Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2092-674X (Print)
ISSN : 2092-6758 (Online)
Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal Vol.12 No.1 pp.5-19
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14580/apcj.2016.12.1.05

International Graduate Classroom Discussion Engagement, Challenges, and Solving-Strategies

Mukhlash Abrar, Amirul Mukminin
Jambi University, Indonesia

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the classroom discussion engagement experiences, the challenges faced and strategies for their solution, of eight international Indonesian masters students in one public university in the United Kingdom through a demographic questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The results indicated that the participants faced some speaking challenges in engaging in discussion, including (1) language barriers, (2) individual matters, and (3) academic culture differences. To cope with those challenges, the participants have undertaken strategies, such as (1) having the verbal response, (2) utilising learning sources, and (3) maintaining a positive motivation.

초록


Introduction

Since the year 2000, there have been greater opportunities for non-native English students to study in English speaking universities. According to Schneider (2000) cited in Andrade (2006), some English-speaking countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada, in order to attract a massive number of International students, have developed and applied clear national priorities and comprehensive strategies ranging from the cooperative efforts of government and education holders to simplify visa and university application processes. As a result, more international students come and study in English speaking countries for various purposes, from taking a short-term period course or gaining an academic degree. Regarding studying in English universities, it may be undoubtedly challenging for the learners who have perceived English, in their home countries, as a foreign language (EFL) and who come from different educational and sociocultural backgrounds (Kamhi-Stein, 1999; Leki, 2001; Liu, 2001). Furthermore, McGee and Lawrence (2009) argue that different language systems may be one of the reasons for international students’ difficulty to understand the second language.
One of the biggest obstacles for international students is adjusting the language use both inside and outside classrooms, eventhough they had previously been required to surpass certain proficiency tests, i.e. IELTS or TOEFL, or to join preparatory classes before studying at the school. Through their studies, Andrade (2006), and Bamford (2008) identify that adjustment in language proficiency, as well as classroom participation, are the primary challenges for international students. To actively engage in a classroom discussion (CD) face-to-face, the learners have to interact with others and are required to be proficient in both linguistic and sociolinguistic communication. These could be potential factors which affect international students’ verbal participation in CD, especially those coming from Indonesian.
The intent of this qualitative study was to help academics at universities in the United Kingdom (UK), particularly in Northern Ireland (NI), better understand the Indonesian students’ experiences, most notably speaking challenges, coping strategies, and goals in CD involvement. Additionally, to date there has been a lack of literature and information published on UK international students’ verbal participations in CD. In particular, there is limited research on Indonesian students’ experiences orally participating in class forums. So, this study is expected to fill the gaps that exist in previous research. The major objective of this inquiry was to explore International Indonesian students’ perspectives on CD engagement. In accordance with its purpose, this study was intended to answer these two research questions: (1) What are the speaking challenges in a classroom discussion faced by Indonesian students? And (2) What are the strategies the students feel they use to overcome the speaking challenges?
 

Discussion method

 
In the teaching and learning context, discussion is the most frequently observed teaching method used in adult classes, especially in higher education (Seaman & Fellenz, 1989; Legge, 1971). This method can enhance students' participation in the classroom, and potentially create active learners, participators, as well as collaborators in education process (Dale, 2011; Svinicki & McKeachie, 2010; Goldsmid and Wilson, 1980). This method facilitates active learners in the discussion. Moreover, McGonigal (2005) asserts that discussion develops problem-solving skills for the learners. More importantly, this technique potentially builds students' critical thinking (McGonigal, 2005; Parker, 1996; King, 1994; Seaman, & Fellenz, 1989; Legge, 1971), because within the discussion, the learners have the opportunity to convey their ideas, criticise and debate others’ views.
The implementation of discussion as an educational method, conversely, has been criticised for a number of reasons. Some teachers acknowledged that their students are against the method (McFarland 2004; Yon 2003) while others query the essence or value of this concept (Kelly, 2009). Pertaining to this contrasting view, Seaman & Fellenz, (1989), Legge, (1971) posit that discussion is inappropriate to be applied to a bigger class size, a short class period, and for all topics. Their viewpoints clearly indicate that the method is only best applied in small size classrooms, longer period classrooms, and for controversial issues. Furthermore, utilizing this method in teaching is sometimes at the expense of less active students because only a few dominant students would actively engage in the discussion.
Although the discussion has several limitations in its application, it is certainly a potential and crucial method to build the learners’ critical thoughts because it gives more space for the learners to share and discuss their views, rather than merely recount, or memorise facts and details. Additionally, its implementation in the learning process helps students become more active and critical, specifically in teenagers and adult classes. In this present study, the focus of the analysis was face-to-face classroom discussion since all participants have experienced it in their module(s).
 

