AN INVESTIGATION INTO FIRST YEAR ENGINEERINGSTUDENTS’ ORAL CLASSROOM PARTICIPATION.

A CASE STUDY

ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN SAYADI

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In preparing this project paper, I was in contact with many people, researchers, academicians, and practitioners. They have contributed towards my understanding and thoughts. In particular, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Masdinah Alauyah Binti Mohd Yusof, for her encouragement, guidance, critics and friendship. Without her continued support and interest, this project paper would not have been the same as presented here.

I am also indebted to Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) for funding my Masters study.

My sincere appreciation also extends to all my colleagues and others who have provided assistance at various occasions. Their views and tips are useful indeed.

I am also indebted to my wife Nik Azarina and my children Nurul Amanina, Muhammad Syafiq, Nurul Afrina Afifah, Muhammad Alif Syahmi and Nurul Athirah Farhah for their patience and understanding.

Thank you and May Allah bless you all.

iv

ABSTRACT

The case study was conducted in order to see how the use of English as the

medium of instructions has affected the students’ oral participation in Creativity and

Innovation and also Effective Communication classes. The study was also conducted

to find out the factors which influenced students’ oral participation and the strategies

used when participating. Using observation, interview, and survey, the data were

collected from 146 first-year Engineering students. The study revealed that students

who were good in the language tended to dominate the discussions compared to

students who were less proficient. The findings of the study also suggested that more

students used English in the Effective Communication classes compared to in the

Creativity and Innovation classes. However, in Creativity and Innovation classes, the

possibilities of students to initiate the discussions were higher. It was also found that

the students asked more questions and were more willing to give comments and

opinions compared to in Effective Communication classes. While responding to

questions was not a problem, the study showed that in both classes, students did not

like to ask questions during the lessons. The study also suggested that there was a

tendency for students who liked to participate to sit at the front of the class and those

who did not would sit at the back of the class. The study also revealed that factors

which influenced students’ classroom participation were interrelated. The identified 5

interrelated factors were linguistic, pedagogical, cognitive, affective, and socio-

cultural. Apart from that, the study was also able to identify 7 strategies used by

students when taking part in class discussions. The strategies were mentally

practicing and rehearsing on what to say, writing down the ideas before reading it to

the class, confirming on what to say with friends sitting next to them, focusing on the

content rather than on the language, ensuring what they wanted to say was correct,

preparing notes and questions before entering a class, and waiting for other students

to participate first so that they could form their opinions or answers.

v

ABSTRAK

Kajian kes melibatkan 146 pelajar Tahun 1 jurusan kejuruteraan ini bertujuan

melihat samada penyertaan pelajar di dalam perbincangan di dalam kelas UMC1022

Creativity and Innovation berbeza berbanding penyertaan mereka di dalam kelas

UMB1052 Effective Communication. Kajian juga bertujuan mengetahui faktor

mempengaruhi penglibatan pelajar di dalam perbincangan kelas serta strategi

digunakan untuk melibatkan diri di dalam perbincangan kelas. Bagi mendapatkan

data, 3 kaedah kajian digunakan; pemerhatian, temubual, dan kajiselidik. Kajian

mendapati penglibatan pelajar di dalam kedua-dua kelas adalah tidak seimbang.

Pelajar yang berkemahiran berbahasa Inggeris lebih mendominasi perbincangan yang

melibatkan keseluruhan kelas. Di dapati juga pelajar perempuan lebih aktif

berbanding pelajar lelaki. Kajian juga mendapati lebih ramai pelajar menggunakan

Bahasa Inggeris di dalam kelas Effective Communication berbanding kelas Creativity

and Innovation. Namun, kemungkinan pelajar memulakan perbincangan adalah lebih

tinggi di dalam kelas Creativity and Innovation. Juga didapati lebih ramai pelajar

bertanyakan soalan dan menyumbang buah fikiran berbanding di dalam kelas

Effective Communication. Walaupun memberi respon kepada soalan tidak menjadi

masalah, didapati bagi kedua-dua kelas, pelajar tidak gemar bertanya soalan ketika

pengajaran berlangsung. Hasil kajian juga mendapati pelajar yang lebih aktif gemar

duduk di bahagian hadapan kelas berbanding pelajar yang kurang aktif. Melalui

kajian ini, 5 faktor yang berhubungkait mempengaruhi penglibatan pelajar di dalam

perbincangan kelas telah dikenalpasti; kemahiran linguistik, kaedah pengajaran,

kognitif, afektif dan sosio-budaya. Kajian juga mengenalpasti 7 strategi digunakan

pelajar bagi mengambil bahagian di dalam perbincangan. Antaranya ialah berlatih apa

yang ingin disampaikan secara senyap, menulis apa yang ingin disampaikan sebelum

membacanya kepada kelas, berbincang dengan rakan yang duduk berhampiran

tentang apa yang akan disampaikan, memberi penekanan kepada isi berbanding

tatabahasa, memastikan ketepatan isi, menyediakan nota dan soalan sebelum kelas

berlangsung, dan sebelum menyatakan pendapatnya, pelajar akan menunggu pelajar

lain memberikan jawapan.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background of the Study 2 1.2.1 UMC1022 Creativity and Innovation 4 1.2.2 UMB1052 Effective Communication 4 1.3 Statement of Problem 5 1.4 Purpose of the Study 6 1.5 Objectives of the Study 6 1.6 Research Questions 7 1.7 Significance of the Study 7 1.8 The Scope of the Study 8 1.9 Limitations of the Study 9

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 The Need for Oral Classroom Participation 12 2.3 How do Students Participate? 13 2.4 Factors Influencing Classroom Participation 17 2.5 Strategies Used When Participating 26 2.6 Summary of Reviewed Literature 28

vii

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 29 3.1 Introduction 29 3.2 Research Design 29 3.3 Subjects 30 3.4 Data Collection 35 3.4.1 Methods of the Study 37 3.4.2 Research Instruments 39 3.4.2.1 Observation Form 39 3.4.2.2 Interview Questions 40 3.4.2.3 Questionnaire 40 3.4.3 Procedures 41 3.5 Data Analysis 42 3.5.1 Analyzing the Data Obtained from the

Observation Sessions

43 3.5.2 Analyzing the Data Obtained from the

Interview Sessions

43 3.5.3 Analyzing the Data Obtained from the

Questionnaire

43 3.5.4 Triangulating the Computed Data 44

viii

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 45 4.1 Introduction 45 4.2 The Students’ General Perceptions towards the

Use of English in the Teaching and Learning of Creativity and Innovation Paper and Effective Communication Paper

46 4.3 Students’ Oral Participation in Creativity and

Innovation Class versus in Effective Communication Class

47 4.4 Factors Influencing Students’ Oral Participation 52 4.4.1 Linguistic Factors 52 4.4.2 Pedagogical Factors 56 4.4.3 Cognitive Factors 60 4.4.4 Affective Factors 62 4.4.5 Socio-Cultural Factors 64 4.4.6 Other Factors 66 4.4 Strategies Used When Participating in Classroom

Interactions

66

ix

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71 5.1 Introduction 71 5.2 Summary of the Study 71 5.3 Summary of the Findings of the Study 72 5.3.1 Students’ Oral Participation in Creativity and

Innovation Class and Effective Communication Class

73 5.3.2 The Factors Influencing Students’ Oral

Participation

74 5.3.3 The Strategies Used When Participating 77 5.4 Implications of the Study 78 5.4.1 Theoretical Implications 78 5.4.2 Pedagogical Implications 79 5.5 Recommendations for Future Research 81

REFERENCES 83

Appendices A – E 86 – 100

x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE 2.1 Types of participation patterns 25 3.1 The distribution of respondents according to class 31 3.2 The respondents’ age group 31 3.3 The respondents’ qualification 32 3.4 The respondents’ spoken abilities 32 3.5 The respondents’ writing abilities 32 3.6 Respondents’ background for the interview sessions 34 3.7 Data triangulation 44 4.1 Students’ perceptions towards the use of English in

Creativity and Innovation class and Effective Communication class as obtained by the survey

46 4.2 Students’ oral participation in Creativity and

Innovation class and Effective Communication class as obtained from the survey

48 4.3 Students’ oral participation in Creativity and

Innovation class and Effective Communication class as obtained from the observation sessions

49 4.4 The factors influencing students’ oral participation

as obtained by the survey

55 4.5 Strategies used by the respondents when

participating as obtained from the survey

67

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

3.1 Data collection 36

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE A Observation form 86 B Interview questions 88 C Questionnaire 89 D Coded data from the observation sessions 93 E Coded data from the interview sessions 95

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The main aim of learning a second language is to be able to use the language

accurately, fluently and confidently whether in its spoken or written forms. That is

also the main aim of many English for Second Language (ESL) learners in Malaysia.

