Journal of Studies in International Education-2005-Tatar-337-55

10.
1177/1028315305280967
Journal of Studies in International Education
Tatar / Classroom Participation by International Students
Winter 2005
Classroom Participation by
International Students: The Case
of Turkish Graduate Students
Sibel Tatar
This article explores four Turkish students perceptions of participation in graduate
courses at a U.S. university. Data were collected during one academic semester
through in-depth interviews, a focus group interview, classroom observations, and
collection of relevant documents. The findings suggest that the participants classroom participation experiences were influenced by multiple factors, the major ones
being educational factors (e.g., cultural background), environmental factors (e.g.,
discussion topic), and influence of classroom dynamics (e.g., peer dominance in discussion). These factors, moreover, were intricately interrelated in ways that led to
different classroom environments that may be described using a continuum from the
most anxiety provoking to the most facilitative.
Keywords:
intercultural communication; classroom participation; cross-cultural

communication; international students; nonnative English speaking;
international education
With the steady increase in the international student enrollment in U.S. universities, a great deal of research addressing these students adjustment processes and various needs has been carried out. Research on the academic experiences of international students suggests that coming from diverse cultural,
educational, and linguistic backgrounds, international students have many problems in conforming to the U.S. academic life. Reasons cited include unfamiliarity with the university culture in general, differences between the educational
system and values of the home country and the United States, and lack of sufficient language skills (Abe, Talbot, & Geelhoed, 1998; Burke & Wyat-Smith,
1996; Deressa & Beavers, 1986; Leong & Sedlacek, 1989; Mallinckrodt &
Leong, 1992).
In many U.S. classrooms, active oral classroom participation is a skill that is
strongly encouraged. However, international students, mostly coming from
Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 9 No. 4, Winter 2005 337-355
DOI: 10.1177/1028315305280967
2005 Association for Studies in International Education
337
Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at Universiti Putra Malaysia on April 16, 2016
338
Winter 2005
teacher-centered educational cultures where students do not speak without

being called on, find the rules of classroom participation in the United States to
be unfamiliar and complex. In graduate courses where oral classroom participation is highly valued, international graduate students face the challenge of having to produce immediate responses and compete with native speakers as well as
worry about sounding competent and intelligent in a foreign language. Their situation becomes even more challenging with the high oral participation of some
U.S. students, who can be dominant in classroom discussions.
Classroom participation has been studied as part of the academic adjustment
of international students in a new academic institution. Most such studies look at
behaviors, such as the number of times a student initiates an interaction or asks a
question, which gives a superficial picture of participation and mostly ignores
complex factors that might influence behaviors. Students from cultures in which
oral classroom participation is not the norm may be of special interest, as these
students often have greater linguistic as well as cultural gaps to cross. In the literature surveyed, there is a scarcity of research on specific populations among
international students. Moreover, although Turkish students rank eighth, representing 2% of all the international student population in the United States
according to the annual report of the Institute of International Education (2004),
no studies have looked at the experiences of Turkish students studying at U.S.
universities.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to describe, examine, and interpret four Turkish
graduate students perceptions of classroom participation in their academic
courses. The study examines classroom participation phenomena by not only
drawing on direct observations of classroom behaviors but also making use of
the learners own perceptions. Exploring a crucial aspect of the classroom
behavior of Turkish graduate students, the study aims to raise U.S. faculty and
students awareness of the difficulties international students experience in
adapting to U.S. classrooms and reasons for their silence in graduate classes.
Through a better understanding of the factors affecting international students
experiences, U.S. faculty and peers can support their efforts to become more
active participants in their classes and thus more competent members of the academic community. Students who are planning to come to the United States for
graduate study from other countries may also benefit in terms of being more
informed about the dynamics of graduate classes.
The research questions addressed in the study to understand Turkish students
classroom participation perceptions were as follows:
339
(a) What are Turkish graduate students general perceptions of classroom participation?
(b) In what ways do Turkish students find the conventions and structures of U.S. academic
classrooms different from their native cultural academic conventions?
(c) What are the salient factors influencing the classroom participation of Turkish
students?
(d) How do Turkish graduate students perceive the participation behavior of their peers and
how do these perceptions influence their participation?
LITERATURE ON CLASSROOM PARTICIPATION

