Content uploaded by Brendon Albertson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brendon Albertson on May 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
East Asian Students’ Spoken Participation in American College Classrooms:
Does Institutional Diversity Matter?
Brendon P. Albertson
albertsonbrendon@gmail.com
Abstract
While East Asian students make up a significant portion of international students at American
colleges, they may have difficulty verbally participating in classes due to intersecting factors
including but not limited to English proficiency, anxiety, culture, and classroom dynamics. This
qualitative study used interviews to examine the following: the factors East Asian international
students believed had an influence on their spoken participation at the most diverse liberal arts
college in the United States, whether diversity played a role, and participants’ suggestions for how
professors could encourage their participation. Findings suggested diversity did not alleviate
perceptions of a marginalized identity among participants; their lower English proficiency
remained a strong identifier. Listening comprehension difficulties, including diverse accents,
seemed an underlying cause of other hindrances to participation. Other key factors were English-
related anxiety, peer pressure, and activity format (whole-class versus group), while several factors
appeared interrelated. Participants overall favored group work, a more explicit approach to
requiring participation, and adjustments to help them understand lectures. Suggestions for
professors include activities for building intercultural communication skills among international
and domestic students alike. EAP programs can likewise benefit from prioritizing listening skills,
including colloquial expressions and exposure to diverse accents.
Keywords: East Asian international students, participation, diversity
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Introduction
Highly represented among students who study abroad in the United States, East Asian
international students (EAISs) bring diversity and different perspectives to American
universities. However, instructors may struggle with their tendency toward reticence in class,
which can be partially explained by sociocultural, linguistic, and educational differences, but
also by a host of other interrelated factors (Liu, 2001). These include anxiety (Harumi, 2011),
identity (Morita, 2004; Zheng, 2010), differences in educational background and expectations
(Banks, 2016; Nakane, 2006, 2007; Sasaki & Ortlieb, 2017), cultural communication styles
(Harumi, 2011; King, 2011), and contextual factors such as the instructor’s teaching style
(Fassinger, 1995). The multiple influences make it difficult to form generalizations about EAISs’
participation habits.
Thus, studies involving various contexts are needed to uncover additional factors that
influence spoken participation among EAISs. Specifically, few studies have examined the
potential role of ethnic or linguistic diversity within the classroom. The present qualitative study
aimed to fill this gap by interviewing EAISs at a highly diverse college (roughly 80% minority
and 26% international students) to elicit self-reported factors influencing their spoken
participation, as well as their suggestions for how professors could encourage participation. This
study also sought to explore what effect, if any, such a diverse environment might have on
students’ attitudes toward participation.
Background
International Students in the United States
International students increase both the enrollment and cultural diversity of higher
education institutions, while also exposing local students and faculty to new perspectives,
cultures, and languages (Wu, Garza, & Guzman, 2015). The United States has the largest number
of international students in the world. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 1,095,299
international students studying at higher education institutions in the United States, a number
representing a 38.6% increase over the previous decade and 5.5% of the total higher education
population (Institute of International Education, 2020). This population included a significant
number of Asian students; Chinese students were the largest group represented at 34%, followed
by India at 18% and South Korea at 5%. Students from Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam collectively
made up another 6% of this total, making EAISs highly represented. Factors contributing to the
influx of international students in the United States include the prestige of U.S. education,
greater economic prosperity among students’ families, and a lack of access in students’ home
countries; higher education within China, for example, is only available to 2.5% of the
population (Valdez, 2015, p. 189).
General Challenges
With the benefits of studying in the U.S. come challenges for many international
students. They commonly face stress during adjustment to an unfamiliar culture, language, and
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
academic setting (Liu, 2001; Wu, Garza, & Guzman, 2015). Limited communicative competence
can bring difficulty to students who otherwise may achieve high scores on standardized tests of
English (Liu, 2001; Wong, 2004). International students may also possess cultural capital and
skills in their home countries that may not apply in an overseas environment (Ryan &
Hellmundt, 2005). For example, a student with high scores in an exam-based education system,
strong social connections, and success with lecture-based teaching styles may find that these do
not necessarily translate to success in American universities. Asians in particular may face
greater challenges while studying in American universities; Inoue (1999) found that Asian
students perceived more difficulty in American classrooms than non-Asian international
students, irrespective of their length of stay in the U.S., while Chinese students have expressed
difficulty adjusting to an interactive teaching style and focus on critical thinking (Liu, 2016;
Wong, 2004), group work and unfamiliar assignment types (Wong, 2004), and making
socioemotional connections (Liu, 2016).
Challenges to Spoken Participation
In the classroom, one of the challenges international students may face is spoken
participation, often a requirement in American college courses (Ferris & Tagg, 1996). Speaking
in class offers a range of learning benefits; it helps students develop communication skills and
use content-specific language (Weimer, 2009), while speaking tasks such as classroom
discussions can help students understand content and build critical thinking skills (Brookfield &
Preskill, 2005; Murphy et al., 2009). For international students in particular, learning to
successfully participate in American college classes can facilitate cultural adaptation, increase
confidence, and build intercultural communication skills (Liu, 2001). Despite these benefits and
expectations, students may not participate orally in class for a number of reasons. Factors such as
teacher-centeredness, class dynamics, and the type of class activity have correlated with spoken
participation levels among college students in general (Fassinger, 1995; Rocca, 2010), though
research has revealed additional factors that affect international students and EAISs in particular.
These are explained below.
English Proficiency. Silence in class can result from processing language rather than
anxiety, shyness, or unwillingness to communicate (Bao, 2014). Interestingly, one trait that has
correlated with better academic performance is students’ perceived level of English ability, more
so than actual ability as measured by standardized tests (Wan, Chapman, & Biggs, 1992; Xu,
1991). EAISs have indeed reported their spoken participation as hindered by English ability in a
number of studies (Cheng, 2000; Ellwood & Nakane, 2009; Kim, 2006; King, 2011, Nakane,
2005, 2007), more so than by other variables such as cultural differences (MacGregor &
Folinazzo, 2018). However, seemingly no studies to date have correlated test-measured English
proficiency with empirically-measured participation frequency.
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Culture and Educational Background. Examples of cultural influences on participation
include Japanese students’ tendency to remain silent to show politeness toward the teacher and
preserve harmony by not disrupting the class (Banks, 2016; Nakane, 2007; Sasaki & Ortlieb,
2017). Jones (1999) and Passero (1993) further note that a cultural tendency to prioritize face-
saving and making mistakes may reduce speaking, a trend supported by classroom observations
and student interviews with Japanese international students (Nakane, 2006, 2007; Sasaki &
Ortlieb, 2017) and other East Asians (Liu, 2001). EAISs also tend to seek academic help from
their peers of the same background rather than from professors or classmates from the local
culture (Liu, 2001).
Contrasts between education systems can also affect how much students speak in class.