Although results from many major examinations such as Penilaian Menengah

Rendah (PMR) and Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) show that many students can get

good grades for the English language papers, their performance in oral

communication is questionable. Numerous complaints from employers, for example,

indicate that many Malaysian ESL users are poor communicators. Lack of

communication skills especially in the English language has been cited as one of the

reasons why there are so many unemployed graduates (Sibat, 2005; Jacob, Huui, and

Ing, 2006).

The researcher believes that learning institutions have the responsibility to

guide and help the ESL learners to become effective speakers of the language. The

first step should be to encourage the learners to use the language in the classroom.

This means that learners should be given the opportunities to be involved in the

classroom discussions. By engaging oneself into active participation, one will be able

to improve his/her mastery of the language.

2

1.2 Background of the Study

Many steps have been taken or being taken to curb the deteriorating quality of

English language among Malaysians. One of the steps taken is to use English in the

teaching of Science and Mathematics subjects in school as well as tertiary levels.

Beginning 2003, English became the medium of instructions for the Science and

Mathematics subjects. In the first year of its implementation, English was confined to

only primary year one, secondary form one, and lower six (Gill, 2004). By 2008, the

language will be fully used in the teaching of science discipline subjects in schools as

well as at the tertiary levels.

The change in policy does not only help the students to acquire and be

proficient in the language, but the move is also aiming at preparing the students to

compete at the international level where Science and Technology is now the driving

force of the world’s economy. Teaching the subjects in the science disciplines in

English would expedite the acquisition of scientific knowledge and at the same time

help the nation to develop a scientifically literate society by the year 2020 (Choong,

2004).

Choong (2004) also believes that the change in policy is basically an

emergent response to current needs. As English is becoming an international

language and the world’s knowledge being written in English, Choong (2004) argues

that it is much easier and faster to tap the knowledge by using the language rather

than having translated it into Bahasa Melayu.

“It was also becoming increasingly challenging to translate the latest technological developments into Bahasa Malaysia. For example, in Chemistry, since the beginning of the 1990s, more than 1million articles have appeared in specialized journals every 2 years. In Biology, in 1977 scientists can determine 500 base sequence of the letters that codify the information in DNA but today, they can decipher the 3 billion bases of the human genome in a few years. In Mathematics: 100,000 new theorems are created per year.”

(Choong, 2004:2)

3

Apart from that, the use of English as the medium of instructions also helps to

prepare students to have high levels of English-language proficiency that would help

them compete in the global job market (Ashcraft, 2006). With the implementation of

teaching of Science and Mathematics subjects in English, the Ministry of Education in

Malaysia foresees that the students will have a better edge in the job markets, and be

better prepared to meet the challenges of globalization (Shahrier, 2006).

The move by the Ministry of Education has also been embraced by the

Malaysian higher learning institutions. In fact, the use of English as the medium of

instructions at the tertiary levels is a common phenomenon around the world

(Graddol, 1997). Because English is regarded as an international language, English

as the medium of instructions has become a strategy to attract students from other

countries to the university.

While the private institutions have been using English in almost all courses

offered years ago, public universities are only starting to use the language in a few

selected courses especially those taken by the first year students. For example,

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, a university which was set up to promote the role

of Bahasa Melayu as an intellectual and educational language has drawn up plans in

retraining the academic staff to use English in the teaching of Science and

Technology courses (Gill, 2004).

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (formerly known as Kolej Universiti

Teknologi Tun Hussein Onn), an engineering-based public university, has also

started to offer some courses that use English as the medium of instructions. While

options are given for the other Engineering subjects whether to use Bahasa Melayu or

English, Creativity and Innovation, a compulsory university paper initially offered in

2003, is fully taught in English. Lectures, tutorials as well as assessments are all done

in English.

4

Being one of the staff involves in the teaching of Creativity and Innovation as

well as the English papers, the researcher is interested in finding out whether the

students’ use of English, particularly in their oral participation in the Creativity and

Innovation classes differs from one of the English papers offered by the university,

Effective Communication. It is important, therefore, to discuss albeit briefly the

background of the two papers.

1.2.1 UMC1022 Creativity and Innovation

Creativity and Innovation is a compulsory subject offered to all students at

the university. This two-credit-subject is fully taught in English and requires the

students to attend classes for a total of three hours per week. Besides exposing

students to the various creative thinking techniques, this subject aims at helping the

students to acquire the English language (KUiTTHO, 2003).

In this subject, students’ participation is graded and for that a total of five

marks are allocated. Thus, students are expected to take part in class activities in

which they will be given tasks or problems to solve. Usually, to maximize the

classroom participation, students are divided into smaller groups where they will be

given the opportunities to share their ideas or practice the problem-solving skills.

Most of the time, a lesson will end with group presentation (UMC1022 Course

Outline, 2005).

1.2.2 UMB1052 Effective Communication

The students are also required to take and pass two English subjects;

UMB1042 Technical Writing and UMB1052 Effective Communication as part of

their academic requirements. While Technical Writing is offered during the first

semester of the academic session, Effective Communication paper is offered in the

second semester.

5

The Effective Communication paper which aims at developing students’

delivery of speech in oral interactions and presentations, has three major

components; (1) public speaking, (2) taking part in meetings and discussions, and (3)

interviews (UMB1052 Course Outline, 2005). Like Creativity and Innovation,

Effective Communication is also a compulsory two-credit subject.

1.3 Statement of Problem

Studies by Sibat (2005) and Jacob, Huui and Ing (2006) indicate that the

ability to use English is regarded as one of the most important criteria that employers

look for when hiring the graduates. The researcher strongly believes that the

graduates’ failure to communicate effectively in English language during job

interviews and in workplace is the result of, among other things, their failure to grab

the opportunities to practice and use the language when they were in the university.

In other words, unwillingness to participate in class discussions has caused them to

waste the golden opportunities to improve and master their English communication

skills.

In this aspect, the researcher believes that there is a need for language

teachers to find out what actually happened during the teaching and learning process.

By looking at two different situations in which the language is used, taught and

learnt, (English as a mean of communication in teaching and learning activities, and,

English as a subject), perhaps this study will be able to shed some lights on the issue

of students’ participation. It is hoped that from the findings of this study, we will be

able to come up with useful working plans and strategies so as to ensure the teaching

and learning process would be more successful.

6

1.4 Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to find out whether the students’

participation in Creativity and Innovation paper differs to in Effective

Communication paper. To achieve the main purpose of this study, there were some

questions that need to be addressed. Do the students participate differently in the two

papers they enroll in? In which class do they participate more? Do they ask

questions? How do they respond to the lecturer’s questions? Will they voluntarily

give comments and opinions during class discussions?

1.5 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are as follows:

1.5.1 To find out whether the students’ oral participation in Creativity and

Innovation class differs to in Effective Communication class.

1.5.2 To find out the factors that influenced the students’oral participation

in the classroom.

1.5.3 To find out the strategies used by students when participating in

classroom discussions.

7

1.6 Research Questions

Based on the objectives, thus, three research questions were formulated. The

research questions are as follows:

1.6.1 Does the students’ oral participation in Creativity & Innovation class

differ from Effective Communication class?

a. In which class do they participate more?

b. Do they ask questions?

c. How do they respond to the lecturer’s questions?

d. Will they voluntarily give comments and opinions during class

discussions?

1.6.2 What are the factors influencing learners’ oral participation?

1.6.3 What are the strategies used by students when participating in the

classroom?

1.7 Significance of the Study

As mentioned earlier, the main purpose of this study is to find out whether

there are any differences in the students’ oral participation in two different classroom

situations; one which uses the language as the medium of instructions and the other

which uses the language to learn the language. The findings of this study will give

valuable information not only to the language teachers but also many other parties.

This includes the syllabus designers, material designers and the curriculum planners.