Research on classroom interaction starts with studies focusing on the observable aspects of interaction such as the characteristics of the language used by the
students and the teacher. In these studies, the number of turns taken by the
learner or the number of questions asked were the indicators for participation. In
the past decade, research studies investigated more the unobservable aspects of
classroom interaction, such as linguistic difficulties and cultural influences.
Student difficulty in classroom participation is an underestimated issue in the
literature. Ferris and Tagg (1996) state that difficulty in participating is often
insufficiently addressed in the research (p. 32). Moreover, research mostly
focuses on the difficulties of English-as-second-language (ESL) students in
their language classes (Gahala, 1986; Sato, 1982). Considering that active participation is highly valued and encouraged by instructors in many U.S. institutions, expectations from graduate-level students are much higher compared to
ESL students. International graduate students are not perceived as language
learners in their academic courses; they are treated as members of the academic
community and expected to participate on an equal basis with native-Englishspeaking students.
Difficulties with using and understanding the English language and a lack of
proficiency in English have been the two greatest factors that affected the adaptation of international students to U.S. academic culture (Chapman, Wan, & Xu,
1988; Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Xu, 1991). In addition to language difficulties, cultural differences are thought to play an important role in shaping the
classroom participation of international students. Students from European
countries and Canada are found to adjust to U.S. academia more easily because
of the similarity of their cultural backgrounds to U.S. students (Church, 1982;
Spaulding & Flack, 1976). Many research studies have investigated the experiences of students from east and southeast Asian countries and how cultural background influences classroom behavior. In this regard, the silence of Asian students is well documented. Sato (1982) looked at the interaction of Asian and
non-Asian students in two college ESL classes. The results showed that Asian
students took significantly fewer speaking turns than did non-Asian students. In
340
Winter 2005
a recent study, Pinheiro (2001) noted that many students from various Asian
countries perceived classroom discussions as a matter of students reading articles and saying disconnected things in class (p. 7) and that they preferred more
structured discussions in which the instructor took a more active role. A study of
Japanese students attending ESL courses at a U.S. college found that students
did not feel that speaking was a priority (Dwyer & Heller-Murphy, 1996, p.
51). Lam (1994) looked at the turn-taking behavior of eight Chinese students
from Taiwan participating in graduate classes at a U.S. university and found
three patterns of participation: active, passive verbal, and silent. Morgenstern
(1992), in her study, found that although there were many opportunities for the
study participants to contribute, the classroom discussions seemed to be dominated by certain students. Some students assumed that only those with the most
knowledge should participate. In Flowerdew and Millers (1996) study, nativeEnglish-speaking instructors in Hong Kong complained about the unresponsiveness of their Chinese students.
Studies of the experiences of mixed groups of international students indicated similar findings (Huntley, 1993; Jones, 1999). For example, Kao and
Gansneders (1995) survey study of 355 international students found that ESL
students participated much less than native students and that participation was a
complex behavior that is influenced by both culture and personality. Tappers
(1996) study of 8 undergraduate students from El Salvador, the Netherlands,
Guinea Bissau, Indonesia, Kuwait, Mexico, Singapore, and Taiwan showed that
only 1 international student initiated interactions in class. Liu and Kuos (1996)
survey of 51 international graduate students found that spoken English proficiency and knowledge of subject matter were the most influential factors contributing to a students speaking up in class. The results also indicated that students have the potential to speak up, but they were overcautious in risk taking
and socializing. Similarly, Shaw and Baileys (1990) empirical study indicated
that foreign students asked fewer questions than their U.S. peers.
The research cited mostly relies on surveys to examine classroom participation, and the interpretations of students have not been sufficiently explored
through in-depth interviews or direct observations. An attempt to explain classroom participation through students perspectives and by taking into account
various factors was Lius (2001) multicase ethnographic study. Liu interviewed
20 students from various Asian countries and observed 7 of them during 1 academic year; he identified four classroom participation patterns: total integration,
conditional participation, marginal interaction, and silent observation. The patterns took place on a continuum, moving from the most active to the least active
and silent. The participants behavior was not clear-cut and static; the classroom
participation behavior changed depending on their perceptions, influenced by
341
complex factors including cognitive, pedagogical, affective, sociocultural, and