There are significant differences between traditional Asian academic norms and those of the
United States, which can have at least a partial effect on reducing spoken participation (Banks,
2016; Jones, 1999; Nakane, 2007; Passero, 1993). Specifically, adapting to U.S. academic norms
for Asian students can mean shifting from memorization-based learning to a focus on critical
thinking (Xu, 2015), and from collectiveness and harmony to individuality and opinion-sharing
(Liu, 2001, p. 176). Learning in Japanese classrooms, for example, tends to be passive and
teacher-centered (Hammond, 2007; King, 2011; Moxon, 2009; Passero, 1993), while Chinese
students tend to prefer a passive learning style (Charlesworth, 2008) and have reported difficulty
adapting to American professors’ more interactive teaching styles (Liu, 2016; Valdez, 2015).
While a misconception exists that Chinese students are accustomed to learning “by rote” versus a
more strategic method of thoughtful memorization (Biggs, 1996; Cooper, 2004), neither habit
involves speaking and may nonetheless require adjustment to succeed in American college
classrooms.
In the case of Japan, another significant difference is the level of formality and structure
assigned to spoken class participation. Unlike the open, casual discussions in many American
college classrooms, Japanese classes tend to feature “gatekeeper” students who formally present
answers on behalf of a group after first conferring with classmates (Anderson, 2018; Hammond,
2007; Moxon, 2009; Passero, 1993). This “collective communication system” was observed
among Japanese university students in English-language classrooms by Banks (2016). Because
of this difference, Japanese students may face difficulty adapting to Western professors’
expectations of what successful classroom participation entails (Ellwood & Nakane, 2009; Kim
et. al., 2016).
Given these differences in preferred learning styles and classroom dynamics, it is
unsurprising that a disparity can exist between students’ and instructors’ expectations regarding
participation (Girardelli et al., 2020). However, studies have also shown that Asian university
students desire to participate (Cheng, 2000), believe participating can improve English and
critical thinking skills (Girardelli et al., 2020; Liu, 2001), view it as important for academic
success (Kim, 2007), and believe in the benefits of American-style education in general (Valdez,
2015; Wong, 2004). Additionally, evidence has suggested that undergraduate students from
Japan are aware of the importance of spoken participation, understand the differences in cultural
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
communication styles, and desire to speak in class (Ellwood & Nakane, 2009; Harumi, 2011;
Nakane, 2006; Sasaki & Ortlieb, 2017). This trend suggests students are not opposed to spoken
participation; they may simply need to become accustomed to it.
Communication Style. Pragmatic transfer from the L1 can affect how one expresses
oneself in English, and a number of studies have explored this in the case of Japanese students’
class participation. For example, different methods of turn-taking between Japanese and
American conversations can cause uncertainty about how to participate (Hammond, 2007;
Murray, 2018), while a longer acceptable length of silent pauses in Japanese can also pose a
challenge to turn-taking (King, 2011; Kumagai, 1994; Nakane, 2007). Student frustrations in
Harumi’s (2011) 197-participant questionnaire and Ellwood and Nakane’s (2009) study reflect
this; students indicated their silence resulted in part from missing the chance to speak.
Affective and Contextual Factors. Affective factors such as peer pressure and anxiety
can also inhibit EAISs’ spoken participation (Harumi, 2011; Tsui, 1996; Xia, 2009), as can
identity as a marginalized or less competent member of a group (Morita, 2004; Zheng, 2010),
pressure from negative stereotypes (Valdez, 2015), or an individual preference to be quiet (Kim
et al., 2016). Furthermore, student interviews and classroom observations have revealed
contextual factors affecting participation such as teacher interaction styles (Morita, 2004),
rapport or class size (Sasaki & Ortlieb, 2017), and peer familiarity (Kim et al., 2016). Zhou et al.
(2005) further discovered that professors and peers appeared to devalue the indigenous
knowledge of Chinese students as compared with the Eurocentric knowledge held by American
students, which may have discouraged the former from participating.
Complexity and Intersectionality of Factors. A good example of the scope of factors
affecting participation is Liu’s (2001) study involving interviews with 20 Asian graduate
students. In addition to English ability and cultural influences, students in Liu’s study mentioned
factors ranging from a strong will acquired from military service to interest in the subject matter.
Other factors included the number of Asians in the class, stress from a heavy work load,
personality traits, and a student’s prior discussion-based teaching experience (pp. 156-165).
Because several of these factors likely affect domestic students as well, it is difficult to
make generalizations about what affects the participation of EAISs’ in particular. It is important
to avoid stereotypical “east versus west” cultural dichotomies when making assumptions about
what affects EAISs’ decisions to speak in class (Banks, 2016; Nakane, 2007), and the complexity
and range of possible factors is important to consider. Straker (2016), for example, argues that
the literature places too strong a focus on culture and English ability as affecting EAISs’
participation, and proposes that sociocultural theory can offer a better explanation, while King
(2011) reminds us that cultural influences exist “only to a degree in conjunction with other
variables” (p. 60). These ideas support the dynamic nature of “willingness to communicate,” an
attribute introduced by MacIntyre et al. (1998) that is not static but rather based on circumstances
such as the given social situation or motivation at a particular moment.
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Students who do not speak in class may be
choosing to silently participate instead, by pondering their peers’ responses or comparing
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
answers with classmates (Liu, 2001); in this way, they may view attentive listening as a
legitimate form of participation (Girardelli et al., 2020; Kim, 2007), reflecting Lave and
Wegner’s (1991) framework of legitimate peripheral participation as a way of learning. For
EAISs, this is a common transitional step in negotiating their identity from a marginalized
member to a fully involved member in the classroom as a community of practice (Sung, 2017),
especially when they first begin study in the U.S. (Kim 2007).
Rationale for the Present Study
While clearly not possible to pinpoint a single variable that can be manipulated to help all
EAISs speak in class, it is helpful to understand the range of possible factors. As such, Liu
(2001) calls for further studies to reveal additional factors, while Wu, Garza, and Guzman (2015)
state the need to explore additional college contexts. Considering these needs, the present study
aimed to explore EAIS participation in a new context, one with a high level of ethnic and
linguistic diversity as well as other features that could have an effect on participation.
Specifically, this study explored the perspectives of undergraduate EAISs at Pine Manor
College, the most ethnically diverse liberal arts college in the United States at the time of the
study (U.S. News and World Report, 2020). Roughly half the students at this institution were
multilingual, while 26% were international students during the Fall 2019 semester and over 80%
were non-white, low-income, and the first in their families to attend college. Thus, although their
length of residence (LOR) in the U.S. and English proficiency were more limited than domestic
students, the international students at this college were not in fact a multilingual minority, nor
could they be considered underrepresented ethnically. Similarly, adjusting to the academic
culture of college and achieving social capital is often a challenge for not only international
students (Wu, Garza, & Guzman, 2015), but also first-generation students (Falcon, 2015) who
made up four-fifths of the student body. Because of these commonalities, it was interesting to
examine whether the EAISs, while a minority at this college in terms of their international status,
were more likely to participate in class due to shared features with their classmates—
multilingualism, non-whiteness, and potential unfamiliarity with the academic environment—
lessening their “outsider” status and contributing to a sense of belonging. Indeed, a sense of
belonging is important for international student success (Glass, 2018; Singh, 2018) and is not
nationally or geographically bound; it is still possible among a heterogeneous group through
building connections, sharing ideas, and cultivating a feeling of inclusion (Glass, 2018).