Face-to-face Discussion

 
As its name suggests, face-to-face discussion is a discussion in which a verbal interaction occurs among the students and tutor. The communication is direct because they interact with one another in the same place and at the same time. Small-group and whole-class are two general face-to-face discussion types employed in educational processes (Orlich, et al. 2012; Pollock, et al. 2011; Adam, et al. 2007; Theberge, 1994; Seaman & Fellenz, 1989; Bormann, 1975). The key difference between the two types is the number of participants involved. Small-group discussion recruits fewer people to participate such as in buzz group or the thinkpair-share learning technique, while, on the other hand, the whole-class discussion involves all people in the classroom to engage in a forum.
These two face-to-face discussion formats have been compared and debated on their merits and drawbacks. Pollock, et al. (2011); Lowry, 2006; Fay, et al. (2000) claimed that smallgroup discussion is much better than whole-class discussion in many aspects, including students’ participation and communication quality. The small-group discussion is seen as effective because it facilitates a more conducive discussion atmosphere for the participants who are reluctant to speak in whole group discussion. It is also an effective way to encourage all people to speak, not only for the dominants. Contrastingly, in their studies, Stephens (2010), Wu & Huang (2007), Smetana & Bell (2009) found no significant differences between small-group and whole-class discussions methods towards the learners’ study results. This indicates that whole-class discussion is also a proper method to foster participants’ engagement in discussion. Moreover, the wholeclass discussion is believed as an appropriate method for auditory learners and provides for greater interaction among the teacher and students. It also gives an opportunity for everyone in the discussion to hear all the ideas generated (Goldman, 2014). Despite their pros and cons, both faceto-face discussion types are certainly useful in encouraging the learners' involvement in the forum and helping them build their critical thinking.
 

Link between Speaking and Classroom Discussion

 
Speaking and CD are closely interwoven. For instance, in a face-to-face discussion people share the ideas and interact verbally with one another. Speaking is defined as an interactive process of constructing meaning which comprises producing, receiving, and processing information (Brown, 1994; Burns & Joyce, 1997). This obviously shows that speaking is not as simple as it seems because the effective interaction involves both the speaker’s and listener’s active engagement. To actively engage in a talk, (Nunan, 2003, 2009; Hinkel, 2005) ascertain that speakers require having proper linguistic and sociolinguistic competence. Nunan (2009) further explains that linguistic competence encompasses language proficiencies, including grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and fluency while Sociolinguistic competence requires a speaker’s competence on what, why, and how the language is produced. Moreover, Shumin (2002) asserts that a speakers’ ability to use proper language is a demanding factor in interaction. These viewpoints highlight the importance of speakers’ proficiency and appropriateness in communication.
Due to its complexity for EFL learners, speaking can be a relatively challenging skill to master (Shumin, 2002), especially in English-medium discussions. It seems impossible that someone can actively participate in a discussion forum if they have no proper linguistic or sociolinguistic competence. Consequently, the learners are prone to be silent in the discussion. Some scholars argue (Price, 1991; Palacios, 1998; Horwitz et al. 1986) that another alternative reason why students feel reluctant to speak is because speaking itself is the major anxiety-provoking factor in a learning process, especially for foreign language learners. Although speaking is a complex skill to learn and practice, it is an essential component in a classroom discussion, particularly in the face-toface forum. The discussion might be less conducive when the majority of students are unwilling to actively participate verbally. This indication shows a significant connection between speaking and discussion.
 