linguistic.
Although no studies have explored Turkish students participation experiences, some research indicates similarities between Turkish and Asian cultures
in terms of the teaching and learning strategies valued (Bichelmeyer & Cagiltay,
2000). In Turkish educational culture, oral participation is not usually encouraged
(Turgut, 1997).
Although this body of literature on international students continues to grow,
few studies have explored the issue from the perspective of various national or
cultural groups. In studies with mixed groups of students, international students
have been treated as one single group. Also, although speaking up is a complex,
multidimensional behavior (Kao & Gansneder, 1995), most of the literature
surveyed has limited classroom participation to a set of variables without exploring the interactions among different factors influencing classroom participation.
In almost all studies, participation has generally referred to oral participation,
which has been accepted as the norm. This has even led to an idealization of U.S.
classrooms over others (Kubota, 2001). Many international students, including
Turkish students, come from countries or cultures where oral participation may
not be the common practice in the classroom and participation can be both verbal
and nonverbal. To understand the complexities of international student participation, not only the influence of cultural background and language difficulties
but also other factors that might come into play need to be investigated. This
study is an attempt to address these needs.
METHOD
To investigate the classroom participation of Turkish students in depth, I
employed a qualitative, descriptive, multicase study approach as a research
methodology. The considerations for using a qualitative approach are (a) the
research questions are broad, flexible, and open ended; (b) it is believed the
research questions can be best answered through an in-depth examination of the
classroom participation phenomenon; (c) the purpose is to not to look for explanations or predications generalizable to other populations but to gain insight,
discovery and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing (Merriam, 2001,
p. 28).
Participants
Four Turkish graduate students, two men (pseudonyms Cem and Erhan) and
two women (pseudonyms Gamze and Pinar) majoring in elementary education,
special education, and early childhood education at a large midwestern research
342
Winter 2005
university, ranging in age from mid-20s to early 30s, participated in the study.
They were selected on a purposeful sampling basis from among the Turkish
scholarship students who had completed at least a semester in a graduate program in the United States at the time of the data collection. At the time of the
study, male participants were doctoral students and female participants were
masters students. Having obtained their undergraduate degrees in Turkey, the
participants were similar in terms of their educational backgrounds, language
learning experiences, and prior U.S. experiences.
Data Collection
Pursuant to federal law and university policy, human subjects committee
approval was obtained for the study prior to collecting the data. Data for this
research were collected during a 4-month period (the duration of an academic
semester) through (a) formal and informal interviews with Turkish graduate students (26 interviews totaling 14.6 hr), (b) classroom observations of 48 sessions
(107.5 hr), (c) a focus group interview (100 min), and (d) collections of relevant
documents such as course syllabi and presentation handouts.
Twenty-six interviews of an average of 33 minutes and a focus group interview were conducted. All of the interviews were conducted in Turkish to allow
the participants to express their ideas more clearly and comfortably. Observation data were collected from 8 of the 11 courses the participants were taking. All
of the classes observed were graduate seminars in which instructors encouraged
active student participation. Each participant was observed for 5 weeks in all
courses during the semester, including their end-of-semester presentations.
Data Analysis Procedures

Data analysis was done simultaneously with data collection. After all the
interviews were completed, they were transcribed and submitted to the participants for confirmation. In analyzing the data, a typical procedure for qualitative
research was followed (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The transcriptions of the
interviews and the field notes were read several times looking for topics frequently mentioned. They were first summarized in brief phrases, which were
then listed in the order in which they appeared in the interviews and grouped into
categories. By refining these categories, I developed a framework of basic categories across cases that I used to color code all the interview data. Then, I looked
for possible links among these categories. The categories and themes emerging
from the interview data were compared to the observation data.
343
FINDINGS
The data revealed three major factors that seemed to influence the classroom
participation of Turkish students: educational culture, environmental factors,
and classroom dynamics.
Role of Educational Culture

