand observations. These shared concepts, attitudes, and beliefs are reflected inthe deeply-rooted Asian concept of face-saving, the often-praised sense ofcollectivism as well as the often-criticized sense of individualism by followingtrends and avoiding confrontation with the teacher or other students in class,the sensitivity to interpersonal harmony, the over-reliance on peers who sharea similar cultural background, the blind obedience to the teacher by listeningattentively and concealing and tolerating disagreement, the sense of guilt in

176 Jun Liu

expressing aggression towards authority figures, and self-discipline in solvingproblems through reading the textbook.

In traditional Asian culture, a great emphasis is often placed on obedience,proper conduct, moral training, and the acceptance of social obligations (Bond

<LINK "liu-r6">

1986). Naturally, independence and assertiveness, which tend to encourageactive oral classroom participation, are not emphasized. Therefore, the waysAsian students behave in class are generally affected by their socio-culturalbackgrounds although the degree to which each participant in the study wasinfluenced by Asian culture, concepts, and beliefs is different. Various degreesof Asian cultural influence on the individual accounts for their differential oralclassroom participation modes. Moreover, the obligation and responsibilityemphasized by Asian culture could make the students work twice as hard atlesson preparation to find out the answers to the questions in the textbookbefore they ask them in class, or could make them spend much time solvingproblems accumulated in the previous class by reviewing their notes andtextbooks. The participants in the study also expressed achievement motivation.As long as they can get a good grade, as long as they can learn, they will besatisfied. In their opinion, obtaining high grades is equal to high achievementin class. Therefore, if oral classroom participation is counted towards the overallgrade, even the least active students would try hard to speak up in class. Howev-er, as some of the students were shy in nature, they prepared one or two ques-tions before class or even wrote down what they intended to say before class.Unfortunately, they either ended up saying what they had prepared at the wrongmoment, or they would not find the opportunity to fit their prepared oral outputinto the lesson because their oral participation is more canned than spontane-ous. Subsequently, they do not enjoy participation as it becomes an obligation.

It is also worth noticing that the socio-cultural training many Asianstudents receive in their earlier education contributes largely to their characterformation. As mentioned in the works of Abbott (1970), Vernon (1982), and


Ting-Toomey (1999), in Asia, dependency, conformity, modesty, self-suppres-

<LINK "liu-r50">

sion, and self-contentment are taught from early on. Dominant moral andreligious thoughts or doctrines, such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism,penetrate socio-cultural beliefs. In a way, most Asians are known as socio-oriented people who believe in collectivism that emphasizes the importance ofthe interdependent self, collective self-esteem, and particularistic-basedinteraction. When all these socio-cultural beliefs and concepts are taken intoconsideration, we will not be surprised to notice that the inactive role manyAsian graduate students in this study had towards oral classroom participation


were deeply affected by their early education in their own Asian cultures. Theaffective factors which followed immediately after the socio-cultural factors interms of the frequency counts, therefore, could also be explained under thebroad spectrum of socio-cultural factors. They are interrelated. Personalitytraits, for example, were found to be related to the oral classroom participationmodes. The extroverted students were more active in classroom participationthan the introverted students. Perhaps there is a link between Asian culture andthe trained introverted characteristics of Asian students in class to be quiet as asign of proper classroom behavior and respect for teachers (Liu & Kuo 1996).

<LINK "liu-r28">

We should, therefore, have more empathy in understanding and explaining theclassroom behavior many Asian students in this study showed: the lack ofmotivation to participate in class, low-risk taking, inhibition, anxiety inspeaking, intimidation by native speakers of English in class, and sense ofinferiority in the English language.

While socio-cultural and affective factors are chiefly responsible for thesilent behavior of Asian students in class, their are intertwined with otherfactors, such as linguistic, cognitive, and pedagogical factors. The lack of Englishspeaking abilities of many students in this study was disguised or protected inshelter of their socio-cultural belief of keeping quiet in class as a sign to showrespect for teachers. Meanwhile, keeping silent in class because of the concernfor making mistakes in speaking up in their content courses can help face-saving through the non-risk-taking strategy of avoidance. If the motivationbehind the behavior of keeping quiet in class is a mixture of being polite (socio-cultural) and face-saving (affective), then the causes of such behavior aremultiple. Apart from the lack of communicative competence in speakingEnglish, cognitive factors such as the lack of prior work experience, the lack ofschemata of the subject matter under discussion, and insufficient lessonpreparation, have a detrimental effect on the Asian students’ reticence in classas well. Likewise, pedagogical factors, such as lecture-only classes, big class size,and caring primarily about grades in class, made many Asian students feel athome as they went through their earlier education in their home countries in asimilar fashion. These students naturally felt comfortable (affective) as therewere not many differences in the way the courses were conducted except for thelanguage used as the medium of instruction, and they certainly would assumethat their behavior was appropriate. Naturally, they transferred their learningstyles and strategies, which had been successful in the classrooms in their homecountries, into American classrooms (socio-cultural).