Empirical Studies on International Students’ Engagement

 
International students’ engagement issues are relatively new in the related research areas, though the increase of overseas students has already been noted in some major English speaking countries. Recently there have been many studies conducted from different perspectives, settings, methods and with varying amounts of participants. In most studies, language proficiency becomes the primary challenge faced by international students in academic life, e g. classroom participation. Mukminin & McMahon (2013), for instance, conducted a qualitative study on the lived experience of academic involvement of US international graduate students, specifically Indonesian. They highlighted five major academic engagement experiences, including language barriers to speaking which prevent the participants from actively participating in the oral interaction. Additionally, Novera (2004) examined Indonesian postgraduate experiences studying in Australia. He found that participating in CD was one of the respondents’ main difficulties due to their language barriers and unfamiliar discussion topics. Similar to these studies, some studies reported that international students, and in particular Asian students, tended to remain silent in CD due to their lack of linguistic competencies. (Akasha, 2013; Wright & Schartner, 2013; Nguyen, 2011; Lee, 2009; Littlewood, 2000; Jones, 1999). Lee (2009) who explored six Korean international students’ oral participation in CD revealed that sociocultural and individual differences are the other factors which affect International students’ oral involvement. In his findings, he noted that sociocultural differences involve social views on talk, gender and age, and classroom norms, while the lack of content knowledge, personality and anxiety are included in individual differences. Similarly, in terms of individual differences, Mukminin and McMahon (2013); Nguyen, (2011) found in their studies that the respondents often did not feel confident in presenting their ideas verbally and individually.
In the United Kingdom, Wright & Schartner (2013) investigated the social interaction of 20 international postgraduate students. They employed a mixed-method study and presented the results both in the quantitative and qualitative analysis. Surprisingly, their study results show that students’ limited opportunities to interact and sociocultural differences cause their lack of interactional engagement, including academic circumstance, while language barriers were not serious issues in hindering them from social interaction. The above studies (Mukminin & McMahon, 2013; Wright & Schartner, 2013; Nguyen, 2011; Lee, 2009; and Novera, 2004) have provided valuable information on international students’ engagements, including Indonesian, in academic life from different English speaking areas. By exploring a rather similar issue in a Northern Irish setting, the author hopes to identify more typical features which surely contribute to the related studies. Additionally, this present study explores two main issues in CD engagement, including the challenges, and their coping strategies.
 

Methodology

 
In order to deepen the understanding on the related issue, qualitative design with a phenomenological approach was employed. The purpose of undertaking a qualitative study has historically been “to explore, explain, and describe the phenomenon of interest” (Marshall and Rossman, 1999, p. 33). This signifies that qualitative emphasises a comprehensive exploration, description, and explanation of the phenomenon of interest. A phenomenology, as an approach, is one of qualitative traditions (Cresswell, 2007, 2012; Johnson & Christenson, 2008). The fundamental elements of phenomenological inquiry are to understand lived experiences of individuals in a specific phenomenon, and to deeply explore and interpret the meanings from participant’s words, descriptions, and perspectives on the phenomenon (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990).
A purposive sampling with a convenience case strategy was employed in this study. According to Cresswell (2007) “The concept of purposive sampling is used in qualitative research. This means that the inquirer selects individuals and sites for the study because they can purposefully inform an understanding of research problems …” (p. 125), and “convenience cases, which represent sites or individuals from which researchers can access and easily collect data” (p. 126). The reason for using this strategy was based on the access availability to carry out the study as well as to collect the data from the participants. The participants of this study were Indonesian master students registered in one public university in NI and experienced face-toface CD in their module(s). At the beginning, the author planned to recruit 10 Indonesian students to take part in the study. A consent letter informing the nature and purpose of the research was initially sent to them via email. However, only eight International Indonesian students responded and voluntarily agreed to become the participants in this inquiry. They were (pseudonyms) Jay, Muthia, Norma, Nicky, Ibef, Emma, Katy, and Dennis. Their biographical information is summarised in table 1.
 
