System 31 (2003) 259–281

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Reticence in class and on-line: two ESL students’

experiences with communicative language teaching
Teresa Chen*
Department of Educational Psychology, Administration, and Counseling, California State University,
Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA, 90840-2201, USA

Received 28 May 2001; received in revised form 19 August 2002; accepted 30 October 2002

Abstract
This study examines English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) undergraduate students’ experi-
ences with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), supported by in-class tasks and after-
class newsgroup discussion. The article presents the students’ perceptions of and their feelings
about their learning experiences with this teaching approach, as well as the frames of reference
within which they performed in an ESL class. With a focus on the students’ experiences with
socialization in their respective home countries and adjustment to student life at a major
Midwestern university in the United States, the research investigates the students’ participation
over time with respect to class communication. Adopting a naturalist approach, this study
captures the communication-related events that are significant to the students and presents
these insiders’ perspectives. In-depth interviews were employed to explore the students’ history
in order to obtain a holistic understanding of cultural and personal aspects of their experiences
that are related to class communication. The findings reveal the students’ communicative styles
and further address their coping with second-language acquisition and academic adaptation.
The article concludes with recommendations for future research and instruction.
# 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Asian students; Communicative language teaching; Culture; Emotions; Internet

1. Introduction

This article reports a qualitative case study that examines reticent students’
experiences with CLT in an undergraduate ESL academic writing class at a major

* Tel.: +1-562-985-9380; fax: +1-562-985-4534.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Chen).

0346-251X/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00024-1
260 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

Midwestern university in the United States. By taking the students’ backgrounds

and relevant contextual information into account, this study focuses on two stu-
dents’ perceptions of and their feelings about their learning experiences with the
teaching approach, supported by in-class, task-based activities, and after-class elec-
tronic newsgroup communication.
The following three characteristics distinguish this research from many of the
previous studies on the interaction between ESL student backgrounds and class-
room learning. First, this study considers both the individual and cultural aspects
when exploring the students’ experiences in their associative settings. Second, with
special attention given to their class communication styles, this study explores the
development of the students across time, both in their home and host countries. Third,
in addition to class interaction, this research addresses the on-line aspect of student
communication. The investigation provides insight into the contribution of the stu-
dents’ backgrounds to how they approached communicative language learning.

2. Conceptual framework

Since the introduction of the term ‘‘communicative competence’’ by Hymes in

1972, CLT has drawn researchers and language-teaching professionals to engage in
theory building, material development, and empirical research. Many studies have
been conducted to validate the communicative approach and they have generated
encouraging findings (Pica et al., 1996). However, some research has reported diffi-
culties faced by learners and/or teachers with communicative activities (e.g. Bark-
huizen, 1998; Li, 1998; LoCastro, 1996; Shamim, 1996). Many of the difficulties
discussed were associated with the dissonance between the learners’ habitual ‘‘cul-
ture of learning’’ (Cortazzi and Jin, 1996) and the concept of ideal learning embed-
ded in the language teaching approach. Accordingly, sensitivity to cultural
differences among learners has been given much attention.
Emphasis on cultural differences has led to the research that offers suggestions on
bridging the cultural gap. However, special attention given to the differences is det-
rimental in at least three ways. First, cultural differences have been used as a con-
venient explanation for educational problems (González, 1999). Second, without the
recognition that culture is dynamic, permeable but not monolithic, studies may
generate stereotypes against ‘‘the Others’’ (Kubota, 1999). Third, in order to avoid
oversimplification caused by assigning learners into cultural groups, some research-
ers proposed to drop the construct of culture in favor of individualism (Atkinson,
1999).
In fact, it is not culture that is to be faulted but cultural deficits or stereotypes
generated by cultural differences that should be interrogated. What needs to be done
is not to abandon the concept of culture but to re-conceptualize it as ever-evolving,
as it pervades learners and contexts. To this end, Atkinson (1999) proposed a
‘‘middle-ground’’ approach, which regards the development of culture as a dialec-
tical process between individuals and contexts. The re-conceptualization of culture
alone, nevertheless, does not eradicate the problems induced by cultural differences.
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 261

To further tackle these problems, researchers need to adopt the notion of empathy.
Empathy enables an individual to understand the minds of others and to feel his/her
connection with them. With the discernment that everyone is not an isolated entity
but is associated with a larger whole (Hinde, 1999), individuals naturally would treat
others with respect rather than see them as alien or inferior.
The view of culture and the saliency of human interconnectedness demand more
sensitive and in-depth studies that, instead of identifying cultural differences or
mismatches, regard individuals as single entities but also as parts of the whole
human picture. Thus, this study adopts an in-depth interview methodology (Witz et
al., 2001) that facilitates the empathic and subjective understanding of the general
nature of the focal students as well as a holistic understanding of them. With a view
of culture, humankind, and the methodological inclination, this study investigates
the participants’ inner worlds by locating them in the contexts where they have lived
and studied.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research design

The elemental questions that guide this study are the following: ‘‘What are stu-
dents’ experiences with CLT in an undergraduate ESL class?’’ and ‘‘How do their
previous backgrounds relate to their class participation in the ESL class?’’ These
research questions led to a qualitative case study approach in which observation and
interviewing were the two major strategies employed. The purposes of the semester-
long classroom observation were to obtain the whole picture of the instructional
context, to explore the degree of student participation, and to identify potential
interviewees for further investigation. The purpose of the interviews with the iden-
tified focal students was to collect information on their perceptions of CLT in the
classroom and on their personal backgrounds.
In addition to class observation and interviews, data sources of the study included
an on-line class communication log, a course packet, and an instructor’s handbook.
The on-line communication log, which contained 90 messages posted to a class
newsgroup, aimed to reconcile the students’ participation in after-class discussion
with their face-to-face classroom interaction. The course packet and the instructor’s
handbook provided information for the researcher to understand the research site
and the pedagogical aspects of the class. The course packet consisted of activity
sheets and articles for reading assignments; the handbook listed rationales for the
ESL course and guidelines for instructors. These additional data sources offered rich
contextual information for the study.