This refers to the role of native cultural academic and educational conventions that the participants brought to the U.S. classrooms regarding the importance of discussion in learning and how instructors were viewed in the learning
process.
Meaningfulness and quality. The study participants perceived a big difference
between their understanding and U.S. instructors and students understanding of
participation, which led them to make a distinction between participation and meaningful participation: People in here [U.S. students] see class participation somewhat
different, something like describing their own experiences. I mean without worrying
about whether it is meaningful or not (Erhan, Interview 5, November 3, 2002).
The distinction that Turkish students made between participation and meaningful participation was centered around academic content, applicability, practical usefulness, relevancy, originality, and usefulness to others. The participants
viewed oral participation as presentation of formally acquired academic knowledge, which was quite different from U.S. instructors and students perception
of classroom participation as a less formal event in which to freely share ideas.
Therefore, they did not feel comfortable expressing their ideas without doing
careful thinking and preparation to assess their content value in advance. The
criterion of usefulness to others may be related to the influence of the collectivist
aspect of Turkish culture. The students perceived it as inappropriate to contribute through their personal experiences unless they thought that they would be
useful to others. Likewise, they expected other contributors to present information valuable and relevant to every member of the class that would lead to new
learning. These perceptions were reflected in the silence of the study students
when their ideas did not meet their criteria.
All participants shared general rules for oral classroom participation that
valued silence over talk, as in Cems statement, Maybe it is something that
originates from our own culture. Listening is better than speaking; I mean we
are listening-oriented people, not speaking (Interview 2, October 4, 2002).
These rules were (a) talking when you are knowledgeable enough, (b) talking
too much could mean showing off, and (c) being selective about what to share.
Although all participants believed in the potential benefits of classroom discussion as a learning activity, there was a general dissatisfaction with the input they
344
Winter 2005
received from discussions, especially when they were dominated by certain students.
Controversy, presence of conflicting views, and negotiation of meaning were mentioned as the components of a quality discussion:
I like the type of discussions where students said new things and they created ideas,
even completely opposite ideas. . . . I dont like when people just repeat things that
everyone already knows and accepts, or just say things that would be nice to say.
(Gamze, Interview 5, November 21, 2002)
Oral participation, being a stressful event, was not the only means by which the
students involved themselves with their courses. The students did extensive preparation before course sessions and regularly attended all the small-group meetings.
Most of the time, they looked attentive and involved with classroom activities. Some
of the behaviors to prove involvement were maintaining constant eye contact with
the instructor, smiling, nodding, flipping through books or notes, or even answering
a trivial question the instructor asked (field notes). These behaviors pointed to an
important distinction between engagement and oral participation.
In sum, study participants had a broader notion of participation, which was
not limited to speaking in the classroom. Participation referred to preparedness,
engagement, and appropriate behavior in the classroom. They all perceived oral
classroom participation as a complex task that needed mental preparation, which
made participation a duty or requirement to be fulfilled rather than a voluntary or
informal task. Because of the difficulty of meeting the high standards they had
set for oral participation, they mostly silenced themselves.
Learning styles and role of instructor. The responses of the participants showed
that their cultural academic framework influenced their perceptions of and approaches
to learning and their preferred learning styles. The students reported two types of difficulties: unfamiliarity with discussion as a learning and teaching method and the
perceived role of instructor.
Coming from an educational background where interaction with peers or learning
through discussion almost did not exist, it was natural for a Turkish student to sit in
the classroom without participating. Limited exposure to discussion-oriented courses
in their home country made such courses new and anxiety provoking for them. For
them, the ideal learning situation was one in which the instructor was more in control
of the teaching activity and the discussions. This teaching style was motivating and
increased their active oral participation:
This instructor said: I will discuss such and such in this session and started to speak.
She explained her idea and gave an example. Then she repeated the main idea. If someone attempted to ask some trivial question, she said, in a nice manner, No, no, that is
345
not our topic now. . . . And she focused everyones attention to the main idea again.
(Gamze, Interview 1, October 10, 2002)
The responses of the study participants also referred to the value of listening in
learning. They constantly listened, reflected, and evaluated the contributions of others, which demonstrated their active mental involvement even when they were silent.
Their silence or less frequent oral participation did not indicate a lack of interest or
knowledge but showed that they found listening as a more effective learning method
than speaking in some cases: I dont like speaking in that class. I like listening.
While I am learning something, I listen instead of speaking (Pinar, Interview 3,
October 10, 2002). Such views indicated the importance of active listening, which is
usually overlooked in U.S. graduate courses, as an effective learning strategy.
Strongly influenced by the teacher-centered Turkish culture, study participants viewed the instructors as the main sources of knowledge and the authority
figure. They expected the instructors to be more effective in shaping the flow of
discussions and making them more useful to the learners. Out-of-classroom
relationships with professors became important, especially when the students
were not orally active in the class. Although building a relationship with the
instructors did not necessarily result in higher participation, it had a positive
impact on participants general motivation for and comfort level in the course.
Environmental Factors
This category referred to the factors that were indirectly related to the students themselves and rather emanated from the course requirements or the
instructors.
Oral participation as a requirement. All participants enjoyed contributing to discussions when they felt that they had a meaningful statement to make and the decision to participate was theirs. Erhan stated,
The instructor does not force you to participate. He does not go and ask students What
do you think? That is comforting. I mean, it is always better to speak on your own will.
When you know that you are supposed to say something, that is difficult. (Erhan, Interview 4, October 26, 2002)
Situations in which only a small percentage of the course grade was allotted to
participation seemed to take the pressure off the students and increased their comfort
level in the classroom. Some of them saw the benefit of grading participation in terms
of forcing students to prepare in advance, thereby producing more useful discussions. If a high participation percentage pushed students to be careful about the content and quality of their contributions, overly verbal students would be less likely to
346
Winter 2005
dominate. Participants believed that instructors should set high expectations for
participation and make their expectations clear.
Discussion topic. Participants usually developed a more positive attitude toward
discussion topics that took into account perspectives other than the U.S. perspective.
However, in general, they felt a lack of cross-cultural approaches and an overrepresentation of the U.S. point of view. These factors both reduced their interest and
eventually resulted in their silence, because they thought that their ideas were irrelevant to the U.S. context:
Sometimes some of the things discussed in the classroom have no applicability to your
country. They have been used here in the U.S. for a long time and these people have long
ago passed the stage you are in. Therefore you dont want to say what you have in mind.
(Gamze, Interview 1, October 10, 2002)
In general, study participants had to assume the role of knowledge recipients due
to their unfamiliarity with U.S. educational practices. However, in discussions where
the topic called for international students experiences, some participants felt a temporary reversal of role, which made these discussions more meaningful to them.
This illustrated that participants subjective perception of meaningfulness was
related, at least in part, to whether they felt an outsider or insider to the discussions.
Preparedness. The study participants found being prepared important to both
their learning and their self-confidence. From their perspective, preparedness was
achieved by reading assigned materials in advance and preparing notes and questions
relevant to this material. Some participants developed strategies to increase their
active participation by taking down notes on the readings or preparing questions to
ask. However, despite all prior preparation, they sometimes simply lost chances to
participate. Advance preparation seemed to be a good strategy but did not guarantee
verbal participation because of the spontaneous nature of classroom discussions.
However, it helped reduce anxiety.
The participants believed that instructors had an important role to play in student preparedness. Requesting short paragraphs from students on the assigned
readings or sending study questions to accompany reading material before the
sessions were some of the strategies used by instructors that study participants
found useful for advance preparation. These strategies seemed to work better in
increasing oral participation than other strategies such as grading participation
or calling on students.
For nonnative students, preparedness seems to be an area in which they could
strengthen themselves to reduce the negative effects of their lack of experience
or unfamiliarity with U.S. context on verbal participation. The kind of prepared-
347
ness described by study participants draws on the common reading materials