Table 1. Participants’ profiles
 
To gain comprehensive data, a demographic questionnaire and semi-structured interviews guided by an interview protocol were employed. The demographic questionnaire consisting of participants' biographical information – gender, school, and major - was administered before the beginning of interview session. Furthermore, each participant was individually interviewed in a language he or she was comfortable with, either in Bahasa or English, lasting for approximately 15- 30 minutes. Six participants out of eight elected to use English in the interview, while the other two preferred the interview to be conducted in Bahasa. As a result, grammatical errors appeared in the quotations. In order to not miss any responses from the respondents, the interview was digitally recorded via a digital voice recorder. The interview protocol comprised questions on challenges and strategies to cope with them in a CD engagement. For the analysis of the data, the demographic data were descriptively analysed and presented in the participant profile (table 1). The interview data, guided by Miles and Huberman (1994) withincase and cross-case displays and analysis, were then transcribed, read line-by-line and marked in different colours. After that, the responses were contrasted and compared as an attempt to find data differences and similarities, and to categorise or cluster the significant statements among the participants into themes, and sub-themes as well as to reduce the repetitive data.
To ensure the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Mukminin, 2012) of the study or to verify the interview data (Cresswell, 1998), member checking was done. In this sense, the interview transcriptions (Bahasa/ English) were returned to all respondents in order to get their feedbacks, and comments. This was helpful for the author to avoid misinterpretation of the results in the final report.
 

Results

Speaking Challenges in Engaging Classroom Discussion

Going through within-case and cross-case displays and analyses, the author identified interrelated themes and sub-themes regarding speaking challenges in engaging in CD, including (1) language barriers (vocabulary, grammar, accent, and fluency); (2) individual matters (anxiety, personality, unfamiliar topic/term, and wait-time); and (3) academic culture (cultural difference).
 

Language Barriers

All participants shared that they first learned English when they were in primary school. However, the majority of them, in the interview, revealed that they sometimes find it difficult to participate actively in a CD due to their limitation in verbal language competencies. Four common speaking challenges include vocabulary, grammar, accent, and fluency. In terms of vocabulary, some international Indonesian students reported that vocabulary, the basic component in language and communication, became one of the main barriers for them to be active participants in CDs. For example, Ibef, said, “I have limited vocabularies, and sometimes I get confused which words I shall say”. Likewise, Muthia, commented, “I don’t want to make a mistake for my presentation, so it can influence to the mark of the group. So, I feel ahh no, it better is my friends. You know, I have [limitation] in English, especially vocabulary”. These interview transcripts obviously showed that diction prevented the participants from getting involved in CDs and sometimes confused them.
For grammar, some other Indonesian students highlighted structure as an influencing factor to their oral participation. For instance, Norma reported, “Sometimes, I feel that I have a poor grammar (laughing), so, I don’t think I [speak in a proper structure]. That is the only thing that sometimes [makes] me feel a bit reluctant to speak in English.” Similarly, Emma, stated, “When I want to say something in class, I always keep thinking of grammar. I always ask myself ‘is it correct or not?’ It eventually makes me reluctant to speak”. These participants’ perspectives indicated that the lack of proficiency in grammar affects their oral performance to participate in academic discussion forums.
 For accent and fluency, the English-Irish accent is another speaking challenge for the participants to adjust to in their academic life, particularly in CDs. To illustrate, Jay, revealed, “at the first month, I [had] no idea about their discussion. Their accent [was] difficult to understand”. Likewise, Katy, reported, “to be honest, because most of them are from Belfast, the thing that makes it difficult is their accent.” Another accent issue, EnglishChinese, was mentioned by Dennis. He asserted, “Actually the discussion is fine, but when I have to engage with my Chinese friends, it’s [harder] because they’ve got different English dialect, [the] accent I mean.” Besides accent, from interview transcription, one participant, Dennis, raised an issue of classmates’ English fluency as a reason for his difficulty to actively participate in CD. He stated, “I am not telling [that] I am a good speaker, but they (Chinese) are not fluent. That’s why it’s harder to communicate”. These statements suggest that some language challenges preventing students from activily participating in verbal communication can be from external factors, such as classmates’ accent and fluency.
 