Second, the findings of the study suggest that Asian students have the

178 Jun Liu

potential to speak up in their content courses, and Asian students’ oral class-room participation modes can change over time. Such changes can be bi-directional, incidental, or durable due to the interactions among multiplefactors. The impetus for such change can come from within (e.g., motivationand attitude, self-confidence, or improvement of speaking abilities over time)and/or from outside (e.g., dynamics of class, effects of teachers and theirteaching style, or other students’ participation modes and their attitude towardsAsian students). Interestingly, the students’ perceptions towards oral classroomparticipation and their actual oral classroom participation modes are not wellmatched. That is, those who seldom participate in classroom discussion orseldom ask questions in class are not necessarily those whose perceptionstowards oral classroom participation are negative. Likewise, those who partici-pated actively in their content courses did not always have all positive percep-tions towards oral classroom participation. However, what is evident in the dataanalysis, and consistent among the students in the study, is the belief all thestudents felt, expressed, or acted throughout this study, regardless of their oralclassroom participation modes, that oral classroom participation helpedconfirm their thoughts and clear the doubts in their minds whether throughtheir own participation or through their classmates’ participation. This positiveattitude implies that Asian students, regardless of cognitive, pedagogical,affective, socio-cultural, and linguistic factors, have the potential to speak up intheir content courses, a finding consistent with earlier research (Liu & Kuo

<LINK "liu-r28">

1996) on the same topic.However, one’s potential to speak up in class is constrained by multiple

factors. For instance, many students in the study who were extremely inactivein oral classroom participation (e.g., Mr. Ag. Specialist, Ms. Musician, or Mr.Social Studies Teacher) considered oral classroom participation in their contentcourses as a positive means to improve their communicative competence, buttheir poor English speaking abilities held them back from participating as theywere concerned about losing face if their professors and classmates could notunderstand them. This raised their affective filter and inhibited them fromfurther participation. Meanwhile, the linguistic barrier concealed in theirsilence forced them to seek alternative means (e.g., attentive listening, carefulnote-taking and checking, thorough lesson preparation, or review in order toretain achievement motivation through obtaining good grades) to maintaintheir classroom identity.

Conversely, many students who were active or somewhat active in oralclassroom participation in their content course (Mr. Geodetic Scientist, Ms.


English Teacher, or Mr. Political Science Teacher) were well aware of theirweaknesses in speaking English, and they perceived oral classroom participationas a source of motivation for them to improve their English speaking abilities,which not only resulted in their active or somewhat active participation in theircontent classrooms, but also in ESL classrooms and beyond. These studentswere good risk-takers, and they relied on strategies such as thorough lessonpreparation and writing their questions down on paper in advance to sustaintheir efforts. However, one’s negative experience in making mistakes in classthrough oral classroom participation could prevent one from practicing further.Moreover, inhibition in oral participation could also change positive percep-tions towards oral classroom participation into negative ones. If the changingperceptions towards oral classroom participation from either direction isunavoidable, then to maintain the positive perceptions despite one’s actuallinguistic abilities needs motivation and willingness to practice in class. There-fore, identifying and examining the multiple factors in different categories andstudying the interconnections within and among categories will help illuminatesuggestions to help transform Asian students’ potential to speak up in theircontent classrooms into their actual participation.