available to all students in the class as opposed to external sources of knowledge
and experience that U.S. students tend to bring to the classroom. At least from
the point of view of content, preparedness could offer equal opportunities to
both native and nonnative students to verbally participate in the discussions if
the instructors focus classroom discussions on the relevant readings.
Dynamics of Classroom
Classroom dynamics were related to the influence of the students in a classroom with whom the study participants interacted in various ways.
Being a nonnative speaker. All participants responses implied a certain divide
they perceived between U.S. students and international students, which was most
noticeable through language. No matter how proficient they were, they believed that
they could never make this division disappear. Their common definition of an international student was characterized by insufficient language skills and unfamiliarity
with the U.S. educational culture.
Study participants associated themselves with international students in various ways. According to them, the majority of international students were silent
in classrooms and most international students shared their concept of meaningfulness. The presence of other international students who were experiencing
similar difficulties to theirs reduced their feelings of difference as nonnative
speakers. They all agreed that international students were generally associated
with silence and a certain degree of incapacity, which they felt through some of
their peers or instructors behavior. As a reaction to being perceived as less competent, some participants used active oral participation as a strategy. For example, Gamze and Pinar made efforts to be orally active in group work assignments
because they thought active oral participation would project their equality with
their U.S. peers. For them, oral participation was a way to present themselves as
powerful members of the class.
Role of peers. Participants categorized native students into two groups according
to their oral participation behavior: those who verbally dominated international students and those who were supportive. Native students they perceived as talkative
were those who spoke frequently and often expressed their personal opinions. Participants perceived these students as dominating discussions or patronizing others in
groups by using their language advantage. The impromptu verbalizing of these students caused resentment, because they were perceived as wasting class time with
excessive talking and by taking discussions into irrelevant directions. The presence
of many talkative native students in the classroom or in groups caused intimidation
348
Winter 2005
and a sense of exclusion. Avoiding social contact or confrontation with such students
were common strategies used by the participants (field notes).
The other group of native students was perceived as more thoughtful and empathetic to nonnative students difficulties and willing to take the time to let nonnative
students organize their thoughts and express themselves in a second language. As
Cem stated, this group of students influenced study participants entire attitude
toward a course and made their classroom experiences positive:
There is some kind of comforting feeling with this group. . . . I feel that they really
understand what I am trying to say. . . . If I can not say exactly what I wanted to say, they
complete my sentences and this makes me relaxed . . . and influences my participation.
(Cem, Interview 2, October 4, 2002)
Presence of Turkish students. All study participants mentioned a degree of anxiety orally participating in the presence of other Turkish students due to the fear of
making mistakes or not being able to speak English well: I dont like speaking when
X is in my group. I do speak, though . . . to Turks in the same group . . . because I do
judge how others speak, maybe thats why (Pinar, Interview 3, October 10, 2002).
However, the observations revealed that study participants who reported discomfort
in the presence of other Turkish students were actually comfortable participating
when they perceived their own language skills as better than those of the others. They
tended to keep quiet with Turkish students who were more active and aggressive in
participation behavior. The anxiety of Turkish students could be attributed to the
concept of face in Turkish culture; the students believed that they would lose prestige
when they made mistakes.
Avoiding confrontation with other Turkish students in the classroom was a
common behavior among the participants. At least three reported that they
mostly refrained from expressing their disagreement about other Turkish students ideas. There might be several reasons for this behavior. One of the reasons
that was stated by the participants was to protect the image of their country and
culture. They believed that arguing about Turkey in a U.S. classroom would be
inappropriate and give a poor representation of Turkish people. Another reason
might be the emphasis on social responsibility and maintaining good relations
with people in Turkish culture. In the classroom, good intentions are demonstrated through not challenging other students opinions or by being neutral.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the factors considered most salient to understanding their participation
behavior, some consistent observations were:
349
1. Turkish students content, form, and frequency of participation differed across courses
and situations. Although cultural background and academic learning styles were influential, their participation behavior in the classroom was influenced by context-dependent
factors as well as cultural and academic perceptions.
2. Turkish students benefited from classroom discussions in various ways. However,
they did not find oral participation a major contributor to their own academic learning
experience. The students participated more for affective reasons such as building selfconfidence rather than building knowledge.
3. Unequal power dynamics in the classroom and lack of acknowledgement negatively
influenced Turkish studentsexperience of classroom participation, whereas empowerment through being included positively influenced it.
4. The classroom climate was a major determinant in participants experiences of classroom participation. Supportive classroom environments facilitated active oral participation, whereas high-anxiety atmospheres increased feelings of isolation.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