For teachers, knowing the factors that influence the learners’ involvement in

classroom discussions enables the teacher to understand the learning process better.

As such, language teachers will be able to anticipate what to expect during class

discussions. More importantly, the findings of this study enables language teachers to

plan on how to help and encourage students who are having problems expressing

8

their ideas due to their lack of proficiency in the language as well as personality

problems such as lack of confidence. From the findings, it is hoped that activities

which require language learners to actively speak out their mind can be planned and

carried out in the class. It is believed that students should also be given the

opportunities to use the language freely so that they do not only develop their

proficiency and accuracy in the language but they should also be able to use the

language confidently.

The findings of the study will also enable syllabus designers to come up with

strategies which can help the learners to improve their oral skills. Factors that can

stop students from participating in discussions can be dealt with. Perhaps, based on

the findings obtained from this study, special courses could be designed so that the

problems faced by the students could be overcome. It is hoped that the newly

designed courses will enable us to produce students who can use the language

fluently, accurately and confidently.

For the materials designers, the results of this study will enable them to

design materials which can cater for the different types as well as the different needs

of the students. It is also hoped that newly designed materials can help students

develop their confidence in using the language fluently and accurately.

Finally, the findings of this study will also help the curriculum planners to

make decisions on whether to use the English language as the medium of instructions

for other subjects as well.

1.8 The Scope of the Study

This case study only involved a group of first year Engineering students from

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. In this regard, the data obtained from the

subjects were based on their experience learning the two subjects mentioned earlier.

9

In analyzing the data, factors such as students’ background and their previous

exposure to English language were not taken into considerations in this study.

However, if these factors were taken into account, different results and hence

different discussions might yield in this study.

It is important to note here that the data obtained were solely from the

students’ points of view. The researcher did not intend to pursue the opinions of

lecturers or instructors involved in the teaching of both papers mentioned. Thus, once

again, if the lecturers or instructors were to be involved in this study, the results

obtained might be different.

The main purpose of this study, as mentioned earlier, was to find out whether

the students’ participation in Creativity and Innovation paper differs to in Effective

Communication paper. In this sense, the researcher was not interested on the quality

as well as the accuracy of the language produced during the classroom participation.

In addition to that, the respondents’ ability to read and to write in the English

language was also not investigated in this study.

1.9 Limitations of the Study

There are some limitations in this study. The limitations are as follows:

First of all, only a group of students attending the two different classes was

selected as the subjects for this study. Hence, there was a possibility that their

personality as well as the class dynamic would influence the way they participate in

both classes. The researcher believes if more groups were selected, different results

might be generated.

Secondly, in this study, one of the methods employed was classroom

observation. There were eight observation sessions and all these observations took

10

place within two weeks. Thus, during these observation weeks, there were a lot of

variables and factors which might affect the students’ classroom performance.

Unfortunately, these variables were beyond the researcher’s control. Factors such as

the topics discussed, learning objectives and learning activities planned by the

teachers definitely determined how the lessons were conducted. This inevitably

influenced the students’ performance as well as the results of the study.

In addition to that, there were a limited number of interviewees selected.

Thus, the findings of the study relied heavily on the responses given by the

interviewees. The researcher believes if there were more participants involved, more

views can be obtained.

It is undeniable that the researcher’s presence in the classroom might have

affected the way the students behaved during the lessons. The students might have

the impression that they were being assessed and this would make them feel

uncomfortable. Therefore, the results of the study may not reflect the actual

classroom situation.

Apart from the limitations stated above, the timing for the collection of data

might also have affected the results of this study. The respondents were at the

beginning stage of their university academic years, hence their learning styles might

influence their feedback on the questions posed in the questionnaires. There was a

possibility that the respondents were not yet familiar with the academic system

imposed in the university compared to what they were used to when they were in

form six or at the matriculation centres. Therefore, the researcher believes that if the

data was to be taken at a later stage of their academic years, the results might differ

from the results obtained from this research.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction

Classroom participation can be divided into two types; verbal participation

and non-verbal participation. Verbal participation usually means students speaking in

class, answering and asking questions, making comments, and taking part in

discussions (Lee, 2005). Students who do not participate in the ways mentioned

above are often considered to be passive and are generally penalized when

participation is graded. Non-verbal participation, on the other hand, is related to

behavioral responses while in class. This includes among others head nodding, hand

raising, body gestures, and eye contact. However, as the title of this study suggests,

this research is focusing on the students’ verbal participation rather than their

behavioral responses.

As this study is an attempt to better understand the issues of second language

students’ oral participation, this chapter will discuss some aspects of classroom

interactions. This will include why classroom participation is needed, how the

students participate, factors influencing students’ oral participation, and also

strategies used by students when they participate in classroom discussions.

12

2.2 The Need for Oral Classroom Participation

The linkage between classroom participation and students’ academic

achievement is undeniable. Research has shown that participation in classroom

activities is important in order for effective learning to take place (Gomez, Arai &

Lowe, 1995; Tsou, 2005). A study by Ferguson-Hessler and de Jong (1991; cited in

Theberge, 1994) also finds that students who participate actively tend to have better

academic achievement compared to students who do not participate.

In second language learning, classroom participation provides opportunities

for the students to use and practice their linguistic and communicative skills. Swain

(1993) believes that language production provides the opportunity for meaningful

practice of one’s linguistic resources that leads to fluency. By producing and using

the language as frequently as possible, one can gain fluency.

Swain (1997) also believes that producing the language will enable students

to focus more on the form and thus promote accuracy. The students will be able to

identify and recognize which linguistic items they do not know or know only

partially.

“… the activity of producing the target language may prompt second language learners to consciously recognize some of their linguistic problems; it may bring to their attention something they need to discover about their second language possibly directing their attention to relevant input. This may trigger cognitive processes which might generate linguistic knowledge that is new for the learner, or consolidate his or her own existing knowledge (Swain, 1997; 5 – 6)

Furthermore, while interacting with other students, a student has the

opportunities to test his/her linguistic knowledge of the target language. Expressions

such as “Can I say it that way?”, and “I don’t know if that’s right. Is it?” indicate that

a student has acquired the linguistic items but is not sure whether he/she has used the

items correctly. Thus, taking part in class discussions provides the student the

13

opportunity to test out hypothesis – to try out means of expression and see whether

they work.

Finally, the feedback and responses given by the listeners provide the speaker

with information about the comprehensibility or well-formedness of his/her

utterances. Responses in the form of confirmation checks, clarification requests, or

implicit and explicit corrections can lead the speaker to modify or reprocess his/her

output (Swain, 1993). Furthermore, interactional modification also leads the student

to be more aware of the structural rules of the language. As a result, language

development is enhanced.

2.3 How Do Students Participate?

Studies have shown that students participate differently in different settings.

A study involving female students by Theberge (1994) shows that they participate

less in whole-class discussions compared to in group discussions. In another study

comparing students’ participation in cooperative learning setting and whole class

mode, Barry, King, & Burke (2000) find that

“There was a significantly higher level of student question asking in the cooperative learning setting. Student question asking in the whole class mode was minimal, whereas the percentage of student-student cognitive question asking as a percentage of all talk in the cooperative learning mode was a very high 12%.”

It is also found that the involvements of students in classroom interactions

tend to be relatively unbalanced. Sometimes, one or two participants will dominate

the discussion and a few will not take part at all. In a study comparing students’

participation in whole-class discussions and in electronic discussions, Kern (1995;

cited in Ortega, 1997), finds that in whole-class discussions, four students do not

participate at all while five students tend to dominate the discussions. In electronic

14

discussions, however, Kern finds that all the students involved in the study

participate.

One of the variables affecting students’ participation is gender. Howe (1997)

claims that male students contribute more in classroom interactions compared to

female students. Due to their misbehavior in the classroom, male students tend to

attract the teachers’ attention and thus, receive more feedback on their contributions.

In other words, teachers’ extra attention towards the male students is one of the

strategies employed by the teachers to control the class. As a result, the study has

shown that a greater percentage of the teachers’ feedback is negative compared with

female students’. Although Howe’s study reveals that contributions in classroom

interactions do not bear directly upon academic performance, it may exert an

influence on learning strategy, public confidence, and ultimately gender divisions.