Other features of this college that made it an interesting context for research were its
mission statement’s emphasis on personalized education and serving underprivileged students,
relatively small student population of approximately 400, and high faculty-to-student ratio of 15
to 1. Given this unique environment, it was worth exploring the EAISs’ perspectives on spoken
participation, in part to determine the role of diversity.
Finally, the present study aims to fill a gap in terms of the EAIS student demographic.
Namely, while much research has been published regarding participation among EAISs in the
U.S. at the graduate level (Kim, 2007; Liu, 2001; Xia, 2009), and in countries such as Australia
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
(Cooper, 2004; Nakane, 2005, 2006; Sasaki & Ortlieb, 2017; Wong, 2004) and Canada (Morita,
2004; Zhou et al., 2005), only a few studies examining participation involve EAISs in the United
States at the undergraduate level (Girardelli et al., 2020; Inoue, 1999; Valdez, 2015; Zheng,
2010). Undergraduate students, being younger and less academically experienced, likely hold
different views of participation. For instance, empirical studies have found younger students at
American universities participated less frequently and held less positive views about
participation than older students (Howard & Henney, 1998). This presents an interesting contrast
to studies specifically involving EAISs, in which students held positive views of participation
(Ellwood & Nakane, 2009; Harumi, 2011; Nakane, 2006; Sasaki & Ortlieb, 2017). This may be
because the EAISs further considered participation a way to practice and improve their English.
Research Questions
The following research questions were posed for this study:
1. To what factors do EAISs attribute their level of spoken participation at a highly diverse
college?
2. Will participants’ responses suggest that the diversity in their classes has an effect on their
participation?
3. What recommendations do students have for instructors to assist with their spoken
participation?
Method
Recruitment and Participants
This study used convenience sampling to recruit participants during the Spring 2020
semester who were current or prior students of the interviewer-researcher. It was decided to
recruit students from the researcher’s own classes for two reasons. First, this ensured that all
participants had experienced a similar classroom context and participation expectations in the
researcher’s own courses. Second, it helped the interviewer-researcher understand any references
made to his own class, and ensured all participants had a general level of familiarity with him, as
an existing relationship with participants can ensure accurate communication and improve
validity (Zakaria & Musta’amal, 2014).
Participation was voluntary and offered no reward. Participants were recruited via an
email request or in person. In total, 11 EAIS participants were recruited. All of the participants
except one had matriculated into the college from an EAP pathways program located on campus,
and were in their first or second year of college. Table 1 presents demographic information.
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Table 1
Participant Demographic Information
Participant
LOR
(Months)
Gender
College
Year
Intended Major
GPA
Age
Nationality/
L1
S1
7
F
Freshman
Education
3.58
19
Chinese
S2
7
F
Freshman
Undecided
4.00
26
Japanese
S3
11
M
Freshman
Business
2.75
19
Chinese
S4
11
M
Freshman
Business
2.34
19
Chinese
S5
32
F
Sophomore
Psychology
3.58
19
Chinese
S6
18
M
Sophomore
Education
3.75
20
Chinese
S7
18
F
Sophomore
Comp Sci
4.00
20
Korean
S8
18
M
Sophomore
Business
3.96
20
Korean
S9
11
F
Freshman
Undecided
3.58
18
Chinese
S10
10
M
Freshman
Business
3.24
18
Chinese
S11
8
M
Freshman
Graphic Design
0.00
20
Chinese
Note. LOR = Length of residence. GPA: Cumulative; 4.0 scale.
Research Design and Data Collection
Instrument
This study used an exploratory qualitative instrument; student responses in the interviews
would be examined to determine possible trends in factors affecting their spoken participation.
The research instrument was a semi-structured interview conducted in English, lasting between
10 and 15 minutes. Two of the interviews were held in the researcher’s office, while the
remaining nine were conducted via Zoom video conferencing software. Interview audio was
recorded using Audacity or Zoom and manually transcribed verbatim following each interview.
After a series of short questions to elicit basic demographic and academic data, four
open-ended questions were asked (Appendix A). The researcher asked follow-up questions as
necessary to obtain more information. This semi-structured approach was used in order to reveal
possible additional factors related to participation that the initial questions may not have elicited.
During the interviews, the interviewer-researcher took notes on emergent themes.
Role of the Interviewer-researcher
Because qualitative interview data is inherently a co-construction between the interviewer
and interviewee, it is important to give attention to the interviewer’s role and orientation vis-a-
vis the interviewee (Thomas, 2006). The researcher in this case should be viewed, as Blair
(2015) states, as "a subjective teacher-researcher attempting to get at the heart of what his
student-participants were trying to share,” and in a unique position to help interpret the
participants' perspectives in an authentic way (p. 23). Thus, a reflexive approach was adopted to
consider how the researcher’s status could influence interpretation of the data.
The researcher, a white American L1 English speaker who had lived and taught in each
of the participants' countries for at least 1 year and had studied their native languages for several
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
years each, had a general familiarity with the cultural and linguistic differences these students
faced. All except two participants were the researcher’s advisees and had taken his First Year
Seminar, a course involving discussions on personal identity and culture, while all except four
had taken his Foundational Writing course. Thus, all participants had been the researcher’s own
students for 1 to 3 semesters, and had known him for between 4 and 16 months. As such, the
researcher was at least somewhat familiar with each of the participants’ personalities,
participation habits in his classes, and academic performance. Finally, the two participants who
were not his advisees occasionally chatted with the researcher during office hours; the researcher
felt he thus had a fairly established academic relationship with all participants.
The researcher also observed that most first-year EAISs in his classes struggled with
participation, and in the case of three participants, sufficient English ability in general. This
being said, the researcher considered himself in a strong advocating role for the international
students at this institution; he was the sole faculty member with an academic title mentioning and
specifically created to help “English language learners,” and had taught ESL/EFL for 9 years
prior to the 2 years he had served at the present institution. Such experiences and positionality
informed the interview questions (Appendix A).
Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed using grounded theory, a methodology which aims to
construct a theory grounded in data in order to explain a pattern of behavior (Chun Tie et al.,
2019). In addition, a general inductive approach was used for analyzing the interviews, which
permits “findings to emerge from the frequent, dominant or significant themes inherent in raw
data, without the restraints imposed by structured methodologies” (Thomas, 2006, p. 2). In this
regard, coding of the interviews was performed as an iterative process in stages. First, the
researcher manually performed initial coding on the transcripts. In grounded theory, the aim of
initial coding is to generate a maximum number of codes and label important excerpts (Chun Tie
et al., 2019, p. 4). The instances of each initial code were counted manually and stored with the
corresponding excerpts in Excel. As new codes emerged, transcripts were reread and their coding
updated accordingly. Next, the researcher identified themes within the initial codes and collapsed
similarly-themed codes into more general codes. With this refined scheme, no code was assigned
to an individual participant more than once. Finally, codes were compared with demographic
data in an effort to capture an overall “picture” of each individual participant and identify
additional trends.
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Results
This study aimed to identify factors affecting the amount of spoken participation among
the EAIS participants, including how classroom diversity may have played a role, as well as their
suggestions for professors on how to increase their participation.
Factors Affecting Spoken Participation
Initial coding resulted in 51 codes, which were grouped into 12 general codes
representing self-reported factors affecting spoken participation. Table 2 displays the initial
codes and their groupings; Table 3 below presents the frequency of each grouped code. The most
frequently mentioned factors related to students’ participation were listening comprehension,
activity type (group versus whole-class), race/ethnicity of peer(s), and anxiety surrounding both
English ability and the classroom climate. Factors are explored below through the categories of
linguistic, affective, contextual, cultural and related to diversity.
Table 3
Factors Affecting Spoken Participation
Grouped code
n
%
Anxiety (English ability)
6
14.3
Classroom climate / Peer pressure
6
14.3
Listening comprehension
6
14.3
Activity type (group vs. whole class)
5
11.9
Race/ethnicity of peers
4
9.5
Influence from prior education system
3
7.1
Topic interest / familiarity
2
4.8
Turn taking / pace of class
2
4.8
Personality / mood / motivation
2
4.8
Friends with domestic students
2
4.8
Class size
2
4.8
Instructor rapport / teaching style
2
4.8
Total
42
100
Note. n = instances of each code. To avoid rounding error, total percent rounded to 100.
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Linguistic Factors
No participants directly described any lack of ability to express themselves in English;
any concerns with English production were related to anxiety over perceived ability, supporting
findings that this trait, more so than actual ability, affects academic performance (Wan,
Chapman, & Biggs 1992; Xu, 1991). In contrast, more than half of the participants attributed
their participation difficulties in part to listening comprehension of both classmates and
professors, including trouble understanding slang, accents, and fast speech. As S9 explained, “if I
understand more, I can speak more.” One participant (S11) was particularly frustrated with his
classmates’ slang and fast speech, stating that “sometimes local American destroys the
conversation when talking to international students.” Another (S1) described how listening
carefully to comprehend lectures placed high demands on her cognition such that she had to
remain quiet, while two (S1 and S3) desired for professors to aid with listening comprehension
by adjusting their speaking pace and using subtitles.
Affective Factors
Affective factors are emotional factors that influence learning, including attitudes,
motivation, and anxiety (Henter, 2014). Among participant responses, these mainly included
anxiety related to English or peer pressure. Interestingly, all mentions of English production
were related to confidence or anxiety rather than actual ability, as illustrated by excerpts from S3
(“Chinese or Asian students, they are worried about their accent, their pronunciation, their
grammar”) and S7 (“Some students are make fun of others if they say something wrong, if they
make mistakes in their English”).
Other mentions of anxiety were related to peer pressure rather than English ability: “They
just call your name in front of whole class…she or he puts me on the spot…it’s like everyone
staring at you” (S4), “We’re kind of afraid of somebody judging us…What if we make a mistake
and everyone’s like ‘what?’” (S7), and “Many international students are still not speaking. If
they’re not saying I feel like I should not say something either” (S7). Here, S7 expressed
pressure to “fit in” to the role of international students who do not speak, suggesting she still
identified as such rather than as a mainstream member of the class. The other comments above
described pressure from being called out individually (S4) or being judged (S7), independent of
English ability.
Participant S11, who was also critical of American classmates for “destroying the
conversation,” perceived a particularly uncomfortable classroom climate, and described the
silencing effect this had on him in class: “Other students provide me with a sense of unfriendly.
There are always lots of questions about schoolwork I would like to ask, but with the unfriendly
environment, I lost the motivation to communicate.” This participant’s personality or lack of
social connections at the college could also have contributed to this more unwelcoming view of
his class. Specifically, the researcher perceived S11 to be a student more inclined to socialize
with professors than peers, who rarely spoke with other students before or after class, including
fellow Chinese students.
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Other less common affective factors included extroversion (“I’m the type of person I like
to start a conversation with people” (S5)), and mood (“I'm a little tired, morning class, so I don't
want to speak” (S1)). Interest or familiarity with the topic was also a factor; S5 stated he would
speak more if the topic was “about Chinese culture or something I’m really interested in,” while
S6 had a “passion to talk with others with different cultural background.” In this case, S5 felt
more comfortable speaking about familiar topics, while in contrast S6 wished to explore and
learn from other cultures. Participant S6 may have felt this way due to a higher English
proficiency or a greater proclivity toward new experiences. In these situations, more in-depth
data on individuals is needed to determine the effect that English ability has on affective factors.
Contextual Factors
In response to the third interview question, nearly half of the participants said smaller
group work was more comfortable and conducive to participation than speaking in front of the
class, while others such as S1 mentioned that smaller classes helped them speak: “We can
participate more relaxed. We won't feel lots of pressure. In a big class I was a little shy” (S1).
In addition, two participants described the difficulty they faced with turn-taking in class,
including S7 (“I’m in the middle of should I do it or should I not, and then just time is gone”)
and S2 (“Domestic students speak a lot, like pretty fast...so sometimes I don’t have a chance”).
For S2, a Japanese student, the struggle with claiming a turn could be related to the differences in
silence length and turn-taking style between Japanese and Western culture. It could also be
purely a matter of English proficiency, as comprehending the speech of others and preparing
what to say in a face-paced discussion are functions of both listening comprehension and
fluency. Finally, participants mentioned professor variables, including rapport and affinity (“the
role of professors is very important. I like to share my opinions with some professors that I like”
(S6)), as well as the silencing effects of a teacher-centered style: “The professor always talks
about the PowerPoint and student don’t have too much chance to speak” (S10).
Cultural factors
Several participants described how educational experiences in their home countries
influenced their silence in class. These included S1 (“We stayed in China's class a long time, so
we want to keep quiet and listen to the teacher carefully and write notes. It's our habit.”) and S7
(“In Korea, we don’t think that much as the others, we are used to the education that memorize
and the teacher lectures”). In contrast, participant S2 described how she felt comfortable
participating because the educational style at her “special” middle and high school in Japan made
speaking in class and sharing ideas more familiar: “Individuality was a big focus…teachers
asked us to give our opinions a lot.”