As a qualitative case study with 4 participants, the findings are not generalizable due to the small sample size but may be carefully considered for transferability to other situations. Participants in the study were a representative sample
of Turkish students studying in the United States and sharing many characteristics with them including educational background, language proficiency, and
participation in the classroom. The study focused on one cultural group, and
other cultural groups or other settings might yield different results. Also,
because I am a member of the participants cultural group and many of my experiences resonate with theirs, the data were analyzed and reported from an
insiders perspective, which should be taken into account.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth investigation to describe,
analyze, and interpret the classroom participation experiences of four Turkish
graduate students at a U.S. university. Based on previous studies of classroom
participation, several issues emerged such as the role of prior educational experiences, native cultural academic conventions, and influence of lack of language
skills. In addition to these factors, the results also showed how instructors, peers,
and the course and classroom structure contributed to participants classroom
participation.
Turkish students are found to show a variety of participation patterns. Contrary to many studies that predominantly documented the silence of Asian students and other international students, Turkish students were not all silent. The
350
Winter 2005
results of the study provided insights into the quality, form, and content of participation that were not discussed previously.
Unlike previous studies, which attributed lack of oral classroom participation
to language skill level or influence of cultural background, this study found
that oral participation is also a classroom event that is shaped very powerfully by
situation-specific factors, the main ones being the instructors and other students attitudes toward the participants and their contributions. Lack of acknowledgement or indifference to diverse opinions might lead to negative attitudes
and lower the willingness of learners to participate.
The study documented that classroom participation can take various forms,
both verbal and nonverbal, and silence is not necessarily an indication of nonengagement. Participants of the study showed their silent engagement in many
ways, including prior preparation or attentive listening. This finding challenges
the prevailing view in the literature that silent students are not involved or interested in classes. However, participants in this study sometimes perceived that
verbal engagement was valued more in the U.S. context: As one participant put
it, If you are engaged, you have to speak (focus group interview, December 18,
2002).
Although many studies treated classroom participation as a mechanical event
associated with certain student behaviors, the findings of this study point out the
complexities of the nature of participation. For example, participants thought
that classroom discussions were useful when structured in a way that embraces
diverse perspectives and gives both native and nonnative students equal opportunities to participate. In addition, their perceptions of meaningful contribution
and criteria of quality discussion were related to the degree they felt included in
the discussions. Through integration of cross-cultural perspectives, study participants felt empowered to participate more actively.
A message that came through very clearly in this study was that students
wanted classroom discussions to be more structured, in the sense that they focus
on the reading material of the course and they are guided by the instructor. Participants did not see classroom discussion only as a matter of talking, but talking
about specific issues that are relevant to everyone in the classroom and that
requires prior preparation. Although research indicates many benefits of discussion as a learning strategy, especially for nonnative speakers (Levine, 1999;
Pomerantz, 1998), the findings of this study imply that the benefits might be
invisible when discussions are not well structured.
Finally, the study found that frequency of oral contribution was not a major
concern to the study participants. This view is contrary to many studies that document that non-native-speaking students find lack of participation a major concern in their academic lives (Ferris & Tagg, 1996). The concern of the Turkish
351
students in this study lies in whether they were acknowledged by their instructors and peers. Promoting a sense of community in the classroom and creating a
positive classroom climate in which students feel acknowledged, accepted,
cared for, respected, valued, and supported (Cooper, 1995) is very important in
increasing the participants comfort level and willingness to participate. This
observation conformed to Tompson and Tompsons (1996) findings that students perceived feeling part of the classroom community to be more important
than oral classroom participation.
Based on these findings, two conclusions stand out. First, no single factor can
explain classroom participation behavior of students. The factors that influence
classroom participation and even what constitutes participation are very complex and interwoven. Although there were several cross-situational similarities
among participants experiences, individual students had individual profiles in
each course that come out of their unique and shared experiences. Second, positive classroom environments facilitate classroom participation. This statement
may seem obvious, but this study indicates the defining factors of a positive
classroom environment. A classroom in which oral participation is not graded
but encouraged, students contributions are acknowledged by others, and students feel a sense of belonging are effective in increasing student participation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PEDAGOGY