Individual matters

The information gathered from the interviews demonstrated that the participants’ individual matters seemed to be another obstacle to their active participation in academic discussion. These individual matters included anxiety, personality, unfamiliar topic/term, and wait-time. In terms of anxiety, an affective factor in learning, appeared to be a challenge for the participants’ active engagement in CD. Most of the participants confessed that they felt anxious when involved in verbal forums. As stated by Ibef, “I feel anxious and worries. When I am speaking, I always think whether my friends understand my language or not.” Likewise, Nicky enthusiastically stated, “Oh my God, I feel nervous to speak in front of people because English is not my first language.” For personality, some participants’ statements indicated that their personalities caused their objection to participating in discussions. As Emma, said, “For me, one of the biggest challenges in the discussion is shy and being not confident.” Similarly, Muthia, mentioned, “I am not confident to speak in front of the class, that’s why no for presentation”. As such, if they were not shy and instead confident, they could engage in oral forums more easily.
With regards to Unfamiliar Topic and WaitTime, The analysis of the interview data indicated that one of the participants, Jay, experienced difficulty in CDs due to his limited content knowledge of educational “terms”. He reported, “… and sometimes I [heard an unfamiliar] term that I [didn’t] understand.” In addition, another personal matter which affects students’ participation is waittime or a silent period. Two participants declared that they sometimes need more time to answer the questions from tutors, and/or classmates. Emma, asserted, “What I worry the most is the session after the presentation, which is Q&A session. The challenges are: I sometimes cannot comprehend my lecturer or my friends’ questions directly, I need time to do it.” Similarly, Jay said, “In discussion …I sometimes need time to think [the answer of the] the question.” The interview content clearly denoted that unknown topic/term and wait-time issues restrained the participants’ engagement.
 

Academic culture

Another speaking challenge to engage actively in the discussion for international Indonesian students is the difference in academic culture. Ibef, admitted, “I think it is because of cultural differences. In Indonesia, we mostly just accept what the lecturer has said, but here, looking at European study culture, it seems the students and tutors actively interact one another.” This indicates that the home country academic culture potentially affects Indonesian students’ speaking participation.
 

Strategies to overcome speaking challenges

In relation to coping strategy issues, using within-case and cross-case displays and analyses, the author classified three major interrelated themes and sub-themes, including: (1) verbal response (practising the language and asking questions), (2) using learning sources (books and technology), (3) maintaining a positive motivation.
 

Verbal response

Most of the participants believed that verbal responses during CDs help them engage in the forum. The author identified two sub-themes of this theme. Firstly, some participants confirmed that practising the language is the best option. For instance, Katy, said, “because it deals with language, the best way that to solve [the language difficulty is] by practising”. Similarly, Nicky told the interviewer, “to cope the problem, I just speak like [the language], just make it flow.” Another strategy used by some participants to overcome their speaking challenges is to ask a question. As Emma stated, “If I don’t understand the questions, I will say ‘pardon?’, and ask the questions more than once.” Likewise, Jay reported, “I just ask them to repeat the sentence. If it doesn’t work, I just [ask them to speak slowly].” These statements indicate that verbal response in the discussion is an effective method to encourage active participation.
 

Using learning sources

Some participants responded that they utilize some learning sources to aid them to overcome their speaking challenges, particularly in language barrier issues. Norma reported, “I do realise I need to practice English. So, I need to check my grammar in the grammar book,[just] study from the book.” She highlighted that books are a reliable source for learning the language. Ibef and Emma indicated that online sources facilitate them in communication. Ibef voiced this saying, “What I like to do is installing dictionary application at my mobile, and using it before speaking. I also use google translate because it really helps.” Similarly, Emma addressed, “What I usually do is checking the grammar before saying a rather complex sentence. At present, there are many applications for grammar errors. I have to make sure that I use proper grammar when speaking for complex sentences.” This suggests that using printed and online sources can be alternative strategies to cope with language matters.
 

Motivation

The analysis of the interview data indicated that maintaining positive motivation is essential as a way to cope with the anxiety issue. One participant from Educational Leadership, Jay, reported, “I always cope with anxiety by motivating myself that I cannot stay like that. So, I cannot just like to be a passive student [in] the class”.
 