Dart and Clarke (1988) as cited in Howe (1997), also note that male students’

contributions dominate regardless of whether the discussion concerns school subject

content, classroom management or students behavior.

The way the students look upon the teachers in class is another factor that

shape classroom interactions. In many Asian cultures, students view teachers as

authority figures in class (Lim, 2003). It is expected that a teacher leads the class and

speaks most while students listen and take notes. Therefore, it is found that the usual

pattern of whole-class interaction is teacher initiation – students response – and

teacher feedback (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Edwards & Mercer, 1987; cited in

Howe, 1997).

Because responses are impromptu and spontaneous (Althaus, 1997),

classroom interactions are also characterized by false starts, short turns, informal and

less complex language (Warschauer, 1996). Warschauer’s study also reveals that the

conversational mode is marked by numerous short turns with many confirmation

checks and active responses as shown in the following example.

15

S4: What about you? S2: Me? S4: Yeah. S2: I make my own decision. S4: Oh, you make your own decision. S3: Are you living by yourself? S2: I live with my parents, but... S3: Oh, yeah. S4: You are independent. S3: Independent S2: I do whatever I want to do. S1: Oh, yeah?

Despite the claim that classroom participation helps learners to a greater

academic achievement (Lim, 1992; Wudong, 1994; Zhou, 1991; cited in Tsou, 2005),

many students remain silent. Silence can be interpreted variously ‘as lack of interest;

an unwillingness to communicate; a sign of hostility, rejection, or interpersonal

incompatibility; anxiety or shyness; or a lack of verbal skills’ (Giles et al., 1992;

cited in Tatar, 2005). While many would agree that silence is a way of

communicating, in Western cultures silence is associated with negative values

(Scollon, 1985; cited in Tatar, 2005).

Tatar (2005) however finds that many students associate learning with

listening. In order to understand the content, the students prefer to focus and listen to

the instructor. One of the students from Tatar’s (2005) study commented that

“I don’t like to speak in that class. I like to listen. While I am learning something, I listen instead of speaking ... Since I miss a lot while trying to organise my sentences, I prefer to listen to understand better.”

By listening to other learners, the students also believe that they can improve

their language skills. By observing other learners taking part in discussions, the

students are actually making themselves familiar with uses of the English language

16

and acquiring language structures to become more efficient speakers in the classroom

(Tatar, 2005).

“I listen not only to hear and understand but to see how people construct sentences. Sometimes they produce such perfect, beautiful sentences. I pay attention to where they place the stress, how they open a statement and try to do the same in my own speech. “

Another interesting point to be discussed here is how much of the target

language being used in class discussions. Or, do students really use the target

language (in our case, English) in discussions? In a study, Lim (2003) notices that

since they have a strong group identity, Korean students tend to speak Korean when

they are with other Korean students. Research shows that the stronger the identity a

learner has toward his or her native language culture, the higher the frequency of

using the native language (Norton, 2001; cited by Lim, 2003).

This scenario however is not confined to Asian students only. A teacher

teaching Spanish to a group of American students finds that his students tend to

speak in English while learning Spanish (Risley, Online discussion FLTEACH, n.a).

The students also expect the teacher not to speak only in Spanish while teaching. The

policy that states ONLY the target language should be used in the classroom will

make the students feel frustrated and thus stop them from participating in the

discussions. This is especially so when the students are at the beginning stage of

learning the target language.

“Speaking L2 only in the classroom I believe is one of the reasons for such a high attrition rates among most second language programs. It is inviting disaster to use language over and over that the students have not already internalized. You are just asking them to ‘check out’ of your class.”

(Gary, in an online discussion FLTEACH, n.a)

17

The use of native language (L1) in the learning of second language receives

little favor from linguists (Atkinson, 1993; Harmer, 1983; cited in Cole 1998). Swain

(1993) claims mother tongue interference hampers second language (L2) acquisition.

Weschler (1997), however, believes that the use of the native language should be

allowed. With careful planning, L1 can and should be used as an integral element in

an L2 program. According to Weschler, it can supply the student with the essential

sense of need to learn the language as well as the tools and motivation to do so

effectively.

2.4 Factors Influencing Classroom Participation

Researches have shown students willingness to take part in classroom

discussions depends on many factors. However, these factors are interrelated. In a

study by Tatar (2005) involving four Turkish participants learning English, he claims

that students tend to keep quiet due to several reasons. One of the main reasons is

because of their lack of language skills as well as inadequate content knowledge.

This leads the students to keep silent rather than to orally participate in the

classroom. Afraid of being perceived that their questions or comments are not

‘significantly important’, the participants frequently use their silence in order not to

expose themselves. They also believe that by not taking part in discussions, they are

able to avoid making mistakes and thus avoid any embarrassing situation that could

damage their public image. In other words, for these learners, keeping silent is an

effective face-saving strategy (Tatar, 2005).

Fassinger (1995) cited by Gomez, Arai, & Lowe (1995) classifies the factors

into three major traits; class traits, student traits, and teacher traits. Class traits

include interaction norms (pressure from peers not to speak, pressure to keep

comments brief, peer discouragement of controversial opinions, peers’ attention,

18

peers’ lack of respect); and emotional climate (friendships, students’ supportiveness

of each other, students’ cooperation).

Student traits, on the other hand, are divided into three sub-categories;

confidence, preparation, and intimidation. Fear of appearing unintelligent to peers or

instructor, lack of organization skills, communication apprehension, fear of

offending, and intimidation are all considered as confidence trait (Gomez, Arai &

Lowe, 1995). The third traits - teacher traits, meanwhile, are linked to

approachability and supportiveness of the teacher as well as whether the teacher

welcomes discussion.

Fawzia (2002), on the other hand, divides the factors affecting students’ oral

participation into three broad categories; student factors, social factors, and

pedagogical/educational factors. Factors such as students’ perception, attitudes,

language factors, learning styles, background of students and personal affective

factors are examples of student factors whereas social factors include the gender of

other students in class and nature community feelings in a group. The lecturer, the

course in general, the topic and the nature of inquiry or point, on the other hand, are

all related to pedagogical/educational factors.

The study by Liu (2001) involving 172 Asian students studying in the United

States of America however finds that all the factors mentioned above can be divided

into five major categories; cognitive, pedagogical, affective, socio-cultural, and

linguistic.

Factors such as prior learning experiences, learning styles and strategies the

students are accustomed to, preparation before entering classes, knowledge of the

subject matter as well as students’ interest level in the topic/s under discussion are

examples of factors which fall under cognitive category. Lim (2003), for example,

finds that issues such as abortion, world economics, politics, suicide, and death

19

penalty can be remote from some Korean students’ interest. Another study by Han

(2007) also reveals that many Asian students face some difficulties to participate in

the discussion because they do not have enough understanding of content material.

The second category, pedagogical factors, on the other hand, deals with

whether oral participation is a part of assessment, teacher’s encouragement, class

size, peer support, and also the way the lesson is conducted. Studies have proven that

the approach a teacher takes in the classroom affects students’ participation. Research

has shown that students are more willing to take part and thus contribute more in

group discussions compared to in whole-class discussions. It is also found that

student-centered classroom encourages more participation as compared to teacher-

centered classroom (Barry, King, & Burke, 2000).

The third category is affective factors. Students’ personality traits, motivation

and attitude, anxiety, and risk-taking are all factors which fall under affective

category. In fact, many attempts have been made to see how students’ personality

traits would affect second language learning.

One of the personality traits commonly investigated is self-esteem. Morrison

and Thomas (1975) cited in Phillips, Smith & Modaff (n.a) define self-esteem as ‘the

set of evaluative attitudes that a person has about himself or his accomplishments’.

Studies have found that learners’ self-esteem has some effects on the students’

behaviour in the classroom. For example, children with low self-esteem give limited

responses in the classroom whereas children with high self-esteem display strong

communication skills and are interactive with others (Burnett, 1998; in Phillips,

Smith & Modaff, n.a). Morrison and Thomas (1975) point out that students with low

self-esteem say less in class and sit further back in the classroom compared to

students with high self-esteem. Baron (1998) as cited in Phillips, Smith & Modaff

(n.a) also finds that people who have high self-esteem are more confident in social

situations than people who have low self-esteem.