3.2. Data collection and analysis

The class observation and the consultation with the course instructor led to the
identification of two focal participants for interviews: Noriko from Japan and
262 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

Seungwon from Korea.1 Throughout the semester while the ESL class was in ses-
sion, Noriko and Seungwon were usually reticent. Both were in their first year in the
United States as degree-seeking undergraduate students.
The interview data came from three to four 1-h audio-taped interviews with each
of the focal students. Conducted toward the end of the semester, the first interviews
generated data pertaining to factual information. The data included the students’
educational experiences both in their home countries and in the United States; their
communication patterns with family members, friends, fellow students, and
instructors; as well as the frequency of their Internet usage. The subsequent inter-
views examined the participants’ perceptions, feelings, and attitudes related to their
adoption of communicative language learning and their adjustment at the uni-
versity. The interviewees were also encouraged to bring in relevant issues or experi-
ences meaningful to them.
After each recorded interview session, the tape was transcribed2 verbatim for data
analysis, in which the search for emergent themes was a key concern. The search was
an iterative process because the themes were derived from data, but they also shaped
the direction of further data collection (Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis, 1997). That
is, the significant and identified recurring anecdotes facilitated the development of
assumptions for further confirmation by means of subsequent interviews. The search
for emergent themes resulted in two sets of analytical diagrams,3 one conceptual and
the other chronological.
The transcripts and the diagrams for Noriko, for instance, indicated that she tended
to deliberate by herself before speaking her mind. This tendency was supported by
several anecdotes recorded in the interviews—her secret, unsuccessful attempt to
transfer to a co-ed senior high school, the year-long deliberation and information col-
lection process before she revealed her decision to study in the United States, and the
delayed announcement of her wedding plans to her family. These incidents and several
others confirmed the consistency of her communication pattern, thinking deeply before
talking. This discovery was also validated by the observation of her reticence when she
was with her her fellow students and her hesitancy to participate in class and on-line.
While the observation field notes, supplemented by other additional data sources,
were used for the triangulation of findings and for laying out the scene, the interview
data was the pivotal source for the construction of the two case studies. The themes,
which emerged from the interview data and guided the development of the respec-
tive narratives, were ‘‘Think deeply before talking’’ (Noriko) and ‘‘Say little rather than
too much’’ (Seungwon). These cases illustrate the participants’ experiences with class
communication and the influences significant to their communication styles. Following
the development of the two cases, the common patterns across the cases were identified
to obtain not only a specific but also a generic understanding of the study.
Three techniques, purposive sampling, prolonged engagement, and member
checking, ensured the rigor of the research. Purposive sampling allowed the selection

1
All participants’ names mentioned in the study are pseudonyms.
2
See Appendix A for a partial transcription of an interview.
3
See Appendix B for sample analysis sheets.
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 263

of the focal participants who were among the most reticent in the class. Prolonged
engagement is critical to the investigation of the context and the establishment of
trust and rapport (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Keeping in close contact with the
course instructor and the focal participants for more than a year enabled the
researcher to develop an emic view and to establish amicable relationships with the
participants. Member checks were performed at each interview session and after the
drafts of the cases were written. The participants provided feedback and confirma-
tion of the factual and interpretive accuracy of the narratives, which reflected their
perspectives and disclosed their stories. Moreover, in order to assist readers of the
article in judging the applicability of the findings and in reaching generalizations
subjectively from their personal experiences (Stake, 1995), a description of the stu-
dents’ communicative contexts and relevant raw data are available4 in the article.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. A snapshot of the ESL Class5

The class met from 11:00 to 11:50 a.m. every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday in
a regular classroom, except for a few in-class writing sessions in a computer lab. The
classroom was located on the first floor of a historic building at the center of the
campus. There was only one entrance to the windowless, rectangular room. It had
numerous tubes on the ceiling. Four rows of florescent lighting provided the only
light source. In addition to a blackboard, an instructor’s desk, and an overhead
projector in the front, the room was full of more than 50 wooden chairs, oftentimes
loosely arranged in six or seven columns. When the class convened as a group, most
of the students sat in the first three rows. When engaging in group activities, the
students moved their chairs to various parts of the room.
When the bell rang at 11:00 a.m., the instructor, a teaching assistant named Liz,
who rated as an outstanding instructor on the official university course evaluation,
always started the class on time. She felt that every 50-min session was so short that
not a single moment should be wasted. Accordingly, there was almost no letup
during each class session. The first few minutes of class time were often spent on
administrative work. If there were homework assignments scheduled to be submitted
or returned that day, she collected or gave them back at the beginning of the class.
After talking about the homework and taking student questions, she immediately
announced the activities the class would perform in the current session.
These various activities were designed to help the students better understand the
theme of a unit6 as well as to improve their writing skills. The activities were either
formatted as a whole class discussion, small group discussion, pair, or individual