Discussion and Conclusion

 
Speaking challenges, the interview data indicated that International Indonesian students were encouraged to participate in CDs as it is an essential factor affecting students’ success in school. However, the challenges they faced - including (1) language barrier; (2) individual matters; and (3) academic culture - sometimes affected their eagerness. Regarding these challenges, all students reported that language issues (vocabulary, grammar, accent, and fluency) became their biggest barrier to becoming involved actively in discussion. These results confirm those of many other studies (Mukminin & McMahon, 2013; Nguyen, 2011; Novera, 2004; Bayley, et al., 2002) in finding that language barrier is one of the biggest challenges to Indonesian students, and (Akasha, 2013; Wright and Schartner, 2013; Nguyen, 2011; Lee, 2009) in a larger context of EFL students’ cases, particularly Asian. The challenge in language is likely to occur because English is neither the first nor the second language for all participants. In their home country, English status is as a foreign language. Furthermore, the author also identified two major language issue categories, internal and external. Internal challenges emerged from the limitations of participants’ proficiencies, such as vocabulary and grammar, while the external challenge in language resulted from the outsiders' factors, such as accent and fluency.
Moreover, participants’ individual difference issue appeared to be another challenge making them unwilling to participate much in discussion. Regarding this theme, most participants reported that they experienced anxiety during the forum. According to Horwitz et al., (1986), anxiety is “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the autonomic nervous system” (p.125). This result is similar to other research results (Wright & Schartner, 2013; Lee, 2009), and corroborates (Price, 1991; Palacios, 1998; Horwitz et al. 1986) arguments which state that speaking is the mostprovoking anxiety factor in second language classes learning. The other findings on personal matters which factor in are the participants’ personality and lack of knowledge on particular topics/terms. This supports the findings of Lee (2009) that personality and lack of content knowledge influenced students’ participation in an oral discussion. Some other participants, Emma, and Jay, surprisingly, revealed another issue pertaining to the individual matter, which is ‘wait-time’. It is a period of silence that followed teacher’s questions or students’ answers (Row, 1974).
The last speaking challenge is the academic culture difference. Some participants implicitly stated that they were sometimes influenced by their home country’s academic culture which emphasises the unequal role of tutors and students in the classroom. Hofstede (1997), called the unequal position among people ‘power distance’. He further explained that Asian countries, including Indonesia, are categorised among the large power distance societies, and this surely affects educational sectors, such as classroom interaction. Additionally, these finding are consistent with those of Lee (2009), Novera (2004), and Garner (1989), that cultural differences in learning can be a barrier to adjustment in a new academic environment.
With regard to coping strategies, developed to overcome these challenges, the participants have tried their best by undertaking some efforts, including verbal response, learning sources, and motivation. Most participants reported that the best way to resolve the speaking challenges in CDs is utilizing verbal responses (practising the language and asking for clarification or repetition). This indicates that they actively use speaking strategies (Douglas, 2007) to cope with the issue. According to Douglas (2007), there are eight speaking strategies, including asking for clarification and repetition. Moreover, it also matches with the findings of Lam and Wong (2000) in their experimental study that the learners made more attempts to ask for clarification in the discussion. Besides, the use of learning sources seemed to be an alternative way for the participants to overcome their language difficulties. Some interviewees mentioned that books were very helpful to support their language. This result supports Carpenter et al., (2006) findings in that textbooks are worthwhile learning resources which support the students in understanding the subject. Some others stated that online applications assist them in having better performances in discussions. This indicates that technology plays an important role as a media to facilitate their learning process. These findings affirm what Kasapoğlu-Akyol’s (2010), and Soliman (2014) found in their studies that technology tools and e-learning positively improve students’ language proficiency, particularly in communication skill. Last, but not least, one participant believed that positive motivation helped him improve his engagement. According to Gardner (1985), ‘motivation refers to the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity (p.10).’ This means that motivation is an individual’s desire to get a satisfactory result. In the learning context, a learner’s motivation is very important as it is an influential factor to their success (Lennartsson, 2008).
 