20

Communication apprehension, defined as ‘an individual’s level of fear or

anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication’ (McCroskey, 1991)

is another possible variable that may contribute to the level of classroom

participation (Jaasma, 1997). Witherspoon, Long & Nickell (1991) as cited in

Phillips, Smith & Modaff (n.a) state that excessive communication apprehension may

lead to low self-esteem, poor communication skills as well as low education

achievement.

Research by Lai (1993) as highlighted by Balla & Pennington (1995) shows

that students’ low confidence (low self-esteem) in relation to English language use is

most obvious. The students experience what is termed ‘language anxiety’. The

situation is similar in Malaysia. Teachers often complain students’ low frequency of

using English in the secondary school level and it leads to students’ low self-esteem

because they seldom use English outside the classrooms. They feel at ease speaking

in their first language so when it comes to using English for communication they

experience language anxiety (Lai, 1993 in Balla & Pennington, 1995).

Classroom participation is also linked to whether the learner is an introvert or

extrovert person. Because of their quiet, unsociable, reserved, passive, careful, and

thoughtful behavior (Myers, 1995; cited in Lee, 2005), introverted students are

usually “invisible” in the classroom and remain unnoticed by teachers and peers

(Byrnes, 1984; cited in Phillips, Smith & Modaff, n.a). Introverted students are

generally shy and passive in the classroom. Extroverted students, on the other hand,

are more likely to participate in class (Galvan and Fukada, 1998, cited in Lee, 2005).

However, according to McCroskey (1991), shyness is a behavior that could

be the result of any one or a combination of the following factors: skill deficiencies,

social introversion, social alienation, ethnic/cultural divergence, unfamiliarity with

academic discourse, lacking confidence in subject matter, and/or communication

apprehension.

21

In another study by Salter and Persaud (2003), it has been reported that

female students are reluctant to participate for fear of being scolded and criticized by

their teacher and/or peers. Furthermore, when a student participates, she risks being

treated with disrespect in front of the class. For the students, “it is very

uncomfortable to ask questions in fear of being ‘shot down’ or ‘looking dumb’”

(Salter & Persaud, 2003: 837).

Liu’s (2001) fourth category, socio-cultural, refers to the participants’ beliefs,

values, and moral judgments that are heavily influenced by their cultural

backgrounds and educational experiences in their home countries. For example,

Japanese cultural values of self-restraint and respect for elders and seniority restrain

Japanese students from speaking freely (Shimuzu, 2006). A similar observation is

also reported for Korean students (Lim, 2003). According to Lim, Korean students

are used to viewing teachers as authority figures in class. Therefore, it is expected

that a teacher leads the class and speaks most while students listen and take notes.

Korean students also believe that a teacher is a person who knows everything. As

such, they tend to value quietness, be less opinioned, and believe that they learn from

elders and wiser persons who are usually represented by a teacher in class. These

cultural characteristics are however in sharp contrast to those of native speakers

culture (i.e. American), which value aggressiveness, verbal eloquence, and human

equality. In fact, for many Asian students, it is considered as rude for a student to talk

too much in the classroom (Warschauer, 1996).

Finally, factors within the linguistic category refer to the students’ linguistic

abilities and communicative competence. Many students for example are reluctant to

participate in class discussions because of their poor command of the language. On

the contrary, students who have good speaking skills tend to participate in class

discussions with ease.

22

For each of these five major categories discussed, three sub-factors will

determine whether a learner will participate in classroom discussions or not. These

factors are whether they are facilitative, debilitating, or neutral factors.

According to Liu (2001), facilitative factors are those that contribute to the

construction of positive perceptions of classroom communication in terms of active

oral classroom participation in their content courses. These factors often motivate

students to take part in class discussions. Prior experience towards successful

classroom participation is an example of facilitative cognitive factor. Teacher’s

encouragement, participation as a requirement, and peer support, on the other hand,

are facilitative pedagogical factors. For facilitative affective factors, they include

students’ extroversion, self-confidence, and also the belief that mistakes are

unavoidable. Facilitative socio-cultural factors include a strong sense of

responsibility and obligation to participate in classrooms, efforts to participate in

classrooms due to peer pressure, and also their prior experiences in the target culture.

Having good English speaking skills also helps student to participate in class

discussions.

Debilitating factors, on the other hand, are responsible for or influence the

formation of negative perceptions of classroom communication and oral classroom

participation. These factors inhibit students from seeing the benefits of their direct

involvement in class discussion or interaction with the lecturer and other classmates.

Among the cognitive factors that hamper students’ oral participation are lack of

background knowledge or schemata and reliance on self-study to find answers to the

questions before they are asked. For pedagogical factors, they include over reliance

on the textbook which prevent students from discussing non–textbook related issues.

Introverted, lacking confidence, shy and passive in nature, feeling overwhelmed by

native English speakers in class, and feel intimidated, on the other hand, are

examples of debilitating affective factors. Students’ beliefs, values, and norms of the

home culture, the belief that being a good student means taking notes and listening to

the teacher carefully without asking questions out of respect for the teacher, lack of

23

participation experiences, discouragement of oral participation in the native culture,

viewing class time as too valuable for asking questions, avoiding mistakes to save

face, and expectations towards certain gender are categorized under socio-cultural

factors. Debilitating linguistic factors include poor English skills, difficulty in

expressing ideas spontaneously, poor pronunciation and a strong accent, and poor

grammar.

Neutral factors, however, can be positive or negative depending on the

particular circumstances. Competitiveness among peers, for example, can be

facilitative for some students while for others, it will stop them from taking part in

classroom discussions. Other neutral factors include the interest level in and

knowledge of the subject matter under discussion as well as advance preparation for

asking questions (cognitive factors); lesson type, interest in the subject matter, class

size, and dynamics of the class (pedagogical factors); and competitiveness among

peers (socio-cultural factors).

Because of the facilitative, debilitating and neutral factors discussed above,

four continuum classroom participation patterns have been observed from Liu’s

study. The four continuum patterns are total integration, conditional participation,

marginal interaction, and silent observation. However, Liu (2001) also notes that

individual patterns are not always static. As such, a student may participate actively

in one occasion but remain silent in another. Factors such as increased or decreased

self-confidence, and positive and negative feedback determine the students’

involvement in classroom discussions.

In total integration, students participate actively in classroom discussions,

knowing exactly when to speak up and what to say. Their classroom participation is

usually spontaneous, appropriate, and natural.

The second pattern, conditional participation, on the other hand, is

constrained by a number of factors such as socio-cultural, cognitive, affective,

linguistic or environmental. Because of these factors, usually their participation and

24

interaction with other learners and the teacher are limited. Furthermore, these

students are still figuring out when to speak and what to speak and are concerned

with appropriate classroom behavior. On many occasions, they carefully reflect on

their classroom participation after each attempt.

Marginal interaction refers to students who are very attentive listeners but

seldom speak up in class. Instead of actively participating in classroom discussion,

these students opt for listening, note-taking, and after class group discussion. As

such, these students are less adventurous. However, when they occasionally speak

up, they are usually poised and confident because each attempt is usually the result of

careful thinking and internal rehearsal.

Silent observation, on the other hand, is characterized by students’

withdrawal from oral classroom participation. These students seem to accept

whatever is discussed in class. To help them digest and confirm what has been

communicated in class, these students use various strategies such as tape-recording,

note-taking, or small group discussion after class.

Table 2.1 below summarizes the four types of participation patterns as

described by Liu (2001).

25

Table 2.1: Types of Participation Patterns

PATTERNS OF PARTICIPATION CHARACTERISTICS

Most active Know exactly when to speak, what to

speak TOTAL INTEGRATION Participation is spontaneous,

appropriate, and natural.

CONDITIONAL PARTICIPATION

Constrained by factors such as sociocultural, cognitive, affective, linguistic, and environmental

Limited interaction between learner and learner, learner and teacher

Figuring out when to speak, what to speak

Concern with appropriate classroom behaviour

Carefully reflect on their participation after each attempt

MARGINAL INTERACTION

Attentive listeners Seldom speak up in class Prefer listening, note-taking and

group discussion after class Less adventurous Thinking carefully and internal

rehearsal before attempting to participate

SILENT OBSERVATION

The least active Seem to accept whatever discussed in

class Use various sorts of compensation

strategies to help digest and confirm what has been communicated in class

26

2.5 Strategies Used When Participating

There are not many researches conducted on the strategies used by the

students when they participate in classroom discussions. However, studies by Liu

(2001) and Tatar (2005) have enabled us to take a glimpse on some strategies used by

the students.