Third, the findings of the study imply that gender and personality arerelevant to Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes. Among twentyparticipants in the study, nine (45%) were female and eleven (55%) were male.Among the eight active or somewhat active participants, only one student wasfemale (12.5%). However, of the twelve inactive or extremely inactive partici-pants, eight (66.7%) were female students. This suggests that gender plays a rolein students’ oral classroom participation. Nine female students in the studywere more inhibited in oral classroom participation than male studentsregardless of their linguistic abilities and interest in and mastery of the contentknowledge. The majority of the female participants in the study expressed theirsocio-cultural belief of how a woman should behave in class in their ownculture. For example, both Ms. Consumer Scientist and Ms. Nutritionist whograduated from women’s colleges believe that females in Asian cultures shouldbe quiet, polite, sensitive, and responsible. Therefore, part of the reason forthese Asian women students to be silent in class can be associated with theircultural backgrounds and beliefs. One Japanese female student, Ms. Counselor,spoke English very well, but she chose to be silent in class as she was accus-tomed to being so in her own country. Interestingly, almost all the femalestudents in this study revealed that they were introverted in their content classesalthough some of them were extroverted after class, especially when they were

180 Jun Liu

with their co-nationals. While the participants in this study were not chosenbased on the even distribution of gender, the fact that eight out of nine femalestudents in the study were inactive in classroom participation makes us wonderwhat caused such unbalanced classroom participation modes between male andfemale students. I brought up this issue in many interviews with these femalestudents and they revealed that in the majority of the courses they took in theirmajors in US, Asian students were the minority, and Asian female students wereusually the minority among the Asian students in class. These female Asianstudents had the tendency to focus on listening and understanding in class, andthey were more concerned about face-saving, and harmony than their malecounterparts, which can be directly associated with their socio-cultural andprior educational backgrounds and the traditional Asian societal concept of therole of women which is characterized as being passive, obedient, submissive,and quiet. Although this traditional view of Asian women has been challengedand altered, its negative impact still affects Asian female students’ behaviorespecially when they are in an unfamiliar environment such as Americanclassrooms in which they are the minority. Most of the female participants inthis study were very cautious in oral participation, trying to be quiet in class, ortrying not to be aggressive if they spoke up in class, in order to maintainpoliteness and harmony. This finding of gender differences is consistent withthe study by Fassinger (1995), who found that student gender is a significant

<LINK "liu-r20">

component in classroom participation, and consistent with Carson andNelson’s study (1996) which found that Chinese students’ primary goal for thegroup was characterized as social — to maintain harmony — and that this goalaffected the nature and types of interaction they allowed themselves in groupdiscussions.

The study also implies that one’s personality is context-dependent, afinding consistent with Peirce (1995), who challenged the notion of distinguish-

<LINK "liu-r40">

ing personality traits from introverted to extroverted without considering thecontext, which is associated with one’s cultural belief systems. Given Americanclassrooms as a social context, this study suggests that an introverted personalityis more closely related to inactive participation modes of Asian students. Withinthe content classroom settings, three out of three (100%) active participantswere all extroverted. Three out of five (60%) somewhat active participants wereintroverted, but they were all determined, persistent, and inquisitive. Four outof five (80%) inactive participants were introverted, and five out of seven (71%)extremely inactive participants were introverted. It can be inferred that inAmerican academic discourse community such as content classes, some Asian


students within extroverted personality traits are more likely to be active in oralparticipation, whereas those with an introverted personality are likely to beinactive in oral participation. However, one must remember that one’s personalitytraits is highly context-dependent and situation-specific, and there are always otherfactors that should be taken into consideration when we determine the effect ofpersonality traits on oral classroom participation modes of the students.

Fourth, this study reveals that one’s participation modes are affected byone’s content knowledge and prior experience, but not necessarily by one’slength of stay in the target culture. Content knowledge was mentioned by atleast three participants as an important factor affecting their active oral contri-bution to class. Lack of knowledge of the subject matter was also mentioned byfive participants as a debilitating factor inhibiting their oral classroom participa-tion. The participants who did not have much knowledge in the subject matterbut were highly interested in their majors were cautious in oral classroomparticipation, whereas the participants who had neither interest nor knowledgein their majors were non-participants in class because they felt they had nothingto contribute. The active participants were those who had sufficient knowledgeand a high level of interest in their major. Therefore, interest in as well asknowledge of the subject matter one pursues appears to be of crucial importancein affecting one’s active oral classroom participation modes. Closely related tothe interest level and knowledge base in one’s major is the prior major-relatedexperience one has. The findings suggest that the majority of the participants inthe study who had prior teaching or work experience were more active in oralclassroom participation than those who had not. Of the five participants whohad no prior experience, three (60%) were inactive or extremely inactive in oralclassroom participation. Of the seven participants who had prior teachingexperience ranging from two to seven years, for example, five (71%) were eitheractive or somewhat active in oral classroom participation. Therefore, one’s priorexperience did appear to have an impact on one’s participation mode, and one’sprior experience in a major-related job appears to be a plus in one’s oralclassroom contributions.