Limitation

This study has discussed the perspectives of international Indonesian students on CD engagement, including challenges, and their coping strategies. However, this is not to say that the study itself is without limitations. Firstly, the participants may not be representative since they were solely limited to eight masters students in one public university in NI. Future research may include a larger sample of Indonesian students from different degree levels and universities in NI, which may provide different perspectives of Indonesian students on CD engagement. Secondly, this study was focused on students’ perspectives only, and teaching staff were excluded, so the further related study could explore the faculty’s perspectives on Indonesian students CD engagement. Also, the discussion was only limited to face-to-face discussion type. Other researchers may investigate another discussion type, such as online discussion.
 

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Dr Caroline Linse (Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Queens University Belfast, UK) for her expert advice and comments on this paper.
 

Figure

Table

Reference

  1. Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice. London: Routledge.
  2. Akasha, O. (2013). Exploring the Challenges Facing Arabic-Speaking ESL Students & Teachers in Middle School. Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL), 1(1), 12-31.
  3. Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154.
  4. Bamford, J, (2008). Improving International Students' experience of studying in the UK. vailable at http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/showcase/bamford_international.htm, (Accessed 2/2015)
  5. Bashir, M. (2011). Factor effecting students' English speaking skills. British journal of arts and social sciences, 2(1), 2011.
  6. Bayley, S., Arnol, J., Fearnside, R., Misiano, J., & Rottura, R. (2002). International students in Victorian universities. People and place, 10(2), 45.
  7. Bilal, H. A., Rehman, A., Rashid, C. A., Adnan, R., & Abbas, M. (2013). Problems in speaking English with L2 learners of rural area schools of Pakistan. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Vol, 24(1).
  8. Bormann, E. G. (1975). Discussion and group methods: Theory and practice. London: Harper & Row, Publishers.
  9. Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  10. Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 2109.
  11. Carpenter, P., Bullock, A., & Potter, J. (2006). Textbooks in teaching and learning: the views of students and their teachers. Brooks eJournal Learn. Teach, 2, 1-10.
  12. Clark-Ibá-ez, M., & Scott, L. (2008). Learning to teach online. Teaching Sociology, 36(1), 34-41.
  13. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative enquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  16. Dale, T. (2011). Discussions that Matter: Encouraging and assessing student participation in the Sociological imagination, 47(2), 21-27.
  17. Douglas, H. (2007) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York. Pearson Education.
  18. Fay, N., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481-486.
  19. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold Publisher.
  20. Garner, B. (1989). Southeast Asian culture and classroom culture. College Teaching, 37(4), 127-130.
  21. Goldman, P. (2014). Teacher-guided whole-group discussions. Accessed from ttp://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/educator_resources/accountable_talk/podcasts/9.
  22. Goldsmid, C. A., & Wilson, E. K. (1980). Passing on sociology: The teaching of a discipline. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  23. Hew, K., Cheung, W., & Ng, C. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: a review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science,38(6): 571–606
  24. Hillier, Y. (2005). Reflective teaching in further and adult education. A&C Black.
  25. Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2). Routledge.
  26. Horwitz, E. K., Hrwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern language journal, 70(2), 125-132.
  27. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organisations. Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  28. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. London: Sage.
  29. Jones, J. F. (1999). From silence to talk: Cross-cultural ideas on students' participation in academic group discussion. English for specific Purposes,18(3), 243-259.
  30. Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1999). Preparing non-native professionals in TESOL: Implications for teacher education programs. Non-native educators in English language teaching, 145-158.
  31. Kasapoğlu-Akyol, P. (2010). Using educational technology tools to improve language and communication skills of ESL students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4(2), 225-241.
  32. Kelly, S. (2007). Classroom discourse and the distribution of student engagement. Social Psychology of Education, 10(3), 331-352.
  33. King, K. M. (1994). Leading classroom discussions: Using computers for a new approach. Teaching Sociology, 22(2), 174-182.
  34. Lam, W., & Wong, J. (2000). The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills in an ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 54(3), 245-255.