Additionally, social connections and positive experiences interacting with American
students led to positive views toward speaking with classmates. Participant S4, who was
Chinese, said that because he had American friends on campus, he felt no difference between
talking to American and Chinese students. As he stated, “We don’t speak the same language, but
we think in the same way sometimes.” Similarly, participant S5 said she “made many friends
with Americans that way, and like from every country. Just talk.” For these participants, it seems
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
that social connections with American peers reinforced positive feelings about participation. For
S5, “just talking” helped her make friends and in turn helped her recognize the benefits of
speaking. Similarly, S4, having made American friends, felt more comfortable speaking with
other American students.
The Role of Diversity
Overall, the high ethnic diversity of the college did not appear to promote participation
among students. Conversely, ethnic groups restricted who students were comfortable speaking
with; four participants expressed that their attitudes toward speaking with classmates were
affected by ethnicity. For example, S8 referenced “Asian groups and a black group,” while S1
described her preference for working with other Asian students: “If I look around and there's
some faces like Asian faces, I want to talk with her or him because it's easier…we can
understand each other culture.” Similarly, S10 stated, “Many people in China don’t want to talk
with the foreigner.” These comments reflect what Liu (2001) describes as a “dependence on
ethnic communication channels” common among Asian students (p. 41).
Participant S11, in line with his other perceptions of a more unfriendly classroom
atmosphere, felt more directly intimidated. As he stated, “international students and domestic
students also have some, like, invisible discrimination.” Perhaps he perceived discrimination due
to the seating arrangement in the researcher’s class, where Asian and Black students tended to sit
in separate groups, or because his English-proficient group members did not make
accommodations to their speech to aid his comprehension. This participant also mentioned
struggles with slang and fast speech, which could have left him feeling excluded from the lively
conversations about sports that his domestic classmates often engaged in during the researcher’s
class. Diversity also appeared to pose a linguistic challenge due to the wide range of accents. As
S11 stated, this was “a really diverse school, which means the accents of English is also diverse.
But sometimes this makes us hard to understand.”
An exception to these negative effects of diversity was the perspective of S6, who desired
to speak with those from other cultures. In this regard, motivation and willingness to engage with
it appear to be factors in whether diversity has a positive effect on participation.
Entering a Community of Practice
Four participants said their English proficiency and participation had increased with time
spent studying in the U.S. In addition, comments from S7 and S9 reflected a gradual transition
from peripheral participation to being a fully involved member of the class as a community of
practice (Lave & Wegner, 1991). For S7, this transition happened as he became familiar with the
community norms through observing his classmates: “My first semester I also had a hard time
expressing my ideas. By my second and third it got better because I understand the domestic
student are also doing that.” For S9, the transition happened as her English ability improved:
“The first time I come to PMC, I’m a little bit shy and afraid to talk because I’m not good at
English…but I tried to speak a lot…Nowadays I like to speak in class.”
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Participants’ Suggestions for Instructors
Table 4 presents participants’ suggestions for how professors could encourage spoken
participation.
Table 4
Suggestions for Instructors
Description
n
%
Sample excerpt
Give encouragement
1
8.3
The professor can tell me, don’t worry
about your accent, your grammar… (S3)
Aid with listening comprehension
2
16.7
…they could put some subtitles. (S1)
Aid with content comprehension
1
8.3
Professors can give more examples…
(S9)
Be more direct in encouraging
participation
4
33.3
…give them a chance, not “who wants to
speak,” but point someone out… (S7)
Relate topics to students’ interests
or lives
2
16.7
…something I’m really interested in,
that’s gonna bring me to talk more. (S5)
Make use of group work
2
16.7
…group activities to help us join in
classes. (S8)
Total
12
100
Note. n = number of participants who mentioned the type of suggestion.
Overall, two main themes emerged from the suggestions. First was the desire for instructors to be
more direct in promoting participation, such as by cold-calling on students or designating a
speaking phase of the lesson, mentioned by four participants (36.4%). For example, participant
S2 stated “For Japanese students, it’s more familiar to point out,” which also suggested her
knowledge of the Japanese educational system extended beyond her own experiences with
participation-focused secondary school classes. Participant S7 further suggested professors
announce a speaking phrase of the lesson: “not ‘who wants to speak,’ but…‘let’s speak from
here.’” The second theme was a favorable attitude toward speaking in groups, with participants
stating it was “an effective way for shy people” (S2), “the best way for Asian students” (S3), and
“less stress than to speak in front of the whole class” (S4). One participant, S7, described how
group work allowed one to respond to direct questions from domestic classmates, rather than
taking the initiative to speak out in a whole-class setting. This comment echoes both the desire
for more structured participation and advice for instructors to control turn-taking (Jones, 1999;
Morita, 2004). Two participants enjoyed the social aspect of group work, as it helped “make a
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
new friend” (S9), and “learn each other’s cultures” (S11), while participant S6 said he enjoyed
group work due to his “strong passion to talk with others with different cultural background.”
This trend supports recommendations for group work to encourage spoken participation
(Hammond, 2007; Kim et al., 2016), and suggests that students can benefit from cross-cultural
interaction, but only if made comfortable or intrinsically motivated.
Discussion
Factors Affecting Participation
The self-reported influences on EAISs’ spoken participation included linguistic,
affective, cultural, and contextual factors, supporting the trend that suggests participation is a
complex phenomenon. Specifically, self-reported concerns that hindered participation included
listening comprehension, nationality of peers, anxiety surrounding English, difficulty with turn-
taking, and the class activity format (whole class versus group). These results support previous
findings that participation is influenced by anxiety (Harumi, 2011; Nakane, 2005, 2007; Xia,
2009; Tsui, 1996), turn-taking difficulty (Ellwood & Nakane, 2009; Harumi, 2011) and group
versus whole-class activity format (Rocca, 2010). In addition, the concerns about listening
comprehension reflect it as a commonly mentioned difficulty (Jinyan, 2005), while comments
describing contrasts from prior educational experiences support findings that these differences
can affect participation (Banks, 2016; Charlesworth, 2008).
Supporting the optimistic trend in prior studies (Ellwood & Nakane, 2009; Harumi, 2011;
Nakane, 2006; Sasaki & Ortlieb, 2017), all participant comments suggested they were aware of
the expectation for participation and generally desired to speak; none had negative feelings about
the merits of participation itself. This contrasts with the American undergraduate students in
Howard and Henney’s (1998) study, who held more negative views about participation in their
early years of college, perhaps because being non-ELLs they did not consider it a benefit to their
English. The positive views in the present study could also be a function of participants’
experiences in the EAP preparatory program on campus, in which they were taught American
academic norms and professor expectations.