4
See Section 4, Findings and Discussion.
5
See Appendix C for a student roster.
6
See Appendix D for a list of the major units covered in the class, their corresponding themes, and
objectives.
264 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

work. During a whole class discussion, the instructor acted as a leader or as a

moderator, guiding the class interaction and prompting the students to participate.
For group discussion, the instructor divided the 18 students into four or five groups
and assigned them collaborative or cooperative tasks. The students usually were
paired for peer-editing activities, in which they commented on their partners’ writ-
ing. While the students worked with their group members to accomplish their tasks,
the instructor circled the groups to facilitate their work or discussions. For indivi-
dual activities, which were rare during the semester, the students worked on their
own assignments and asked the instructor for assistance when necessary. Sometimes,
she talked to the students individually about their papers. At the end of each activ-
ity, the instructor summed it up by linking it to the unit’s theme and asked for the
students’ reactions to the assigned tasks.
Before each class session ended, the instructor announced the homework due next
time, encouraged the students to make an appointment with her to discuss their
writing, and reminded them to use the class newsgroup for after-class communi-
cation. Believing that the newsgroup was an authentic communicative environment,
in which students could practice writing, she designed on-line tasks and always
encouraged, but did not require, the students to take advantage of this medium.
Table 1 summarizes the instructor’s typical class routine.
Students are placed in this class either after completing a prerequisite course or
directly after taking the ESL Placement Test (EPT) given by the university. Prior to
the beginning of the international students’ first semester on campus, EPT is admi-
nistered to those who score at or below 607 on the TOEFL (Test of English as a
Foreign Language). According to their EPT results, the students are either exempted
or required to take one to three ESL courses. The class under investigation was the
second in the sequence. Being assigned to the same class, the students ideally had
similar English proficiency, though their performances in terms of class participation
varied widely.

Table 1
Summary of the instructor’s typical class routine

Time Activities

11:00–11:05 a.m. WARM-UP

 commented on previous assignments; answered student questions
 collected papers on due dates
 gave directions for the activities to be performed by the students
11:05–11:47 a.m. VARIOUS ACTIVITIES
 facilitated whole class discussion, small group discussion, peer-editing, in-class
writing, and/or individual work
11:47–11:50 a.m. REMINDERS
 reminded the students of assignments due next time
 encouraged the students to contact the instructor and their fellow students
electronically
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 265

In a communicative class, active student participation is expected. This class,

nevertheless, was generally quiet and, sometimes, the instructor had to encourage or
remind the class to be interactive. The same five students contributed to class dis-
cussion more often than the others, despite the instructor’s attempts to balance the
opportunity for everyone to participate. The varied degrees of the students’ contribu-
tions to the in-class discussions were, in general, similar to their participation in the
newsgroup communication after class. The focal participants, Noriko and Seungwon,
who each sent only three messages throughout the semester, were among those who
took part least often in class and on-line discussions. With respect to the two students’
participation in discussions, their performances were related highly to their respective
communication styles, as discussed in their following case descriptions.

4.2. Noriko: think deeply before talking

Noriko’s single, most noticeable characteristic was her tendency to deliberate

before speaking. This characteristic affected her interaction patterns in many differ-
ent contexts, including her participation in peer conversation and class discussion,
both in Japan and in the United States. While the interview data suggested there
were some personal aspects to this tendency, there also was clearly a cultural foun-
dation to her sensitivity.

4.2.1. Personal aspects

I have my own opinion but I’m not used to tell my opinion. I’m shy, maybe, but
I don’t like to say my opinion to other people. . ..Every time I think by myself. I
keep something inside myself. (C1017)

Noriko was hesitant to express her own ideas partly because of her inner personal
nature. She was taciturn, shy, eager to form her own viewpoints but, at the same
time, easily persuaded by others. Noriko did not tell other people, including her
close friends and family members, what was going on in her mind until she was
ready. She was particularly cautious about releasing her thoughts-in-process about
important issues, such as her attempted school transfer and her plans to study in the
United States:

Probably I don’t want to be interrupted by others. In the case of the school

change or coming here, I don’t want to be interrupted by my parents. I wanted
to create my opinion at first, then I want to speak about that. (C117)

Noriko was afraid that advice or suggestions from others might lead her to
make a decision that she would later regret and for which she would not want
to be responsible. She explained why she would rather keep her thoughts to
herself:

7
The letter, A, B, C, or D, after a quotation refers respectively to the first through the fourth interview
with the participant discussed. The number after the letter is the reference number in the transcripts.
266 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

I go shopping with my friend. Then I think, hum, for example, the red one is
the best, but I hear the friend’s opinion. Then she said, she said blue one is
better. I think, ah, O.K., I get the blue one.. . .I regret that I choose the blue one
after I go home. I don’t want to regret when I decide something important, so I
think at first by myself then hear others. (D4, D5)

‘‘Thinking deeply before talking’’ allowed Noriko more time and space to develop
ideas on her own. Apparently, she was not used to expressing her viewpoints spon-
taneously or feeling it was beneficial to discuss and negotiate with others. The lack
of practice in discussion, especially in academic contexts, made her adjustment to
the ESL class difficult.

4.2.2. Cultural aspects

It [the discussion] is so hard in English and also in Japanese. I don’t know why,
but I have never discussed academically in high school. In Japan, there is no
discussion in class so it’s the first time. It’s really difficult. (A36)