  35. Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2002). Classroom discussion and threaded electronic discussion: Learning in two arenas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1), 45-62.
  36. Lee, G. (2009). Speaking up: Six Korean students' oral participation in class discussions in US graduate seminars. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 142-156.
  37. Legge, D. (1971). Discussion methods: Teaching Techniques in Adult education.Newton Abbot: David and Charles.
  38. Leki, I. (2001). "A narrow thinking system": Nonnative‐English‐speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. Tesol Quarterly, 35(1), 39-67.
  39. Lennartsson, F. (2008). Students' motivation and attitudes towards learning a second language: British and Swedish students' points of view. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:206523/fulltext01.pdf.
  40. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, G.B. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  41. Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey?. ELT Journal, 54(1), 31-36.
  42. Liu, J. (2001). Asian students' classroom communication patterns in US universities: An emic perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
  43. Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication. Does computer-mediated communication make a difference?. Small Group Research, 37(6), 631-661.
  44. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage.
  45. McFarland, D. A. (2004). Resistance as a social drama: A study of change‐oriented encounters1. American Journal of Sociology, 109(6), 1249-1318.
  46. McGee, A., & Lawrence, A. (2009). Teacher educators inquiring into their own practice. Professional Development in Education, 35(1), 139-157.
  47. McGonigal, K. (2005). Using class discussion to meet your teaching goals. Speaking of Teaching, 15(1).
  48. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. San Francisco, CA: Sage.
  49. Mukminin, A., & McMahon, B. J. (2013). International graduate students' cross-cultural academic engagement: Stories of Indonesian doctoral students on an American campus. The Qualitative Report, 18(35), 1-19.
  50. Mukminin A. (2012). Acculturative experiences among Indonesian graduate students in US higher education: Academic shock, adjustment, crisis, and resolution. Excellence in Higher Education Journal, 3(1), 14-36.
  51. Nguyen, C. T. (2011). Challenges of learning English in Australia towards students coming from selected Southeast Asian countries: Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia. International Education Studies, 4(1), 13.
  52. Novera, I. A. (2004). Indonesian postgraduate students studying in Australia: An examination of their academic, social and cultural experiences. International Education Journal, 5(4), 475-487
  53. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. McGraw-Hill/Contemporary.
  54. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 7625 Empire Dr., Florence, KY 41042-2978.
  55. Orlich, D., Harder, R., Callahan, R., Trevisan, M., & Brown, A. (2012). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. Cengage Learning.
  56. Palacios, L. M. (1998). Foreign language anxiety and classroom environment: A study of Spanish university students. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis: University of Texas, Austin.
  57. Pollock, P.H.; Hamann, K. & Wilson, B.M. (2011). Learning through discussion: Comparing the benefits of small-group and large-class settings. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(1), 48-64.
  58. Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with highly anxious students. Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications, 101-108.
  59. Race, P. (2005). Making learning happen. A Guide for post-compulsory education. London: Sage Publication Inc
  60. Row, M. B. (1974). Wait‐time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: Part one‐wait‐time. Journal of research in science teaching, 11(2), 81-94.
  61. Ryan, A. M. (Ed.). (1994). Active Language Teaching Methods for Adult and Third-level Students. School of Languages and Literature, University College.
  62. Seaman, D. F., & Fellenz, R. A. (1989). Effective strategies for teaching adults. Prentice Hall.
  63. Shumin, K. (2002). Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students' speaking abilities. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 12, 204-211.
  64. Soliman, N. A. (2014). Using e-learning to develop EFL students' language skills and activate their independent learning. Creative Education, 5, 752-757.
  65. Stephens, A. L., Vasu, I., & Clement, J. J. (2010). Small group vs. whole class use of interactive computer simulations. Comparative case studies of matched high school physics classes. In annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
  66. Svinicki, Marilla and Wilbert J. McKeachie. (2010). McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  67. Theberge, C. L. (1994). Small-group vs. whole-class discussion: Gaining the floor in science lessons. AERA 1994, New Orleans.
  68. Wright, C., & Schartner, A. (2013). 'I can't… I won't? 'International students at the threshold of social interaction. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(2), 113-128.
  69. Yon, D. A. (2003). Highlights and overview of the history of educational ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 411-429.