The findings of this study also suggest that length of stay, alone, does notdetermine one’s oral participation mode. The length of stay does not haveabsolute significance without considering the context in which one stays andthe motivation with which one acculturates to the English-speaking communi-ty. For instance, length of stay seemed to help some participants’ culturaladaptation and active or somewhat active roles in oral classroom participation.For example, Mr. Biophysicist spent almost five years attending a college in

182 Jun Liu

Alabama; Mr. Geologist had lived for five years in the US, first as a transferstudent in a university in Denver, then later as a master’s student at Ohio State;and Mr. Mechanical Engineer spent more than two years getting his MA in auniversity in West Virginia. However, it did not help others like Ms. FashionDesigner and Ms. Pharmacist, who spent seven and three and half years,respectively, at home taking care of their children, speaking their own languag-es, and being quite detached from the American community. Therefore, if onestays within one’s own L1 community in the target culture, length of stay doesnot help much. However, if one spends or is willing to spend much time in thetarget culture and target community, then length of stay becomes a facilitativefactor helping not only language improvement, but also the understanding ofthe cultural concepts under which the language operates. This is consistent withan earlier study by Oyama (1975), who found that length of stay alone had littleeffect on immigrants’ acquisition of a non-native phonological system.

Fifth, the impact of American peers on Asian students’ participation modesshould be taken into consideration. This study suggests that Asian students areusually very good at reading and solving problems, but due to their differentcultural upbringing and linguistic deficiencies, they tend to have mixed feelingstowards the general active oral classroom participation modes of their Americanpeers. As perceived by many participants in the study, American peers wereusually very active in oral classroom participation. Many participants in thestudy found that the active participation of American peers was stimulating andencouraging, and they felt motivated to participate themselves. Although someAsian students were not active in oral classroom participation, they greatlybenefited from the active participation of their American peers and otherstudents. In fact, these students could get answers to their questions withoutspeaking up in class. However, some Asian students felt intimidated by theactive oral classroom participation modes of their American peers, whichresulted in their giving up speaking in class. In terms of support from Americanpeers, many participants in the study felt grateful and appreciative when theysometimes were in trouble in expressing themselves in class, and their Americanpeers helped them express their ideas. However, different reactions of theparticipants in this study towards the active participation mode of Americanpeers in class have several implications. Although American peers’ active oralclassroom participation modes could become a threat for some Asian students,they can serve as role models for Asian students to follow. As many Asianstudents have the potential to speak up, they may feel it beneficial for Americanpeers to help them with phrases or words while they are struggling to partici-


pate. Obviously, there is a need for greater cross-cultural sensitivity from Asianstudents, their American peers, as well as from instructors.

Finally, this study shows that teaching style, lesson type, and class size arecrucial to Asian students’ participation regardless of their major of study. Eightparticipants (40%) majored in the social sciences while twelve participants(60%) majored in the natural sciences. Only two out of eight (25%) participantsin the social sciences were active or somewhat active in oral classroom partici-pation, whereas six out of twelve (50%) participants in natural science wereactive or somewhat active in oral classroom participation. This finding impliesthat those who are in social science majors do not necessarily have advantagesin oral classroom participation, suggesting that the major of study alone is notcrucial in determining the oral participation modes of the participants withoutconsidering the lesson type, the class size, as well as the teaching style. Thefindings of this study further suggest that the content area instructors’ teachingstyles are crucial to the oral classroom participation modes of the participantsregardless of their major of study. Moreover, the lesson type and the class sizeare important factors affecting students’ participation modes, and that seminarsand discussion lessons usually facilitate oral classroom participation regardlessof the major of study. Large class size inhibits oral classroom participation forAsian students as they are concerned about others’ time and the quality of theircontributions or questions. The individual instructor’s teaching style is also animportant factor affecting students’ oral classroom participation modes. Lively,humorous, and effective teaching styles are likely to encourage students toparticipate regardless of the lesson type, and are also likely to alleviate the Asianconcept of the inappropriateness of participating in a big class, or in a lecture.Instead of worrying about what students could contribute, instructors’ concernshould be about how they can motivate their students to participate actively inclass. In this regard, context-specific tasks designed by instructors to facilitateclassroom participation can be helpful under the condition that students inclass are motivated to do the tasks.