Noriko’s academic experiences in her high school had a profound influence on her.
The private girls’ school was liberal, prestigious, and ranked as one of the best in
Tokyo in terms of its graduates’ performance on the national college entrance exami-
nations. Her teachers encouraged independent thinking and student autonomy: ‘‘We
can do anything in the school, but we have to think if we did right or wrong. But if we
think that’s right, we can do anything. . .’’ (C58) Noriko learned she had ‘‘to think by
myself and I have to have my own opinion.’’ (C64) However, believing in the impor-
tance of independent thinking did not encourage Noriko to share her viewpoints. On
the contrary, she avoided brainstorming. In order to formulate ideas solely by her-
self, she safeguarded her ideas from outside influence by choosing not to talk about
them.
Furthermore, within the framework of the Japanese educational system, the high
school that Noriko attended remains competitive, not because it is liberal and
advanced, but mainly because it has kept an excellent college entrance record. To help
students excel academically in entrance exams, teaching styles remain no different
from those adopted in many other schools in Japan. That is, teacher-centered class-
rooms and de-emphasis of collaborative academic work are prevalent: ‘‘We were asked
to be quiet in class.. . .There [was] no interaction in class.. . .In Japan, we just study
individually at school and at home. We have no experience in that group study.’’ (C96)
After attending several freshman classes which required collaboration and active
participation at the US university, Noriko found that group discussion was bene-
ficial in her science classes but not in the ESL class. She agreed that working toge-
ther was ‘‘a good idea for learning physics.’’ (C98). Nevertheless, to her,
participating in the ESL class was another matter. She explained the differences
between the two types of classes:

Huh, why? Probably I have to say my opinion in Liz’s class, right? But in the
physics class, we don’t say our opinion, not opinions, right? Maybe that’s the
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 267

difference. . ..I have my own opinion but I’m not, I’m not, I’m not used to tell
my opinion.. . .I don’t like to say my opinion to other people. (C100, C101)

The nature of the discussion topics had much to do with Noriko’s motivation to
participate. On one hand, in her physics and chemistry classes, the group discussions
were usually related to the description or explanation of lab procedures and prob-
lem-solving paths. On the other hand, discussion topics in the ESL class, such as
capital punishment, were sometimes very controversial. Noriko did not enjoy the
group work in which she was instructed to argue with other students and defend her
ideas.
In addition, the audience effect played a key role in Noriko’s participation in
public, both in class and on-line. When she had questions, she would first struggle by
herself and ask for help only when she could not resolve them on her own. She was
afraid her questions might not seem appropriate to other students:

I’m a little bit nervous about asking questions in class. I don’t know if a ques-
tion is appropriate. It’s easier for me to ask questions after class, only with
teachers. . ..It’s too stupid, the question. It’s better for me after class. (A44,
A45)

Noriko also did not feel at ease when writing to the class newsgroup, in which the
instructor was the main reader:

When I write . . .to my TA, like Liz or other TA[s], I worry about grammar or
spelling. . .. Because they are TAs. I don’t know. They are not friends, so, I
don’t know. Especially Liz. Liz is my teacher for English. I feel a little bit ner-
vous. (B28, B30)

Although Noriko checked the class newsgroup frequently, she, however, posted
only three messages: ‘‘I read the newsgroup. I check the newsgroup everyday, Every-
day. But I didn’t post the [messages], I just read.’’ (B51) Just as Noriko was anxious
during class discussions, she also felt uneasy with her newsgroup participation.

4.3. Seungwon: say little rather than too much

Reserved and quiet at the beginning of the semester, Seungwon looked like a
loner, a person not approached easily. In class, he usually sat next to a couple of
Japanese male students at the back of the classroom and remained silent. He seldom
participated except when called upon by the instructor or his group members to
answer a question. It was not until the first interview that he revealed the relative
richness of his knowledge of English and the situation underlying his reticence in
class.
Coming from a taciturn family, Seungwon felt that being silent should be respec-
ted. ‘‘My father and my mother are so introspective people. They don’t like us to
talk very much. Me, my brother and I don’t speak much among friends.’’ (A6)
268 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

According to Seungwon, ‘‘sometimes some people talk very much, a little bit much,
in communication with others.’’ (A10) In social gatherings that Seungwon attends in
Korea, conversation is often replaced by nonverbal behavior, such as playing Kor-
ean chess. Within an atmosphere in which verbal restraint is valued, Seungwon
believed it was better to say no more than enough.
Understandably, Seungwon also believed that being silent was ‘‘the virtue of stu-
dents.’’ (B57) In Korean classrooms, which are very formal, Seungwon never parti-
cipated verbally. It is customary that students speak only when invited by their
instructor, who is usually busy lecturing. In addition, ‘‘the professors also regard
those who don’t ask any questions as very good students.’’ (A12) Gradually,
Seungwon understood that to be considered a preferred student he should ‘‘Keep
silent. Just listen to what the teacher says.’’ (B72) His habit of observant silence was
praised and expected in Korea. Until he came to study in the United States, it did
not occur to him that reticence is seldom an expected classroom behavior.
Seungwon’s initial experiences in US classrooms were full of confusion and inner
conflicts. To him, a classroom should be a very formal setting in which formality
must be observed. However, in US classrooms, the Korean decorum, which includes
no eating and drinking as well as the required use of honorifics, was violated
according to Seungwon’s principles of conduct. Moreover, being accustomed to
expressing his feelings in Korean by altering the prefixes or suffixes of phrases, he
felt that English, which does not contain the same morphemic features, limited his
expression. This limitation consequently created a distance between him and his
English-speaking interlocutors. That is, when he used English, his feeling of mental
distance impeded him from easily getting familiar with whom he spoke. This feeling
of distance further made it difficult for him to engage in class activities.
For example, in the case of peer-editing, the way Seungwon gave his comments
correlated with his perceived relationship to the student who received the remarks:

When I peer-edited for the first time for Rosina’s paper, I find something wrong
in the cultural adjustment process. I thought that Rosina confused the ideas of
adjustment and adaptation, but I couldn’t do the real correction which I wan-
ted to make. Just, actually, I did want to say strongly what was wrong, what she
had to correct. But if I say this, she would be uncomfortable or somewhat angry
about that. So, I just write that you have to distinguish the process between
adjustment and adaptation. If she is very familiar to me, if she is Akira, or she
is Insook, or she is my Korean friends, I would strongly say that what it is right
or wrong. You shouldn’t have [mis]understood the concept of both. It’s a
problem in peer editing. In peer editing process, I can’t strongly correct what
was wrong. (A61)