The findings of the study have a number of implications for instructors of
international students, for U.S. students, and for Turkish and other international
students.
For Instructors of International Students

In this study, the participants were sometimes confused about what was
expected of them as graduate students. It would be very helpful if instructors
made explicit what they expected of the students in terms of classroom participation. Also, participants were frustrated and felt stressed when they could not
meet their instructors expectations of oral classroom participation. Instructors
could ease students stress by creating opportunities to interact with them not
only in the classroom but also through informal contacts or e-mail communication.
Many times, participants felt lost when the discussion took place in a freeflowing manner without direction. Because students do not have control over the
teaching style of the instructor, instructors might consider the students need for
organized discussions for which they can prepare. Strategies such as e-mailing
study questions beforehand, giving clear directions and asking specific ques-
352
Winter 2005
tions, and summarizing important points of the discussions were found to

encourage both prior preparation and active participation.
Integration of international and cross-cultural perspectives in course readings and discussions seems to empower international students. Also, grading
oral participation may sometimes lead to excessive student anxiety. It might be
less threatening and also more motivating to provide extra credit for oral
participation.
For U.S. Students

As this study revealed, relatively active participation of some U.S. students
influenced not only Turkish students participation but also their attitudes
toward their overall classroom experience. Participants many times kept silent
due to the fast pace of discussions and lack of time to organize their ideas as second language speakers. As Jaworski (1993) states, Fighting for the floor can be
quite frustrating; especially in a culture that values more talk and faster talk over
less talk and slower talk. Anglo-U.S. culture, and probably most western culture, subscribe to such evaluative stereotypes (p. 6). To support Turkish and
other nonnative students classroom participation, U.S. students could be sensitive to their needs for extra time while speaking in the class or try to wait longer
before they volunteer to speak in small-group discussions.
For Turkish and Other International Students

Turkish students and other international students who come to U.S. institutions for graduate study should be prepared to face the challenges of adjusting to
a new country and new educational culture. Students should look for ways to
familiarize themselves with the host culture by attending various social gatherings, which will create opportunities for them to practice language and to
observe and respect cultural differences. Students trying to understand the differences between their home culture and the U.S. culture in terms of values,
beliefs, and classroom rituals should be willing to adapt their classroom behavior to a certain extent to the requirements of this new academic culture. They
should be willing to take risks and be less concerned about making mistakes
while speaking. In addition, prior preparation could be a good way to increase
participation in the classroom.
Suggestions for Further Research