Conclusion

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

184 Jun Liu

modes are related to, but not determined by, their perceptions towards oralclassroom participatIon; (3) Among various factors that influence Asianstudents’ perceptions towards oral classroom participation as well as theirparticipation modes, socio-cultural and affective factors are the most salientexplanatory predictors. As such, further research is needed to better understandthe complexities of Asian students’ oral classroom participation modes in theircontent courses in order to help these students adapt to American classroomculture. One of the promising research directions is to study Asian students inAmerican universities in a broader social context of language learning andlanguage use, and to look at multiple discourse communities in which Asianstudents construct multiple social identities from a contextualist perspective(e.g., Fairclough 1992; McKay & Wong 1996). Studies are needed to identify the


discourse communities in which Asian students in American universities aresocially situated; to examine interconnections of multiple discourses Asianstudents are exposed to; and how Asian students develop their second languageskills, negotiate their social relations and construct their social identities acrossthese discourse communities; and to understand how Asian students inAmerican universities invest in the target language and culture, how theyconceptualize cultural adaptation, and why and how they acquire or fail toacquire cultural transformation competence and how this is related to theirclassroom participation modes in content courses.

Author’s Address:

Jun LiuModern Languages Building #67P.O. Box 210067University of ArizonaTucson, Arizona85721-0067Tel. (520) 621 1836Fax. (520) 621 7397

Notes

* I would like to thank the twenty students who participated in this study, as well as Keiko

<DEST "liu-n*">

Samimy, Diane Belcher, Jette Hansen, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors of JAPC fortheir helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.


1. My initial research addressing international graduate students’ classroom participation(Liu & Kuo 1996) was conducted in Winter Quarter, 1992. A survey of 51 international

<LINK "liu-r28">

graduate students enrolled at different levels of both the Spoken English Program and theComposition Program at a Midwestern university was conducted by using a six-partquestionnaire (i.e., risk-taking, sociability, discomfort about speaking up, motivation forkeeping silent, strategies for keeping silent and cultural alienation). The results of the studyindicated that the international graduate students surveyed had the potential to speak up intheir academic content courses but were overcautious in risk-taking and socializing, partlybecause of their sense of inferiority in speaking the language in the presence of nativespeakers, and partly because of their anxiety about communicating in English. Also revealedwas the fact that the language proficiency of the students did affect their oral participation inacademic content courses. Students at lower levels, in both the Spoken English and Composi-tion Programs, seemed to be highly motivated to improve their English through exposure toU.S. culture, yet they were more reserved in speaking than the students at higher languageproficiency levels. This reluctance to speak up may have been due to their uneasiness anduncertainty about both the English language and U.S. culture. This survey suggested the needfor further study of the problem.

2. In the process of designing and conducting the three different interview schedules, fromwide-open to semi-structured to structured formats, I tried to give each participant adequatetime to think and to reflect, to give them opportunities to ask questions, and to provideinformation necessary to help them feel at ease in the interview. For example, in the wide-open interview, I tried not to give any pre-designed questions to the interviewee and allowedthe interviewee to express freely what was in his/her mind under the broad category“perceptions of participation.” In the semi-structured interview, I asked a few majorquestions (e.g., “How do you like participating in your mainstream classes here in the UnitedStates?,” “What’s your perception of classroom participation?”) to the interviewees one at atime and I also probed issues with subsequent questions as they naturally emerged in theinterview process. In the structured interview schedule, I confirmed their input about theinvestigated topic, and also gave each of them a chance to clarify any discrepancies betweenthe input from the structured interview and that from the previous wide-open as well assemi-structured interviews. Immediately after each interview, I listened to the tape andtranscribed it taking into consideration some nonverbal communication behaviors Iobserved in the interview (e.g., anxiety, smiles, struggles with words, or silence). After eachtranscription, I recalled the entire interview process and kept fieldnotes (Wolf 1992) to reflectmy concerns over and experience with both the interview and methodology. I also showedparts of the interview transcriptions to the participants for confirmation. The interviewtranscriptions were then sorted and classified by the trends and patterns that became evidentas determined and guided by my research questions.

