Frontiers in Educational Research, 2025, 8(5); doi: 10.25236/FER.2025.080502.
Wang Yuange1, Xia Haoran2
1School of English Studies, Beijing International Studies University, Beijing, China
2Graduate School, Xi’an International Studies University, Xi’an, China
Chinese students have long been considered as ‘reticent participants’, incompatible with the dialogical teaching advocated by Chinese Higher Education. In light of insufficient research on “the second batch of undergraduate students”, this study explores the causes and countermeasures of silent participation (SP) in English for Academic Purpose classes at one Chinese second-batch university. The results demonstrate that these L2 students’ SP are mainly caused by their tutors’ weak, false and zero initiating moves, while on the side of students, they show relatively strong willingness to communicate, being not the conservative talkers as assumed. The results also show the willingness of the two parties’ interplay in a continuing process, for teachers’ identifiable intention directly discourages or encourages students’ active expression. Meanwhile, the students’ initiative to grab the discursive turn can improve the teachers’ motivation. Pedagogical implications are also discussed.
silent participation; communicative patterns; initiation moves; willingness to communicate
Wang Yuange, Xia Haoran. Behind Silent Participation: Reticent Students or Ineffective Initiations—Insights from English for Academic Purpose Classrooms. Frontiers in Educational Research (2025), Vol. 8, Issue 5: 10-17. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2025.080502.
[1] Hardman, F. (2008). The guided co-construction of knowledge. In: M. Martin-Jones, A. de Mejia, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 253–264. New York: Springer.
[2] Thompson, P. (2008). Learning through extended talk. Language and Education, 22: 241–256.
[3] Heward, W.L., Gardner, R., Cavanaugh, R. A., Courson, F. H., Grossi, T. A., & Barbetta, P. M. (1996). Everyone participates in this class: Using response cards to increase active student response. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2): 4– 10.
[4] Zhu, Z.B., Chen, L.L. & Jin, Z.G. (2017). Analysis of factors influencing student classroom silence from the perspective of implicit theories. University Education Science, (06): 50-56+122.
[5] MacIntyre. P, Dörnyei Z, Clément R, et al. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4):545–562.
[6] Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner-a question of style. Education and Training, 41(6/7): 294-304.
[7] Zhang, R.J. (2012). An investigation of the relationship between students’ silence and teachers’ questioning: EFL classrooms in Xinjiang University. Journal of Xinjiang University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 40(06): 142- 145.
[8] Sheybani, M. (2019). The relationship between EFL Learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC) and their teacher immediacy attributes: a structural equation modelling. Cogent Psychology, 6: 1- 14.
[9] Hardman, F. (2016). Tutor–student interaction in seminar teaching: Implications for professional development. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1): 63–76.
[10] Huang, S. (2018). New progresses of researches on IRF classroom discourse pattern: based on literature review of 70 study cases. Journal of Schooling Studies, 15(02): 93- 101.
[11] Xiao, S.H. (2017). Revoicing the minds: A search of research on interaction in the classroom. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press, 50-60.
[12] Liu, X.Q. (2005). On Silent Classrooms. Qufu: Qufu Normal University.