First of all, apart from listening to other students’ participation in order to

improve their linguistic skills (Tatar, 2005), Liu (2001) finds that students listen in

order to form their own opinions or ideas on what to contribute to the discussions.

According to Liu, this strategy is usually used by students who have inadequate

content knowledge. By listening to other students’ contributions, a learner has more

time to think, form and organize their thoughts. As one of the respondents in Liu’s

study puts it,

“If I am in a class, I would tend to be the last speaker. I would see what others can contribute, and then I tend to conclude, not only my conclusion, but also try to add my idea, sort of synthesizing the ideas.”

Liu (2001) also finds that preparation prior to entering a class is an effective

strategy used by students in order to actively participate in class discussions. Before

the class, the students will do some reading as well as make some notes. Some

students will also write some questions to be asked during the lesson. Preparation

does not only help the students to understand the lesson better, but it also enables

them to have ideas on what to contribute during discussions. From his observation,

Liu finds that

27

“…The Geologist [one of the participants in the study] was very active in discussion. His classmates relied on him for his solid content knowledge and his good preparation for the class. The Geologist told me that this was a pretty normal type of class. He would prepare questions from the reading assignments before class and he would ask them when there was an opportunity, or he would try to express his thoughts for clarification.”

(Liu, 2001)

Liu’s study also indicates that students who prepare before class tend to react

positively to the teacher’s questions. They are more confident in responding to the

questions asked and are more willing to seek for clarifications from the teacher

whenever they have problems understanding the subject matter. Liu notices that

“His [one of the participants] thorough preparation for class also allowed him to point out mistakes the instructors made in class, which would have been totally inappropriate in Asian culture.”

As mentioned earlier, some students need more time to think and organize

their thoughts before they can participate. Liu’s study however reveals that for

students under the ‘conditional participation’ and ‘marginal interaction’ categories,

these students need more time so that they can do some internal rehearsals before

attempting to participate. Because of that, their participation is usually well-thought

and free from errors. Lim (2003) observes that Korean students, for example, tend to

speak to themselves silently when they have to speak in turn. That is one way to

practice so that they can produce perfect sentences when they have their turns.

However, for ‘total integration’ students, they are more spontaneous. For

these students, what is more important is the content that they contribute rather than

the correctness of the language. As such, students under the ‘total integration’

category do not really emphasize on the grammar of the language. In the study, Liu

(2001) observes that

28

“The Biophysicist [one of the respondents in the study] could be very articulate when he asked questions, and he did not really care about his grammar mistakes when he spoke, but still he was hesitant before he opened his mouth. It was not his language problems that led to his silence in class; it was his caution in formulating a question, which he expected to demonstrate his knowledge or ability.”

(Liu, 2001)

2.6 Summary of Reviewed Literature

It has been discussed that one of the ways to improve one’s speaking skills is

by taking part in classroom discussions. It is also believed that participation helps

students to understand the subject-matter better. Despite of that, many students are

still reluctant to take part in class discussions. Nevertheless, students’ participation

patterns can be grouped into four different types; total integration, conditional

participation, marginal interaction, and silent observation. However, their

participation is not static. Studies have found that students’ willingness to take part in

classroom discussions depends on various interrelated factors. Among the factors are

linguistic, pedagogical, affective, socio-cultural, and cognitive factors. Apart from

that, studies also show that students use some strategies when participating. Some

students prepare notes and questions before entering a class. Some students, on the

other hand, will mentally rehearse on what to say before they can share it to the class.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the research methodology used in the study.

Detailed descriptions of the research design, sampling, instruments, data

collection procedures, and data analysis will be discussed in the following

sections.

3.2 Research Design

In collecting the data, this case study which aims to investigate students’

oral participation in classroom discussions used two main methods; observation

and interview. Thus, this study was adopting a qualitative research design.

The use of qualitative methods did not only allow the researcher to have a

direct interaction with the subjects under study but it will also help generate rich,

detailed data that leave the participants’ perspectives intact.

To complement the data obtained from the qualitative methods, a survey

was also conducted. The use of quantitative method had enabled the researcher to

obtain reliable data from a larger population.

30

Thus, by adopting a qualitative research design which was supported by a

quantitative method, the researcher was not only able to gain a better

understanding of the issues being studied but at the same time to ensure the

validity and reliability of the data collected.

3.3 Subjects

In selecting the subjects for this study, the study adopted purposive

sampling as its sampling design.

First of all, as the main purpose of this study was to see the differences of

students’ oral participation in two different papers, the subjects selected for this

study were those concurrently taking the Creativity and Innovation paper and the

Effective Communication paper offered by the institution. Secondly, the subjects

selected were those in the first year. The researcher believes that there was a need

for us to understand the issue at the earlier stage of the students’ academic year.

Finally, since the researcher is currently teaching at the institution, it is best for

the researcher to select the students from the institution as the subjects for this

study.

During the semester in which this study was conducted, UMC 1022

Creativity and Innovation paper and UMB 1042 Effective Communication paper

were offered to students from 3 faculties, i.e. Faculty of Electrical Engineering,

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, and Faculty of Civil Engineering. Data from

the institution’s Academic Office showed that students from Faculty of Electrical

Engineering had registered for UMB 1052 Effective Communication paper only.

Students from Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, on the other hand, had

registered for UMC 1052 Creativity and Innovation paper only. For the Civil

Engineering students, it was found that the students had registered for both papers

offered. Since the main purpose of this study was to see whether students’

participation in Creativity and Innovation paper differs from the Effective

Communication paper, students from the Faculty of Civil Engineering were

selected as the subjects.

31

A total of 146 first-year Civil Engineering students consisting 55 males

and 91 females took part in this study. These students were actually from 4

classes taking UMB 1052 Effective Communication as well as UMC 1022

Creativity and Innovation papers which this research is focusing on. Table 3.1

below describes the 4 classes involved in the study.

Table 3.1: The distribution of respondents according to class

CLASS MALE FEMALE TOTAL A 0 15 15 B 15 18 33 C 12 18 40 D 18 40 58 TOTAL 55 91 146

Out of 146 students, 134 students (91.78%) were between 20 to 24 years

old and another 12 students (8.22%) were between 25 to 30 years old. Table 3.2

below describes the distribution of subjects according to the age groups.

Table 3.2: The respondents’ age group. AGE

Male Female Total Percentage 20 – 24 51 83 134 91.78% 25 – 30 4 8 12 8.22% Total 55 91 146 100.00%

Prior to entering the university, the students had entered various learning

institutions. As such, 9 students (6.16%) were Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia

(STPM) holders, 56 students (38.36%) were from matriculation centres, 16

students (10.96%) had vocational certificates from Polytechnics, and another 65

students (44.52%) were diploma holders from various institutions.

32

Table 3.3: The respondents’ qualification QUALIFICATION

Male Female Total Percentage STPM 3 6 9 6.16% Matriculation 18 38 56 38.36% Certificate 4 12 16 10.96% Diploma 30 35 65 44.52% Total 55 91 146 100.00%

Apart from that, more than half of the respondents regarded themselves as

having fair abilities in both speaking and writing with 93 (63.70%) and 84

(57.53%) students respectively. As for speaking skills, 27 (18.49%) students

regarded themselves as good speakers of the language while another 26 (17.81%)

saw themselves as being weak. For writing skills, similar results were obtained

from the survey. 38 (26.03%) students claimed that they were good in writing and

24 students (16.44%) were poor. None of the respondents saw themselves as

having excellent abilities to speak and write in English.