In order to make peer-editing work well, Seungwon noted that ‘‘we have to be
familiar with each other.’’ (A63)
It was clear that to Seungwon, harmony was more important than the accuracy of
a writing assignment. In order not to sacrifice the relationship with his peers, whom
he did not know well, he would have rather not found fault with their writing. At his
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 269

perceived risk of offending his fellow students, he hesitated to speak frankly. In

contrast, in regard to those close to him, Seungwon felt comfortable pointing out
their mistakes. Their friendship, based on mutual understanding and trust, allowed
him not to be afraid that his candid statements would do any harm.
In spite of his struggles in the ESL class, as time passed, Seungwon formed a new
attitude toward class discussion. He found that the comments from the instructor
were much more helpful than those of his peers, but he acknowledged that peer-
editing is ‘‘the most useful skill to me’’ (A72) and could be transferred to many of his
business classes. Moreover, to Seungwon, being silent was no longer ‘‘a virtue for
students.’’ He agreed that ideal students ‘‘should ask more questions.’’ (B59) He also
commented, ‘‘I think [participation] is necessary in education, because when stu-
dents ask some questions, they learn more about the subject and they can ask
questions. Participation is very important.’’ (B61)
In addition, Seungwon noticed that the Korean educational system does not pro-
duce people who ‘‘have the advanced mind to compete with other people in the
world. . ..[O]nly reforming the educational system can decrease that kind of diffi-
culty.’’ (B84, B86) He thought the US educational system was an ideal one, which
should be adopted in Korea: ‘‘This educational system [in the United States] is more
reasonable, more rational, even though the students can get some lower grade. This
educational system encourages students to study.’’ (B64) Clearly, Seungwon devel-
oped a positive attitude toward class discussion in particular and toward the U.S.
education in general.

4.4. Common patterns tdentified across the two cases

4.4.1. Prevailing anxiety in the students’ engagement in discussion

The language teaching method implemented in the ESL class greatly influences
students’ anxiety levels. CLT, which expects students to invest themselves to a great
extent in learning activities, is prone to generate more anxious student response than
the conventional grammar-translation method (Arnold and Brown, 1999). In the
latter method, students are seldom asked to share personal aspects of their lives.
However, with the former method, students are usually required or encouraged to
overtly express their opinions, ideas, feelings, or attitudes in a language with which
they might not be comfortable and to share with others with whom they might not
be familiar. In such an educational context, language anxiety and communication
apprehension exist simultaneously.
Noriko’s anxiety largely derived from the conflict between her wish to form her
ideas without outside influence and the requirement of the class to exchange
thoughts; whereas the anxiety experienced by Seungwon related partly to his inter-
locutors. On one hand, Noriko worried that people could persuade her with ease;
therefore, in order to protect her ideas under formation, she tried not to reveal them.
On the other hand, Seungwon was hesitant to provide feedback to those with whom
he did not feel close, because he was concerned his candid remarks might have ‘‘hurt
their feelings.’’ (A59) When input was required, he endeavored to make his com-
ments so ambiguous that it was impossible for his peers to understand his exact
270 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

meaning. Although the sources of the two students’ anxiety differed, their anxiety
was a major block that inhibited their active participation.

4.4.2. Teacher as a sage on the stage

Noriko and Seungwon’s perceptions of their teacher’s role were associated with
their inclination to bestow classroom authority exclusively to the instructor. Being
the only native English speaker in the class, the instructor was esteemed and con-
sidered the most knowledgeable about the English language. The students expected
knowledge transmission from her. They also believed that her comments were more
accurate and reliable than those made by the other students. Seungwon explained,
‘‘because she is the teacher and she is the grader of my essay.’’ (A56)
Furthermore, perceiving that the instructor was there to evaluate them, Noriko
and Seungwon tried not to make any mistakes in front of her. In particular, Seung-
won was always on the alert in class and was anxious about when he would be called
upon next. When he was addressed, he worried about the intelligibility of his reply
as well as his vocabulary and grammar. Similarly, Noriko became self-conscious as
she talked or wrote to the instructor. When the two students engaged in commu-
nicative tasks, they self-monitored their performance as if there was a filter that
allowed only accurate output. The self-guarded language filter not only intensified
their anxiety but also prevented them from any spontaneous use of the language.
The students professedly held the traditional view of knowledge that it resides in
one’s mind and it can be transferred from an individual’s mind to another’s. This
understanding of knowledge is contradictory to the constructivist view of knowledge
encouraged in the class. Although the instructor acted as a facilitator and asked
students to build on each other’s strengths, Noriko and Seungwon would rather rely
on her than work with their peers. In order to convey the idea of constructive
learning to students who are accustomed to teacher-centered classrooms, it would be
beneficial to explain to the students, the rationale behind the teaching approach
adopted in class. Opportunities for the students to examine their ontology of
knowledge and their approaches to learning would also help their adjustment from
teacher-centric to student-centric classrooms.