This study described the expectations, anxieties, frustrations, and negotiations of Turkish students as they participated in their courses. Considering that
353
not all U.S. students are active participants, further study could explore the perceptions and experiences of U.S. students and how the findings from this study
apply to U.S. students experiences. Likewise, it might be interesting to explore
the perceptions of instructors in U.S. higher education institutions to see to what
extent their perceptions and expectations match student perceptions.
As noted earlier, very little research has focused on student populations from
different nations and cultures other than Asian cultures. The results of this study
call for more extensive cross-cultural investigation to be able to discover the
roles of different factors on participation behavior. This study has turned our
attention to the complexities of classroom participation and the need to look
beyond the influence of culture or language in classroom participation.
REFERENCES
Abe, J., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of a peer program on
international student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development,
39, 539-547.
Bichelmeyer, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2000). Differences in learning styles in different cultures: A qualitative study. College Park: University of Maryland.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445035).
Burke, E., & Wyat-Smith, C. (1996). Academic and non-academic difficulties:
Perceptions of graduate non-English speaking background students. TESLEJ, 2(1), 1-19.
Chapman, D., Wan, T. Y., & Xu, M. (1988). Academic adjustment of international students in American universities. Education and Research, 6(2), 96102.
Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540572.
Cooper, P. J. (1995). Communication for the classroom teacher (5th ed.).
Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Deressa, B., & Beavers, D. (1986). Academic and non-academic needs of international students. College Student Journal, 20, 411-416.
Dwyer, E., & Heller-Murphy, A. (1996). Japanese learners in speaking classes.
Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 7, 46-55.
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic oral communication needs of EAP
learners: What subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Quarterly,
30, 31-58.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1996). Lectures in a second language: Notes
towards a cultural grammar. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 121-140.
Gahala, E. M. (1986). Increasing student participation in the foreign language
class. In T. B. Fryer & F. W. Medley (Eds.), Perspectives on proficiency: Cur-
354
Winter 2005
riculum & instruction. Dimension: Language 84-85 (pp. 131-142). Valdosta, GA: Report on the Southern Conference on Language Teaching.
Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Heikinheimo, P. S., & Shute, J. C. M. (1986). The adaptation of foreign students:
Student view and institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 399-406.
Huntley, H. S. (1993). Adult international students: Problems of adjustment.
Athens: Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED355886).
Jaworski, A. (1993). Silence and the study of communication. In A. Jaworski
(Ed.), The power of silence: Social and pragmatic perspectives (pp. 1-27).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, F. J. (1999). From silence to talk: Cross-cultural ideas on students participation in academic group discussion. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 243259.
Institute of International Education. (2004). Report on international educational exchange. Retrieved January 2005 from http://opendoors.iienetwork
.org/?p=35933
Kao, C., & Gansneder, B. (1995). An assessment of class participation by international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 132140.
Kubota, R. (2001). Discursive construction of the images of U.S. classrooms.
TESOL Quarterly, 35, 9-39.
Lam, C. (1994). American group discussion patterns as viewed by ESL students:
The turn-taking behavior of eight Chinese students studying in America.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED379931).
Leong, F. T. L., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Academic and career needs of international and United States college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 106-111.
Levine, L. (1999). The responses of adult ESL learners to short stories in English in collaborative small-group discussions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, Bronx, NY.
Liu, J. (2001). Asian students classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities: An emic perspective. London: Ablex.
Liu, J., & Kuo, L. (1996). Factors affecting oral classroom participation of international graduate students in an ESL setting. Educational Research Quarterly, 19(4), 43-63.
Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). International graduate students
stress and social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 71-78.
Merriam, S. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
355
Morgenstern, L. (1992). Action and inaction: Student and teacher roles in classroom participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference
on College Composition and Communication, Cincinnati, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346534).
Pinheiro, S. O. (2001). Perceptions versus preferences: Adult international students teaching-learning experiences in an American university. East Lansing: Michigan State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED452785).
Pomerantz, F. (1998, December). What do students learn from classroom discussion? Exploring the effects of instructional conversations on college students
learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Sato, C. (1982). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In M. Hines & W.
Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL 81 (pp. 11-24). Washington, DC: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Shaw, P., & Bailey. K. (1990). Cultural differences in an academic setting. In R.
Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative
competence in a second language (pp. 317-328). New York: Newbury House.
Spaulding, S., & Flack, M. (1976). The worlds students in the United States: A
review and evaluation of research on foreign students. New York: Praeger.
Tapper, J. (1996). Exchange patterns in the oral discourse of international students in university classrooms. Discourse Processes, 22, 20-55.
Tompson, H. B., & Tompson, G. H. (1996). Confronting diversity issues in the
classroom with strategies to improve satisfaction and retention of international students. Journal of Education for Business, 72(1), 53-57.
Turgut, M. F. (1997). Higher education. In G. Yildiran & J. Durnin (Eds.),
Recent perspectives on Turkish education: An inside view (pp. 59-81).
Bloomington: Indiana University, Turkish Studies Publications.
Xu, M. (1991). The impact of English-language proficiency on international students perceived academic difficulty. Research in Higher Education, 32, 557570.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sibel Tatar has been teaching at the Department of Foreign Language Education
at Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey, since 2003. She received her Ph.D. in language education from Indiana University in Bloomington. She has taught practice
teaching, school experience, and language testing courses. Her research interests
include intercultural communication, teacher burnout, language testing, and teacher
education. Recently, she has been involved with a research project on the nature of
feedback received by preservice English teachers during their practice teaching
experience.

Journal of Studies in International Education-2005-Tatar-337-55

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Studies in International Education-2005-Tatar-337-55

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

10.

intercultural communication; classroom participation; cross-cultural

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at Universiti Putra Malaysia on April 16, 2016