The Effect of Diversity
Despite the ethnic diversity of their classes, students in this study still drew a clear
distinction between the domestic students and themselves. This distinction was constructed
linguistically, as suggested by comments about contrasts in English proficiency and its related
anxiety, as well as struggles with accents or slang. It appeared that the ethnic diversity alone did
not necessarily ease the EAISs' sense of being marginalized; instead, they focused on their
limited English proficiency as a deficiency, which maintained their identity as less competent
group members and hindered participation, a finding in line with Morita (2004) and Zheng
(2010). This supports findings that lower English proficiency is tied to lower sense of belonging
(Singh, 2018), in that language barriers can hinder group work and the formation of social
connections with English speakers (Chen & Zhou, 2019). Furthermore, that many of their
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
domestic classmates, like them, were also minorities and entering an unfamiliar environment as
first-generation students did not seem to ease the EAISs’ apprehension over participating, nor did
the fact that over a quarter of the students at this college were international students.
In addition to constructing a distinction based on English proficiency, participants also
constructed one ethnically, through comments such as “don’t want to talk with the foreigner”
(S10), the “Asian group and a black group” (S8), and comfort with “Asian faces” (S1).
Additionally, while discrimination in these students’ classes may have certainly existed, it is
possible that the “invisible discrimination” mentioned by S11 was in part a function of his
heightened sensitivity to an unfriendly class atmosphere due to lower listening ability or other
factors. Lee and Rice (2007) mention, for instance, that because international students at U.S.
colleges are often from high socioeconomic backgrounds, they may be more sensitive to
discrimination as they no longer find themselves part of the dominant social culture (Lee & Rice,
2007). EAISs can have difficulty understanding nonnative English accents (Major et al., 2002),
and it appears that the classroom diversity exacerbated these challenges for two participants.
Furthermore, classmates and instructors in their EAP program were generally from their own
countries or the U.S., respectively, rather than the African American, Haitian, Cape Verdean, and
Latinx students in their mainstream college classes. This fact may have left them underprepared
to understand other accents.
Relationships between Factors
These results provide insight into what Liu (2001) describes as complex
“interrelationships among [students’] cognitive, sociocultural, affective, linguistic, and
pedagogical perspectives” that affect their participation (p. 153). Figure 1 presents possible
relationships between factors affecting participation based on results of this study. For example,
while one participant, S1, described Chinese students’ “habit” of being quiet in class, she also
said small class sizes enabled her to “participate more relaxed.” It appeared that for this student,
the smaller class sizes she encountered during only 7 months of study in the U.S. had a
significant, positive effect on her participation despite habits formed through years of a more
passive education style in China. This supports Straker's (2016) deemphasis on culture and draws
attention to different “weights” of variables affecting participation. Smaller classes have been
linked with greater participation in other studies (Rocca, 2010), and reducing class size may be
powerful enough to counteract other factors that inhibit participation such as limited English
proficiency.
Interestingly, no participants mentioned any direct lack of ability to express themselves in
English; instead, anxiety over their perceived English ability, which can also affect academic
performance overall (Wan, Chapman, & Biggs 1992; Xu, 1991), was commonly cited. This
reflects findings of other studies (Cheng, 2000; Ellwood & Nakane, 2009; Kim, 2006; King,
2011, Nakane, 2007) that correlated self-reported English ability and participation. In terms of
receptive English ability, their listening comprehension also affected their participation
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
indirectly; if they could not understand the professor, classmates, or course content, they felt in
less of a position to speak.
It is likely that English proficiency was also behind other factors influencing
participation. As mentioned, the “unfriendly” classroom atmosphere perceived by S11 may have
manifested because he struggled to understand his classmates and thus felt excluded. These
linguistic factors could have also contributed to the preference of S1 for working with other
Asian students, or the reluctance to speak with “foreigners” mentioned by S10. Similarly, S7’s
anxiety over giving the wrong answer, which she stated was “not [an] English problem,” may
have in fact stemmed from misunderstanding content due to listening ability. In other words, the
ethnic or affective influences on participation may in fact be underlyingly linguistic. Conversely,
confidence from strong English ability could play a role in S5 describing herself as “the type of
person that likes to start a conversation.”
Finally, LOR may have been an overarching factor leading to greater participation, due to
increases in English proficiency, cultural adjustment, or social connections. Over one-third of
participants described increases in both English proficiency and participation with time spent
studying in the U.S., reflecting how participation habits can evolve over time alongside a
student’s gradual entrance into a community of practice (Kim, 2007; Liu, 2001; Sung 2017).
Two participants also found it easier to participate due to social connections with American
peers, having overcome (or avoided) the common struggles with socioemotional connections
mentioned by Liu (2016). Perhaps these friendships “demystified” American students and made
them more approachable in class. One of these participants was S5, who had spent nearly 3 years
in the U.S., the longest among participants.
Conclusion
This study examined self-reported factors affecting the spoken participation habits of
East Asian international students at a highly diverse college, to determine in part how diversity
may have played a role. The factor of English-related anxiety stood out and supports previous
findings on the effect of perceived English ability, while it appears that English proficiency,
especially listening comprehension, can either directly or indirectly affect participation.
Specifically, better listening comprehension can increase understanding of course content and aid
participation, while it may also lead to more accurate interpreting of the classroom atmosphere
and ability to socialize with classmates, which may in turn lead to less anxiety and more
participation. Similarly, certain factors may have greater influence over participation and
“override” others, such as the smaller class sizes that helped one participant despite her cultural
habit of being quiet in class.
Results implied that classroom diversity could hinder participation by exacerbating
challenges to listening comprehension, and that diversity alone does little to make international
students more comfortable by lessening their status as "minorities" in the classroom unless
instructors are prepared to explicitly support intercultural communication and positive group
dynamics. Thus, the onus is on instructors as what Gay (2010) calls "cultural organizers,"
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
responsible for integrating students and providing chances for them to express their cultures and
perspectives (p. 45). Specific strategies for doing so are presented in the next section.
Pedagogical Implications
A framework that focuses on the responsibilities of the universities hosting international
students rather than the students themselves (Lee & Rice, 2007) can help inform advice for
instructors to encourage participation. First, teachers should design activities to raise awareness
of the classroom’s diversity and help students recognize they belong to a multicultural group,
such as peer-teaching an aspect of one’s culture. Additionally, “jigsaw” activities that require
students to peer-teach course terminology or concepts can also increase international students’
sense of empowerment and belonging, as they demonstrate competence by teaching their
classmates rather than through English proficiency alone.
Instructors can help break down the communication barriers inherent in a linguistically
diverse classroom by deliberately assigning multicultural groups, setting expectations, and pre-
teaching communication strategies. Before a group activity, instructors can declare that its
secondary purpose is to raise awareness of the classroom’s diversity and provide a chance to
practice intercultural communication skills. Students can be provided and encouraged to use a
list of strategies such as asking for repetition, being cognizant of colloquialisms, giving each
other “thinking time,” and recasting to verify they understand their classmates. To raise empathy
and linguistic awareness, domestic students can also record and listen to their casual
conversations, identify colloquialisms, and teach these expressions to their international peers.