3. I observed all the participants in this study in at least one of their content courses.Throughout my observations, I jotted down notes and made detailed fieldnotes immediatelyafter each observation to keep track of the development of the study, to visualize how myresearch plan had been affected by the data collected, and to remain conscious of how I hadbeen influenced by the data. I asked the participant being observed in class as well as the classinstructor some questions right after the observation. I also made an effort to obtain the

186 Jun Liu

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

References

Abadzi, H. (1980) The use of multivariate statistical procedures in international student

<DEST "liu-r1">

admissions. Journal of College Student Personnel, 21, 195–120.Abbott, K.A. (1970) Harmony and individualism. Taipei: Oriental Cultural Service.

<DEST "liu-r2">

Adelegan, F.O., & Parks, D. J. (1985) Problems of transition for African students in an

<DEST "liu-r3">

American university. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 504–508.Agarwal, V.B., & Winkler, D.R. (1985) Migration of foreign students to the United States.

<DEST "liu-r4">

Journal of Higher Education, 56, 509–522.Bailey, K.M. & Nunan, D. (1996) Voices from the language classroom. New York: Cambridge

<DEST "liu-r5">

University Press.Bond, M.H. (Ed.). (1986) The psychology of the Chinese people. Oxford: Oxford University

<DEST "liu-r6">

Press.Boyer, S.P., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1986) Noncognitive predictors of counseling center use by

<DEST "liu-r7">

international students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 404–407.Brown, H.D. (1987) Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

<DEST "liu-r8">

Canale, M., & Swain. M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

<DEST "liu-r9">

language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.Carson, J.G. & Nelson, G.L. (1996) Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response

<DEST "liu-r10">

group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1–19.Cazden, C.B., Carraso, R.L., Maldonado, A.A., and Erickson, F. (1980) The contribution of

<DEST "liu-r11">

ethnographic research to bilingual education. In J.E. Alatis, ed. Current issues inbilingual education, 64–80. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Chaudron, C. (1988) Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New

<DEST "liu-r12">

York: Cambridge University Press.


Council of Graduate Schools in the US, Washington, D.C. (1991) International graduate

<DEST "liu-r13">

students: A guide for graduate deans, faculty and administrators. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 331418).

Desruisseaux, P. (1995) Foreign influx slows: Enrollment from abroad increases by smallest

<DEST "liu-r14">

margin in 10 years. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Nov. 10. A 38–39, 42–44.Duff, P. (1986) Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to task. In R.R. Day, ed.

<DEST "liu-r15">

Talking to learn: conversation in second language acquisition, 147–181. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.

Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

<DEST "liu-r16">

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.

<DEST "liu-r17">

Handscombe, R.A. Orem, and B.P. Taylor, eds. On TESOL ’83: the question of control,23–38. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

Exum, H.A., & Lau, E.Y. (1988) Counseling style preference of Chinese college students.

<DEST "liu-r18">

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 16, 84–92.Fairclough, N. (1992) Critical language awareness. London: Longman.

<DEST "liu-r19">

Fassinger, P.A. (1995) Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’

<DEST "liu-r20">

contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82–96.Hansen, J. (1998) Current research on acculturation and SLA. Colloquium organized at 1998

<DEST "liu-r21">

TESOL Convention in Seattle, Washington.Hansen, J, & Liu, J. (1997) Social identity and language: Theoretical and methodological

issues. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 567–576.Heikinheimo, P.S., & Shute, J.C.M. (1986) The adaptation of foreign students: Student view

<DEST "liu-r22">

and institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(50): 399–406.Hymes, D.H. (1972) On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),

<DEST "liu-r23">

Sociolinguistics (pp.269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. (1991) An introduction to second language acquisition

<DEST "liu-r24">

research. New York: Longman.Lee, M.Y., Abd-Ella, M., & Burke, L. (1981) Needs of foreign students from developing nations

<DEST "liu-r25">

at US. colleges and universities. Washington, DC: National Association for ForeignStudent Affairs.

Leong, F.T.L. (1984) Counseling international students: Searchlight plus #56. Ann Arbor,

<DEST "liu-r26">

MI: University of Michigan, (ERIC Counseling and Personnel Services Clearinghouse).Leong, F.T., Mallinckrodt, G., & Kralj, M.M. (1990) Cross-cultural variations in stress and

adjustment among Asian and Caucasian graduate students. Journal of MulticulturalCounseling and Development, 18, 19–28.