Table 3.4: The respondents’ spoken abilities ENGLISH SPEAKING ABILITIES

Male Female Total Percentage Excellent 0 0 0 0.00% Good 12 15 27 18.49% Fair 34 59 93 63.70% Poor 9 17 26 17.81% Total 55 91 146 100.00%

Table 3.5: The respondents’ writing abilities ENGLISH WRITING ABILITIES

Male Female Total Percentage Excellent 0 0 0 0.00% Good 16 22 38 26.03% Fair 29 55 84 57.53% Poor 10 14 24 16.44% Total 55 91 146 100.00%

33

For the purpose of collecting the data, the questionnaire was distributed to

all students involved in this study. However, not all of them were involved when

other instruments were used. For the observation sessions, only a class of 40

students consisting of 12 male and 18 female students was selected (See Table

3.1). In selecting the class for the observation, a few factors were taken into

consideration. Class A was not selected due to its size as well as its gender

composition. The class was not only small in size but it was also consisted of only

female students. Class D, on the other hand, was too big. As the number of

students was not too big or too small as well as a more balanced composition

between male and female students, the researcher had the intention to observe

Class B. However, because permission was not granted by one of the lecturers

teaching the class, the researcher decided to observe Class C.

In identifying the students for the interview sessions, the researcher

divided the students into three categories. This process was done during the

observation sessions. The first category (Group A) represented the group of

students who participated actively in class discussions. The term ‘participate

actively’ here refers to students who volunteered to ask questions, responded to

questions asked by the lecturer and peers as well as gave comments and opinions

without being asked. The second category (Group B) represented the group of

students who occasionally participated or only participated after being prompted

by the lecturer or language instructor. The third category (Group C), on the other

hand, represented the group of students who did not participate at all in classroom

discussions.

Based on the observations conducted, it was identified that 11 students

were in Group A, 12 students were categorized as Group B, and another 17

students in Group C. Therefore, for the purpose of the interview, Group A was

represented by 3 students, Group B (3 students) and Group C (4 students). Each

group was represented by approximately 25% of the total number of students in

each category. Table 3.6 describes the respondents who were involved in the

interview sessions.

34

Table 3.6: Respondents’ background for the interview sessions

Groups Participants Descriptions

SSA1

A Chinese female student. She spoke English at home and also with his friends. She has taken Malaysian University English Test (MUET) during STPM and obtained a Band 5. She was also an active member of her school’s debating team. She took part in various public speaking competitions during her secondary school.

SSA2

A Malay female student. She studied at an all-girls school. She was the Head of Prefect for two years when she was in Forms Four and Five. She also took part in inter-school debate competitions. She was also an active member of Interact Club during her matriculation years.

Group A

SSA3

An Indian male student. He spoke fluent English. In fact, according to him, his English was much better than his Tamil. His parents were well-educated and the whole family spoke English at home.

SSB1

A Malay male student. He took MUET during STPM and obtained a Band 3. He admitted that he did not have any problems understanding reading materials written in English as well as listening to lectures in English. However, he has problems speaking in the language. He would participate if he felt that the topic was interesting.

SSB2

A very hardworking Chinese female student. She liked to copy notes during lessons. Occasionally, she would take part in discussions depending on the familiarity to the topic being discussed.

Group B

SSB3

A Malay female student. She obtained a credit (C5) for English in Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia. She would participate only if she has something to share.

35

Table 3.6: Respondents’ background for the interview sessions (Continued from the previous page)

Groups Participants Descriptions

SSC1

A Malay male student. Scored a pass (P7) for English paper in Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia. Lack of vocabulary was the main reason for his inability to take part in class discussions.

SSC2

A Malay female student. She admitted that she was a very shy person and would feel very nervous every time she wanted to speak.

SSC3

A Malay male student from Sarawak. He admitted that his English was very weak. He obtained a pass (P8) for English paper in his SPM. He used Bahasa Melayu throughout the interview session.

Group C

SSC4

A Malay male student. He obtained a rather good grade in SPM for English paper (C4). He confessed that he talked a lot in other classes but not in English classes or any subjects taught in the language. Although he had no problems in understanding the lectures, he lacked the confidence to speak in the language. As such, he would feel very nervous when he tried to speak in English especially in front of the class.

3.4 Data Collection

This section discusses the methods as well as instruments used for this

study. A detailed description on the data collection procedure will also be

provided. To summarize this section, a graphic presentation, i.e. Figure 3.1 is

given in the next page.

Observation Form - 6 types of participation behaviors - Appendix A

- First two weeks - 4 sessions for Effective Communication class - 4 sessions for Creativity & Innovation class - Total: 8 hours

- Third week - students identified during the observations - conducted after all the observations have been completed - individual interview - audiotaped

- Fourth week - 146 respondents - distributed during the class - administered by the respective lecturers

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

- To identify suitable students to be interviewed

- To answer RQ1, RQ3

- To answer RQ1, RQ2, RQ3

- To answer RQ1, RQ2, RQ3

PURPOSE

SURVEY

Questionnaire - 2 sections - 12 questions - Appendix C

INTERVIEW

Interview Questions - 6 Semi Structured questions - Appendix B

OBSERVATION

DATA COLLECTION

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

Figure 3.1: Data Collection

37

3.4.1 Methods of the Study

To collect the data, three different methods were used in this study. The

methods were classroom observation, interview, and survey. By observing the

students in their natural setting, the researcher was able to understand and gain a

better perspective on the issue of classroom participation. The interview, on the

other hand, enabled the researcher to capture the perspectives of the students

involved in the study. The use of a survey, meanwhile, allowed the researcher to

obtain valuable data from a larger population. Therefore, the researcher believes

that the three methods used complemented each other and thus ensured the

reliability and validity of the data collected.

There were two main purposes why the classroom observation was used.

Firstly, through classroom observations, the researcher was able to answer one of

the research questions stated in the first chapter of this report; i.e.

a. Does the learners’ oral participation in Creativity & Innovation class

differ from Effective Communication class?

i. In which class do they participate more?

ii. Do they ask questions?

iii. How do they respond to the lecturer’s questions?

iv. Will they voluntarily give comments and opinions during class

discussions?

Secondly, the observations conducted were also for the researcher to

identify and choose the most suitable students for the interview sessions (See

Section 3.3 on how the students were selected for the interview sessions).

Another method used in collecting the data was the interview. By having

the three different types of students as defined in Section 3.3 as the interviewees,

the interview sessions had enabled the researcher to gain a better insight on the

issues being discussed. Valuable data including the strategies used by the students

while participating, the factors influencing their oral participation as well as the

possible differences of their participation in the two different settings; i.e. the

38

Effective Communication class and the Creativity and Innovation class were

collected through the interview. Therefore, the use of the interview had enabled

the researcher to answer the three research questions of this study; i.e.

a. Does the learners’ oral participation in Creativity & Innovation

class differ from Effective Communication class?

i. In which class do they participate more?

ii. Do they ask questions?

iii. How do they respond to the lecturer’s questions?

iv. Will they voluntarily give comments and opinions during class

discussions?

b. What are the factors that influenced the learners’ oral

participation?

c. What are the strategies used by the students to participate in the

classroom?

As the overall number of subjects selected for this study was 146, there

was a need for the researcher to have a method which was not time consuming to

conduct as well as to analyze. Thus, survey, by the means of questionnaire was

used as another method to collect the data for this study. In other words, the use

of a survey allowed the researcher to obtain data from a larger number of

respondents compared to classroom observation and interview. Furthermore, the

data collected strengthened the information obtained through the other two

methods. Again, the use of survey had enabled the researcher to answer the three

research questions as listed in the previous paragraph.

39

3.4.2 Research Instruments

To gather the data, three major instruments were used in this study. The

instruments were observation form, interview questions, and questionnaire.

In ensuring the reliability and validity of the instruments, opinions and

suggestions by language teachers have been taken into considerations in

designing and formulating the observation checklist as well as the interview

questions. As for the questionnaire, the questions have been edited several times

by a few colleagues. A pilot study has also been conducted to a group of students

and a few changes have been made to improvise the questionnaire.

3.4.2.1 Observation Form

As a guideline for the researcher during the observation sessions, an

observation form was designed (see Appendix A). There were six types of oral

participation behaviors which the researcher intended to focus on during the

observation sessions. They were

a. Volunteer to respond to lecturer’s questions (without prompting)

b. Respond to lecturer’s questions after being prompted

c. Ask questions to the lecturer

d. Ask questions to other students

e. Respond to peers

f. Give opinions, comments etc. without being asked

By looking at these six types of behaviors, a comparison was made on

how the students participate in two different classes mentioned earlier. This was

done by quantifying the number of times each student participate in relation to the

six types of behaviors listed above.