Group work can provide opportunities to speak that are not as face-threatening as
speaking in front of the entire class, and most students in this study as well as others (King,
2001; Xia, 2009) suggested or preferred group work for this reason. However, because other
participant comments as well as Chen and Zhou (2019) suggest language barriers can discourage
participating in groups, instructors should form groups carefully and provide support. As
participants also commonly suggested, instructors can be more intentional by calling on students
or deliberately announcing a discussion phase of the lesson. These suggestions reflect those by
Jones (1999) and Morita (2004) that instructors control turn-taking.
For the EAP teachers who prepare students for English-medium classes, listening
comprehension, not only of lectures but also of classmates, should be emphasized. It is important
to expose students to different accents and colloquialisms, as well as include top-down listening
skills such as how to cope with partial understanding of a group discussion.
Finally, it is necessary for professors to recognize the legitimacy of peripheral
participation, which can eventually lead to full participation. To help with assessment, students
can record their contributions in “participation logs” (Docan-Morgan, 2015), in order to better
capture what they may be thinking or wish to say even if they do not participate orally.
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Because this study explored a limited number of student perspectives in a particular
context, caution should be used in generalizing the findings to all EAISs. In addition, other
variables such as TOEFL score, personality, motivation, or academic ability were not measured
yet could likely affect participation habits. More in-depth interviews and studies that control for
the professor, class, length of residence, and both perceived and actual English proficiency are
needed to isolate and explore the weights and relationships of the variables affecting EAIS
participation. For instance, perhaps sufficiently strong rapport or coping strategies can “override”
anxiety, while a class of mostly EAISs may increase feelings of belonging and lessen anxiety.
References
Banks, S. (2016). Behind Japanese students’ silence in English classrooms. Accents Asia, 8(2),
54-75. http://www.issues.accentsasia.org/issues/8-2/banks.pdf
Bao, D. (2014). Understanding silence and reticence: Ways of participating in second language
acquisition. Bloomsbury Academic.
Biggs, J. B. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D.A.
Watkins and J.B. Biggs (eds) The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and
Contextual Influences, pp. 45–67. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Comparative
Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research.
Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. Journal of
Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14-29.
https://doi.org/10.2458/v6i1.18772
Brookfield, S. D. & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a Way of Teaching. John Wiley and Sons.
Charlesworth, Z. M. (2008). Learning styles across cultures: Suggestions for educators.
Education and Training, 50(2), 115-127. http://doi.org/10.1108/00400910810862100
Chen, J. & Zhou, G. (2019). Chinese international students’ sense of belonging in North
American postsecondary institutions: A critical literature review. Brock Education Journal,
28(2), 48-63. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1220022.pdf
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28, 435-446.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00015-4
Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework
for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 1-8.
http://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927
Cooper, B. J. (2004). The enigma of the Chinese learner. Accounting Education, 13(3), 289-310.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928042000273780
Docan-Morgan, T. (2015). The participation log: Assessing students’ classroom participation.
Assessment Update, 27(2), 6-7. http://doi.org/10.1002/au
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Ellwood, C. & Nakane, I. (2009). Privileging of speech in EAP and mainstream university
classrooms: A critical evaluation of participation. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 203-230.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00165.x
Falcon, L. (2015). Breaking down barriers: First-generation college students and college success.
Innovation Showcase, 10(6). https://www.league.org/innovation-showcase/breaking-down-
barriers-first-generation-college-students-and-college-success
Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’
contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82–96.
http://doi.org/10.2307/2943952
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic oral communication needs of EAP learners: What
subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 31-58.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587606
Gay, G. (2000) Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, practice, & research. Teachers College
Press.
Girardelli, D., Kelly, S., Bodong, C., Zhou, X., & Gu, T. (2020). “Learning lords” and “ink in
your stomach”: eliciting Chinese EFL students’ beliefs about classroom participation.
Communication Education 69(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1723804
Glass, C. R. (2018). International students’ sense of belonging—locality, relationships, and
power. Peer Review, 20(1). https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2018/Winter/Glass
Hammond, C. (2007). Culturally responsive teaching in the Japanese classroom: a comparative
analysis of cultural teaching and learning styles in Japan and the United States. Journal of
the Faculty of Economics, KGU, 17, 41–50. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/72763399.pdf
Henter, R. (2014). Affective factors involved in learning a foreign language. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 127(22), 373-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.274
Howard, J. R. & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-
age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 384-405.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1998.11775141
Inoue, Y. (1999). ESL undergraduate students’ perceived difficulties in American classrooms.
(ERIC Document Retrieval No. ED431334).
Institute of International Education. (2020). "International Students." 2019 Open Doors Report
on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved 1 May, 2020 from
https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data
Jinyan, H. (2005). Challenges of Academic Listening in English: Reports by Chinese Students.
College Student Journal, 39(3), 553–569. (ERIC Document Retrieval No. EJ725590).
Jones, J. F. (1999). From silence to talk: Cross-cultural ideas on students’ participation in
academic group discussion. English for Specific Purposes, 18(3), 243-259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00059-8
Kim, S. (2007). Active verbal participation in U.S. classrooms: Perceptions of East Asian
international graduate students. [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK.
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1174408526
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Kim, S., Ates, B., Grigsby, Y., Kraker, S., and Micek, T. A. (2016). Ways to promote the
classroom participation of international students by understanding the silence of Japanese
university students. Journal of International Students, 6(2). pp. 431-450.
http://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i2.365
King, J. E. (2011). Silence in the second language classroom [Doctoral dissertation, University
of Nottingham]. University of Nottingham’s Institutional Repository.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. J. & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of
discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3
Liu, J. (2001). Asian students’ classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities: An emic
perspective. Ablex Publishing.
Liu, D. (2016). Strategies to promote Chinese international students’ school performance:
resolving the challenges in American higher education. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second
and Foreign Language Education, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0012-9
MacGregor, A. & Folinazzo, G. (2018). Best practices in teaching international students in
higher education: Issues and strategies. TESOL Journal, 9(2).
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.324
MacIntyre, P., Clement, R., Dörnyei, Z, & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to
communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern
Language Journal, 82(4), 545-62. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of
nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL
Quarterly, 36(2), 173-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588329
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic
communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603. http://doi.org/10.2307/3588281
Murphy, K., Soter, A., Wilkinson, I., Hennessey, M., & Alexander, J. (2009). Determining the
effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740-764. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576
Murray, N. (2018). Understanding student participation in the internationalised university: some
issues, challenges, and strategies. Education Sciences, 8(3), 96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030096
Nakane, I. (2005). Negotiating silence and speech in the classroom. Multilingua: Journal of
Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 24(1), 75-100.
https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.24.1-2.75
Nakane, I. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars.
Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1811-1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.005
Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in Intercultural Communication: Perceptions and Performance. John
Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.166
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended
multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185-213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903505936
Ryan, J. & Hellmundt, S. (2005). Maximizing international students’ ‘cultural capital.’ In J.
Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving learning for all (pp.
13-16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203696132
Sasaki, Y. & Ortlieb, E. (2017). Investigating why Japanese students remain silent in Australian
university classrooms: The influences of culture and identity. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 27(1), 85–98. http://doi.org/10.1075/japc.27.1.05sas
Singh, A. (2018). Investigating the sense of belonging of international students through a
predictive model. [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University].
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16467
Straker, J. (2016). International student participation in higher education: Changing the focus
from “international students” to “participation.” Journal of Studies in International
Education, 20(4), 299-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316628992
Sung, C. (2017). Understanding classroom participation and identity negotiation: An
undergraduate student’s L2 learning experiences in an English-medium university in Hong
Kong, Applied Linguistics Review, 8(4), 375-399. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-
1026
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.
American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey & D.
Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 145–167). Cambridge University
Press.
U.S. News and World Report. (2020). 2020 Campus Ethnic Diversity at Liberal Arts Colleges |
US News Rankings. Retrieved 1 May, 2020, from https://www.usnews.com/best-
colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/campus-ethnic-diversity
Valdez, G. (2015). U.S. higher education classroom experiences of undergraduate Chinese
international students. Journal of International Students, 5(2), 188-200. (ERIC Document
Retrieval No. EJ1060060).
Wan, T. Y., Chapman, D. W., & Biggs, D. A. (1992). Academic stress of international students
attending U.S. universities. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 607–623.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973761
Weimer, M (2009). Uses for participation. The Teaching Professor, 23(9).
https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/10-assessment-design-tips-
increasing-online-student-retention-satisfaction-learning-part-2/
Wong, J. K. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or
contextually based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-166. (ERIC Document
Retrieval No. EJ903817).
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Wu, X., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and adjustment to
college. Education Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/202753
Xia, S. (2009). Are they ready to participate? East Asian students’ acquisition of verbal
participation in American classrooms. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 137-157.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8886p8fw
Xu, L. (2015). Transitional challenges faced by post-secondary international students and
approaches for their successful inclusion in classrooms. International Journal for
Leadership in Learning, 1(3), 1–28. (ERIC Document Retrieval No. EJ1070720).
Xu, M. (1991). The impact of English-language proficiency on international graduate students’
perceived academic difficulty. Research in Higher Education, 32(5), 557–569.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40196067
Zakaria, R., & Musta'amal, A. H. (2014). Rapport building in qualitative research. 1st
International Education Postgraduate Seminar Proceedings, 1, 23-24. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia Institutional Repository.
http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/61304/1/AedeHatibMustaamal2014_RapportBuildinginQua
litativeResearch.pdf
Zheng, X. (2010). Re-interpreting silence: Chinese international students’ verbal participation in
U.S. universities. The International Journal of Learning: Annual Review, 17(5), 451-464.
http://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i05/47068
Zhou, Y. R., Knoke, D., & Sakamoto, I. (2005). Rethinking silence in the classroom: Chinese
students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 9(3), 287–311. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603110500075180
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Table 2
Initial and Grouped Codes
Initial codes
Grouped code
Sample excerpt
1. Lack confidence with English
2. Worried about English
3. Discomfort speaking English
Anxiety
(English
ability)
Sometimes I feel my English not
good…so sometimes my
confidence not enough. (S1)
4. Fear being judged
5. Worried about wrong answers
6. Comparison to others' English
ability
7. Negative classroom atmosphere
8. Empathetic listeners
9. Motivated/inspired by peers
10. Comparison to domestic students
Classroom
Climate/
Peer Pressure
…everyone staring at you…
(S4)
11. Used to staying silent in class
12. Rote memorization
Influence from
prior education
system
In Korea…we are used to the
education that memorize and the
teacher lectures. (S7)
13. Hesitation causes loss of turn
14. Lack of time to prepare answer
15. Students dominate discussion
16. Pace of discussion
Turn taking
I’m in the middle of should I do
it or should I not, and then just
time is gone. (S7)
17. Heavy cognitive load from
listening
18. Difficulty understanding
classmates
19. Desire slower pace of lecture
20. Desire subtitles on videos
21. Struggle with speaking pace
22. Struggle with accents
23. Struggle with slang
24. Listening comprehension affects
participation
Listening
comprehension
…their accent is really strong, so
sometimes we cannot
understand. (S8)
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Initial codes
Grouped code
Sample excerpt
25. Interest in topic
26. Familiarity with topic
27. Interest in speaking with students
from other cultures
Topic Interest/
familiarity
…something I’m really
interested in, that’s gonna bring
me to talk more. (S5)
28. Comfort with same-ethnicity
peers
29. Comfort with peers who have
mutual English struggles
30. Racial/ethnic groups
31. Discomfort with speaking in
English to same-L1 peers
32. Discomfort with students from
other cultures
33. Discomfort with peers of higher
English ability
34. Domestic-international student
tension
Race/ethnicity
of peers
…maybe Asian will be easier.
(S1)
35. Nervous speaking in front of class
[Group work]
36. Helps with shyness
37. Helpful for Asian students
38. Less stress than whole class
39. More comfort due to being
directly asked questions
40. Opportunity to socialize
41. Learn new ideas
42. Aids understanding
Activity type
(group vs.
whole class)
Group works are good. It’s an
effective way for shy people.
(S2)
43. Tiredness
44. Time of day
45. Extroversion
46. Desire to move conversation
along
47. Believed participation improves
English
Personality/
mood/
motivation
I’m the type of person I like to
start a conversation with people.
(S5)
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Initial codes
Grouped code
Sample excerpt
48. American friends
Friends with
domestic
students
I don’t feel any difference when
I speak with American
classmates, because I also have a
few American friends... (S4)
49. Small class size makes
participation easier
Class size
If the class are pretty big, it’s
difficult for me to speak out.
(S2)
50. Feelings about professor
51. Professor’s teaching style
Instructor
rapport /
teaching style
I not talk too much because the
professor. In his class maybe
feel some nervous. (S10)
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Figure 1
Possible Relationships Between Factors Affecting EAISs’ Spoken Participation
Albertson, B. P. (2021). East Asian students’ spoken participation in American college classrooms:
Does institutional diversity matter? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 30(1).
Appendix A
Interview Questions
1. How do you feel about your participation in classes this semester, specifically speaking in
class?
2. What do you think affects your choice to speak or not speak in class?
3. How do you feel about speaking with your classmates during class, like with a partner or in a
small group?
4. What do you think could make you speak more in class? Do you have any suggestions for
professors to help international students participate more in class by speaking?