Leong, F.T.L., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1986) A comparison of international and US students’preferences for help sources. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 426–430.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

<DEST "liu-r27">

Liu, J. & Kuo, L.F. (1996) Factors affecting oral classroom participation of international

<DEST "liu-r28">

graduate students in ESL settings. Educational Research Quarterly, 19(4), 43–62.McKay, S.L. & Wong, S.C. (1996) Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and

<DEST "liu-r29">

agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students.Harvard Educational Review, 66 (3), 577–608.

188 Jun Liu

MacIntyre, P.D., Clement, R., Nornyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1998) Conceptualizing willingness

<DEST "liu-r30">

to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. ModernLanguage Journal, 82 (4), 555–562.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F.T.L. (1992) International graduate students, stress, and social

<DEST "liu-r31">

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

<DEST "liu-r32">

male international undergraduate students. Journal of Multicultural CounselingPsychology, 39, 214–218.

Meloni, C.F. (1986) Adjustment problems of foreign students in US colleges and universi-

<DEST "liu-r33">

ties. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 276296).Merta, R. J., Ponterotto, J.G., & Brown, R.D. (1992) Comparing the effectiveness of two

<DEST "liu-r34">

directive styles in the academic counseling of foreign students. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 39, 214–218.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

<DEST "liu-r35">

Publications, Inc.Miller, T.K., & Winston, R.B., Jr. (1990) Assessing development from a psychosocial

<DEST "liu-r36">

perspective. In D.G. Creamer (Ed.), College student development theory and practice forthe 1990s (pp.99–126). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Oropeza, B.C., Fitzgibbon, M., & Baron A. (1991) Managing mental health crises of foreign

<DEST "liu-r37">

college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 280–284.Parr, G., Bradley, L., & Bingi, R. (1992) Concerns and feelings of international students.

<DEST "liu-r38">

Journal of College Student Development, 33, 20–25.Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

<DEST "liu-r39">

Peirce, B.N. (1993) Language learning, social identity, and immigrant women. Unpublished

<DEST "liu-r40">

doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto,Canada.

Peirce, B.N. (1995) Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly,29(1), 9–32.

Pederson, P.B. (1991) Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19,

<DEST "liu-r41">

10–49.Philips, S. (1972) Participation structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs

<DEST "liu-r42">

children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V.P. John, and D.H. Hymes, eds.Functions of language in the classroom, 370–394. New York: Teachers College Press.

Reinick, M.J. (1986) Cultural adjustment of international students in the US: A reevaluation

<DEST "liu-r43">

using reformulated learned helplessness. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274939).

Sato, C. (1982) Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In M. Hines and W. Rutherford, eds. On

<DEST "liu-r44">

TEOSL ’81, 11–24. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Savignon, S. (1983) Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. New York:

<DEST "liu-r45">

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.Saville-Troike, M. (1989) The ethnography of communication. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.

<DEST "liu-r46">

Publishers Inc.Schumann, J. (1978) The acculturation model for second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:

<DEST "liu-r47">

Newbury House.


Sodowsky, G.R. (1991) Effects of culturally consistent counseling tasks on American and

<DEST "liu-r48">

international student observers’ perception of counselor credibility: A preliminaryinvestigation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 253–256.

Stafford, T.H., Jr., Marison, P.B., & Salter, M.L. (1980) Adjustment of international

<DEST "liu-r49">

students. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 18, 40–45.Ting-Toomey, S. (1999) Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.

<DEST "liu-r50">

Tsui, A.B.M. (1996) Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K.M. Bailey, and

<DEST "liu-r51">

D. Nunan, eds. Voices from the language classroom, 145–167. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Vernon, P.E. (1982) The abilities and achievements of Orientals in North America. New York:

<DEST "liu-r52">

Academic Press.Wolcott, H.F. (1994) Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.

<DEST "liu-r53">

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Yau, T.Y., Sue, D., & Hayden, D. (1992) Counseling style preferences of international

<DEST "liu-r54">

students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 100–104.Ying, Y.W., & Liese, L.H. (1990) Initial adaptation of Taiwan foreign students to the United

<DEST "liu-r55">

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 US: Anexamination of pre- to post-arrival differential. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 15, 345–366.

</TARGET "liu">

Documents

Understanding Asian Students