4.4.3. Reticence on-line

Although Noriko and Seungwon considered the newsgroup discussion helpful,
they usually acted as observers. Most of the class made use of the newsgroup to
critique several paragraphs posted on-line, to reflect on a game played in class, to
share anecdotes regarding their culture shock, to talk about their activities during
Spring Break, and to help each other with their homework assignments.
Both students attributed their infrequent posting of three messages each to a lack
of time. As Seungwon explained, ‘‘I want to answer more sincerely [to the news-
group messages], but there is no time to answer that, and I have to prepare [for] the
other class, and then I just hesitate and give up.’’ (A85) Noriko also gave up after
reading the postings: ‘‘When I read somebody else’s questions, I think of the answer
but I was not sure. . ..I am not very clear about the answer.’’ (B52) To look more
closely, in addition to the time constraint, it was the students’ uncertainty about the
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 271

appropriateness and accuracy of their postings that stopped them from contributing.
Their penchant for careful and accurate on-line communication made writing to the
newsgroup a time-consuming and laborious effort. Admittedly, the newsgroup
forum can reduce language anxiety, but it is not a ‘‘non-threatening environment’’
(Beauvois, 1998, p. 199), especially for Noriko and Seungwon, when the main reader
was the instructor who was perceived as an evaluator.

4.4.4. Lack of experience with class discussion

Having been brought up and educated in competitive and exam-oriented educa-
tional systems, Noriko and Seungwon struggled to appreciate the collaborative and
performance-based learning context. Both had little experience with academic dis-
cussion prior to the ESL class. As Noriko put it, ‘‘In Japan, usually there is no time
to talk or ask in class, so [we] just listen and write, take the notes.’’ (A6) In a similar
manner, Seungwon recounted, ‘‘[In] South Korea, there is no class conversation in
high school or middle school. Even in college, there is not much class conversation.
Just, we were taking notes, just taking two exams in a semester. That’s all.’’ (B49)
He also noted, ‘‘Participation is just, just means attendance in South Korea.’’ (B68)
Collaborative efforts among students were never emphasized in the two students’
previous academic arenas. The de-emphasis of collaborative work and academic
discussion that take place within the context of exam-oriented educational systems
provides the key to why the two students did not feel peer collaboration was familiar
nor necessary. When the students took part in exams in their home countries, only
individual performance, not group work, counted. Especially in norm-referenced
entrance exams, in which the ranking of individuals determines their school place-
ment, competition rather than collaboration becomes critical to success. With little
experience in discussion and collaborative work, the students began their explora-
tion of the norms and values for academic discussion in this communicative class
and accordingly felt confused, disoriented, and stressed during their adjustment.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

With a focus on the situations underlying the two students’ reticence, this study
addresses their coping with second-language acquisition and academic adaptation in
a CLT class. Similar to previous studies (e.g. Barkhuizen, 1998, Carson and Nelson,
1994, 1996; Jackson, 2002; Liu and Littlewood, 1997; Shamim, 1996) that seek to
understand ESL students’ difficulties with class interaction, the findings of the cur-
rent research indicate that the interwoven affective, linguistic, and sociocultural
factors contribute to the students’ infrequent participation. Nevertheless, this
research reveals the students’ individuality while locating them in their cultural
contexts, which is different from many studies that put students into ethnic groups.
This study avoids attributing student difficulties simply to ethnic/cultural back-
grounds in order not to obscure the intricate nature of the situation (Cheng, 2000).
To further explore the complexity of background influences on class interaction,
future studies should investigate counter examples; for instance, active students
272 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

from Japan or Korea and reticent students from the other countries. Findings from
these studies will facilitate the re-examination of the association of ethnicity and
participation patterns. Ethnic tradition is one, but not necessarily the major aspect
that influences students’ class interaction. According to Seungwon, ‘‘That’s one of
my characteristics . . .one of my personalities. I think so. Other Korean, some Kor-
ean guys speak very much in the classroom and talk to other people very much
around campus. It depends, depends on personality.’’ (C67) When conducting
future studies on the topic, researchers must take both cultural aspects and indivi-
dual variations into consideration.
The data of this study also reflects the need to take care of students’ affective
domains during instruction and their cultural adjustment. Noriko and Seungwon’s
perception of the instructor as ‘‘a sage on the stage,’’ the concerns about the accu-
racy of their on-line postings, and their unfamiliarity with collaborative work all
associate with affective aspects in one way or another. Whereas the presence of the
instructor as a presumed evaluator in class and on-line triggered anxiety, the stu-
dents’ lack of understanding of academic collaboration also caused disorientation
and stress. As anxiety interferes with an individual’s processing of information
(Gudykunst and Kim, 1997) and leads to poor performance (Arnold and Brown,
1999), strategies for reducing anxiety are extremely necessary in language learning
and communication. Oxford (1999) provides suggestions for teachers to reduce
anxiety in language classrooms, e.g. creating a non-threatening context in which
moderate risk-taking is encouraged, initiating activities that deal with a variety of
learning styles, and assisting students in developing learning strategies to meet
classroom goals. Added to these strategies, CLT classes should provide opportu-
nities for students to revisit their concepts of knowledge, assumed roles of teachers,
and their approaches to learning. When students discard the lofty and authoritative
image of their instructors and appreciate the value of peer collaboration, they can be
less on-guard and have easier adjustments in communicative classes.

Acknowledgements

I thank Fred Davidson, Brian Lynch, Shwuyi Leu, and the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable suggestions on an earlier draft of this article.
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 273

Appendix A. Partial transcripts of the third interview with Seungwon

C1 Last time we talked about Huh, you asked me if English is a formal language or
the use of formal and informal language. Hmm, in my opinion right now, I
informal language in can’t, I can not, I can not tell formal language or
Korea, and you also informal language, just hmm, because there is no
mentioned that you found variation when we use English, hmm, just we use same
English language to be pattern and same formation. But in Korea, there is
formal. some variation when we use language.

2 What kind of variation? I mean, uh, the language is, the language differs
when we talk to, when we talk with elder people
whom we give our respect and when we talk with
just our friends, something like that but there is
no variation in English language. Just we speak
same language to elder people or our friends. But
in South Korea, we strictly use another language,
other language.

3 You mean a variation Ah, yeah, it’s the same as in Japanese, Japanese
like when you add language. When we think we have to show respect
something after a to some people, we Korean people vary the
sentence or a word. language we use and then, I mean, we can, we
Korean people can show respect or show our,
show our mind for another people, to vary our
language, I mean, to vary the beginning or the
ending of the language, we can express our mind
to other people, our respect, or our friendliness,
or something like that. When we are, talk with. . .
But I think, uh, when we Korean people use the
English language, we don’t mind of that, just
speak, just we have to speak, to talk what we want
to talk, to people.

4 Like when you use Hmm, yeah. But, hmm, in Korean society, we
informal language in have to be very sensitive to the language, which
Korea. we want to use, in each case. Before I came here,
I met huh, my, my senior students of my, of my
university in South Korea. In that case, I have to,
whenever we meet, I have to bow him, I have to
keep in mind that, keep in mind that I have to use
some other language, hmm, compare to meeting
my friends, I have to use some other language to
respect, to show respect to him.
274 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

5 When you talk to him in Huh, I think, in this situation, we have, we have
formal language, do you our definition of formal language and informal
feel he is more, kind of language. Hmm, I mean, when I talk in informal
respected, I mean, than language, which I feel very comfortable to use the
your friends? language, and formal language, formal language
is, which, huh, I have to, I have be in concern,
rather than in comfort. Yeah, so, huh, when I
meet older people or senior, senior in my college,
the formal language is the only language that I
can use in that case. There is no informal language
in that case.

6 So when you talk to your Yeah. That’s right.

Korean teachers, you
always use formal
language.

7 When you use formal Yeah.

language, you show your
respect.

8 Then, after you came here, Hmm, I think, huh, there is no difference, huh,
you talk to your professors mentally. Just, huh, just in America, I have only
in English. What do you to talk what I want to say. There is no mental
feel when you talk to them? difference to use the language. But to distinguish
English language from our own language, Korean
language, in Korean language, there are some
variations when I talk to people. But in America,
the language which I use to teacher and the
language which I use with my friends, American
friends, is the same, just the same. There is no
difference.
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 275

Appendix B. Sample analysis sheets—Noriko

Conceptual analysis
276 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

Chronological analysis

In Japan Education (general)

Elementary School I did well. . . I learn everything. . .It’s - In Japan, usually
interesting. (A20) there is no time to
talk or ask in class
so just listen and
write, take the notes.
(A6)
Junior High and - I chose private junior high school - We can ask after
Senior High School and high school. (A21) class. (A7)
- I was 12 years old. I chose to go to - There is no
a private junior high school [by interaction in class.
myself]. (C53) (A9)
- My junior HS was kind of a famous - We were asked to
school. . . So my friends in that HS be quiet in class.
have hard study parents. We need to (A10)
study so hard. . . when we entered the
junior HS, we need to take entrance
exam. (C54)
- We can do anything in that school. - There is no office
But we have to think if we did right hour. (A16)
or wrong but if we think that’s right,
we can do anything in that junior
HS. (C58)
- I have to have. . . my own opinion. - Public school is
(C64) not good about
education. Private
school is better for
going to colleges.
(A22)
- I have to think what I want to do. . . - Teaching English
I learn about that I my high school. in Japan is not so
(C66) good. We can not
read, we can not
speak English, so
well. (B15)
- the atmosphere. . . my high school is - The teachers’
free. (A21) opinion is stronger
than the students’
opinion [in public
high school]. (C61)
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 277

Reasons for coming - my mom and my teacher asked me to - In Japan, we just

to study at the go to some famous colleges in Japan study individually
university but I don’t like that. . .college. . . I really at school and at
want to study chemistry. . . I know this home. We have no
college is good for chemistry so I came experience in that
here. (A24) group study. (C96)
- Japanese college students do not
study. . . they just play in college. . . I
want to be a chemist, so I came here.
(A25)

In the US
Intensive English - I took IEI for a summer. . . Because I - They have office
Institute (IEI) was kind of novice, my English, I hours so it’s easy
wanted to study English before fall to ask questions. . .
semester. (A29) I think the office
hour is good. (A17)
Regular Classes - I lived in IT. . . In IT, there were only, - American teachers
almost, international students in IEI. . . are so kind. . .
I enjoyed the life here so much. . . in the Japanese teachers
summer. No homesick. I felt so good. I are not so kind.
felt free. No family. No mom. (B44) (A18)
- In the fall, I had the difficulty with - It’s easy to talk
study, in dormitory, and everything. . . to them [ESL
My life was changed totally. So I missed teachers]. I can
my family. (B47) talk something not
related to class.
(A19)
- I am not good at discussion. . . because - We have to study
it’s so hard to say, talk my opinion. . . a lot here, but in
(A35) Japan, I didn’t
study so much.
(B49)
- It’s so hard in English and also in - We think and
Japanese. I don’t’ know why but I have discuss, but in
never discussed in class so it’s the first Japan we just
time. It’s really difficult. (A36) memorize. . . There
is no discussion in
class most of the
time. (B49)
- I like the ESL class. (A63) - There is only
memorizing in
Japan, so it was
not so interesting.
I didn’t like that.
278 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

I think thinking
and discussing is
difficult but it helps.
It’s important for
me. (B50)
- My TA in the fall semester said only
to me, ‘‘You should check your
grammar.’’ They can understand my
report but I should write more formal
English in junior or senior years so
‘‘you should practice from now.’’ (B24)
- I have never written a paper in Japan,
in high school. I should learn academic
writing. (B27)
- My English was poor. The relationship
with my roommates was not so good.
(B43)
- I really learn chemistry here. That’s
good. (C76)
- I was nervous. It [class discussion] is so
difficult. (C82); give an example in
physics class (C83-90)
- When I was in that physics discussion,
I thought the style of the class is very
useful. . . we collect our ideas. (C97, 98)
- I have to say my opinion in Liz’s class. . .
but in the physics class, we don’t say our
opinion. (C100)

Appendix C. Student roster

Pseudonyms Gender Status College Native Length of stay

Language in the USA
Insook F Exchange CBA Korean < 1 year
Seungwon M Senior CBA Korean < 1 year
Akira M Exchange CBA Japanese < 1 year
Hideki M Exchange CBA Japanese < 1 year
Norihito M Exchange Engineering Japanese < 1 year
Noriko F Freshman LAS Japanese < 1 year

(continued on next page)

 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 279

Appendix C. (continued)

Pseudonyms Gender Status College Native Length of stay

Language in the USA
Yasuko F Exchange LAS Japanese < 1 year
Chiang M Freshman LAS Mandarin 4.5 years
Chung M Freshman CBA Cantonese < 1 year
Lee M Freshman LAS Cantonese < 1 year
Aslam F Junior Engineering Malay 2.5 years
Maha F Junior Engineering Malay < 1 year
Mursaleena F Freshman CBA Arabic 2 years
Rosina F Sophomore FAA Romanian 2 years
Tara F Freshman LAS Danish < 1 year
Antonio M Exchange CBA Portuguese < 1 year
Anna F Exchange Engineering Spanish < 1 year
Julio M Exchange Engineering Spanish < 1 year

CBA=Commerce and Business Administration; LAS=Liberal Arts and Sciences;

FAA=Fine and Applied Arts.

Appendix D. List of the major course units, themes, and unit objectives (adapted
from the course packet)

Course units Themes Objectives

Comparison/ Plagiarism 1. Review the elements of the paragraph.
contrast 2. Educate students about plagiarism.
3. Teach the skills of paraphrasing, summarizing,
and quoting.
4. Introduce comparison/contrast as a rhetorical
mode.

Process essay Cultural 1. Introduce the essay.

adjustment 2. Educate students about cultural adjustment.
3. Teach students about and provide them with
focused practice on developing introductory
paragraphs and outlining.
4. Introduce informational process as a rhetorical
mode.

(continued on next page)

280 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281

Appendix D. (continued)

Course units Themes Objectives

Cause/effect Computers 1. Introduce cause/effect as a rhetorical mode.
essay in education 2. Provide students with focused practice on using
sources.
3. Provide students with focus on transition between
body paragraphs and developing conclusions.

Argumentation Capital 1. Educate students about capital punishment.

punishment 2. Teach students about and provide them with
focused practice on integrating sources and
developing concluding paragraphs.
3. Introduce argumentation as a rhetorical mode.

References

Arnold, J., Brown, H.D., 1999. A map of the terrain. In: Arnold, J. (Ed.), Affect in Language Learning.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–24.
Atkinson, D., 1999. TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly 33 (4), 625–654.
Barkhuizen, G.P., 1998. Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in
a South African context. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 85–108.
Beauvois, M.H., 1998. Conversations in slow motion: computer-mediated communication in the foreign
language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 (2), 198–217.
Carson, J.G., Nelson, G.L., 1994. Writing groups: cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language
Writing 3 (1), 17–30.
Carson, J.G., Nelson, G.L., 1996. Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction.
Journal of Second Language Writing 5 (1), 1–19.
Cheng, X., 2000. Asian students’ reticence revisited. System 28 (3), 435–446.
Cortazzi, M., Jin, L., 1996. Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In: Coleman, H. (Ed.),
Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 169–206.
González, N., 1999. What will we do when culture does not exist anymore? Anthropology & Education
Quarterly 30 (4), 431–435.
Gudykunst, W.B., Kim, Y.Y., 1997. Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural
Communication. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hinde, R.A., 1999. The immortal self: reflections on a passage by H.G. Wells. Human Development 42,
260–265.
Hymes, D., 1972. On communicative competence. In: Pride, J.B., Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics:
Selected Readings. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, pp. 269–293.
Jackson, J., 2002. Reticence in second language case discussions: anxiety and aspirations. System 30 (1),
65–84.
Kubota, R., 1999. Japanese culture constructed by discourses: implications for applied linguistics research
and ELT. TESOL Quarterly 33 (1), 9–35.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., Davis, J.H., 1997. The Art and Science of Portraiture. Jossey-Bass, San Fran-
cisco.
Li, D., 1998. ‘‘It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine’’: teachers’ perceived difficulties in
introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly 32 (4), 677–703.
 T. Chen / System 31 (2003) 259–281 281

Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Liu, N.F., Littlewood, W., 1997. Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom
learning discourse? System 25 (3), 371–384.
LoCastro, V., 1996. English language education in Japan. In: Coleman, H. (Ed.), Society and the Lan-
guage Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 40–58.
Oxford, R.L., 1999. Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. In: Arnold, J. (Ed.), Affect in Lan-
guage Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 58–67.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., Linnell, J., 1996. Language learners’ interaction: how does it
address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30 (1), 59–84.
Shamim, F., 1996. Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. In: Coleman, H. (Ed.),
Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 105–121.
Stake, R.E., 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Witz, K.G., Goodwin, D.R., Hart, R.S., Thomas, H.S., 2001. An essentialist methodology in education-
related research using in-depth interviews. Journal of Curriculum Studies 33 (2), 195–227.