40

3.4.2.2 Interview Questions

Another instrument used in this study was a set of interview questions

(Appendix B). The questions were semi-structured in which additional questions

were asked during the interview sessions depending on the responses given by the

interviewees. The questions formulated for the interview sessions included

a. the use of English in learning Creativity and Innovation paper as well

as Effective Communication paper to improve the students’ speaking

skills,

b. the factors that make the students participate,

c. the factors that make the students reluctant to participate,

d. the setting in which they participate more, and,

e. the strategies they use when participating in the classroom discussions.

3.4.2.3 Questionnaire

The questionnaire was divided into two sections, Section A, and Section B

(see Appendix C). As for Section A, there were six questions asking the

respondents about their personal particulars such as gender and level of

performance for written as well as spoken English.

Section B, on the hand, tried to investigate how the use of English

language had affected the subjects’ oral classroom participation in two different

classes, Effective Communication class, and Creativity and Innovation class.

Questions 7 and 8 focused on the use of English in the two papers offered,

Questions 9 and 10, on the other hand, focused on the students’ oral participation

behaviors in Creativity and Innovation class and Effective Communication class

respectively. Question 11 tried to look at the strategies used by the students when

participating and finally, Question 12 asked the respondents to respond on the

factors which influenced their classroom oral participation.

41

It is also important to note here that all the questions in Section B required

the respondents to select the best statements that reflected their real practices in

the classroom particularly in terms of oral participation. In doing so, the

respondents had to match each item in each question with a four Likert-Scale

options, ‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’, and ‘Strongly Disagree’. The

purpose of having only four options was to avoid the possibility of respondents of

choosing the middle option - ‘Neutral’. Thus, instead of having an-odd-number

scale as many other questionnaires employed, the researcher used an even number

scale. Having only four options also allowed the researcher to collapse the closed

items into two overall categories of students’ agreement and disagreement with

the statements given when the data were analyzed.

3.4.3 Procedures

To maintain the validity of the data collected, the study followed the

following procedures; (1) classroom observations, (2) interview sessions, and

finally (3) the questionnaire distribution. The researcher believes that if the

questionnaire was distributed first, this would influence the respondents’

behaviour during the observation sessions and their responses during the

interview sessions.

The process of collecting the data began with classroom observations. A

total of eight classroom observation sessions were done in this research and each

observation lasted for about an hour. From the eight observations, four were done

in the Effective Communication classes and the other four in the Creativity and

Innovation classes. All observation sessions were done within two weeks.

Apart from focusing on the six types of oral participation behaviors as

discussed in Section 3.4.2.1, the eight observation sessions were conducted for

the researcher to identify and select the suitable candidates to be interviewed (See

Section 3.3 on how the students were selected). For that purpose, 10 students

were identified for the interview sessions.

42

The interview sessions took place after all the observations had been

completed. All the interviewees were interviewed individually and tape-recorded.

The interview sessions took about one week to be completed.

In answering the interview questions, the students were given the option

whether to use Bahasa Melayu or English. By allowing the students to use other

language than English, it was hoped that the interviewees would be able to

provide as much information as possible for every question asked.

After all the interview sessions were completed, the questionnaire was

distributed to all 146 students involved in this study. To ensure a high return, the

questionnaire was distributed during the class sessions and administered by the

lecturers teaching the two papers; Effective Communication paper and Creativity

and Innovation paper.

3.5 Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, two major methods were used depending on the

type of data obtained from each instrument. For example, the data from the

questionnaire were analyzed quantitatively. The data obtained through the

interview sessions, on the other hand, were analyzed qualitatively. However,

since the data obtained from the observation were both quantitative and

qualitative, they were analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

It is important to state here that the quantitative data obtained through the

observation as well as the survey were actually non-parametric data. Thus, the

data could not be computed using any parametric statistical methods such as the t-

test or Pearson Correlation. Instead, the data, which were in the form of frequency

distributions, were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics, i.e. percentage.

Some of the data were also analyzed by totaling the point scores obtained and

then ranked from the highest to the lowest scores. However, in computing and

analyzing the data, the researcher used the Statistics Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS) software.

43

3.5.1 Analyzing the Data Obtained from the Observation Sessions

The data obtained from the observation sessions were analyzed

qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The researcher’s field notes and

observations were coded and categorized accordingly (See Appendix D).

Using the Statistics Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, the data

collected from the observation form were analyzed quantitatively. As stated in the

earlier section, there were six types of participation behaviors which the

observation focused on. Each of these types of behaviors was quantified and later

converted into percentage. To see whether the learner’s oral participation in

Creativity and Innovation class differ in Effective Communication class, the

analyzed data obtained through the observation sessions from the two classes

were compared.

3.5.2 Analyzing the Data Obtained from the Interview Sessions

First of all, the recorded interview sessions were transcribed. When it was

done, the information obtained was labeled and grouped into three main

categories (See Appendix E). The categories were as follow:

a. the differences of students’ participation in the two different settings,

b. factors influencing student’s oral participation, and,

c. strategies used by the students when participating.

3.5.3 Analyzing the Data Obtained from the Questionnaire

To analyze the data obtained from the questionnaire, the Statistics

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used. For Section A, the data

obtained were converted into frequency and later into percentage. The computed

data will be represented in tables.

44

However, in Section B, a four Likert scale of ‘Strongly Agree, ‘Agree’

Disagree’, and ‘Strongly Disagree’, was used. Therefore, for each scale, a point

was assigned. The points assigned for each scale were 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively.

The points scored by each item obtained from all the respondents were then

totaled up. The total scores for all items had enabled the researcher to rank the

items according to the highest to the lowest. By looking at the ranked items, the

researcher was able to decide, for example, the actual factors which influenced

the respondents’ oral classroom participation.

3.5.4 Triangulating the Computed Data

The analyzed data from the three different instruments were then

triangulated. This was based on the objectives of the study as well as the research

questions listed in Chapter One. To answer each research question, data from

different sources, i.e. observation, interview, and survey, were grouped together.

For example, to determine the factors that influenced the learners’ oral

participation, the analyzed data obtained through questions 4 and 5 of the

interview were used. This, then, was supported by the analyzed data obtained

through question 12 of the questionnaire. The following Table 3.7 shows how

data were triangulated in this study.

Table 3.7: Data Triangulation

Research Questions Source of Data Does the learners’ oral participation in Creativity & Innovation class differ to in Effective Communication Class?

Interview: Q1, Q2, Q3 Observation Questionnaire: Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10

What are the factors that influenced the learners’ oral participation?

Interview: Q4, Q5 Questionnaire:Q12

What are the strategies used by the students to participate in the classroom?

Interview: Q6 Observation Questionnaire: Q11

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings of the analyzed data obtained from the

study. To understand how the students participated in class discussions in the two

papers offered, there was a need for the researcher to see for himself what really

happened during the lessons. Apart from that, the students’ views and opinions

must also be examined. Thus, observation sessions were conducted in the two

classes; Creativity and Innovation class, and Effective Communication class. In

obtaining the students’ views, selected students were interviewed and a

questionnaire survey was also distributed.

Data gathered from the 8 observation sessions, 10 student interviews and

146 students’ responses to the questionnaire were analyzed and triangulated based

on the three research questions stated in Chapter 1. Three major findings emerged

from the analysis of the data, i.e. (1) the similarities and the differences of

students’ participation in Creativity and Innovation class and Effective

Communication class, (2) factors influencing students’ participation, and (3)

strategies used when participating. In presenting the findings, the results from the

closed items in the Section B of the questionnaire were collapsed to show the

overall students’ agreement and disagreement with the statements given (Refer to

Section 3.4.2.3 for reasons data were collapsed). Illustrations such as tables and

quotations (e.g. SSA1 refers to the first student from Group A interviewed) from

both the quantitative and qualitative data will be included.

46

4.2 The Students’ General Perceptions towards the Use of English in the

Teaching and Learning of Creativity and Innovation and Effective

Communication

In general, the use of English in the teaching and learning of Creativity

and Innovation paper was well accepted by the respondents. The results of the

study as shown in Table 4.1 revealed that 125 students (85.62%) from the

Effective Communication class and 130 students (89.04%) from the Creativity

and Innovation class indicated that they either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that

the class would improve their speaking skills. In addition, the survey also showed

that, in both classes, approximately 85% of the respondents felt the classes helped

them to be more confident in speaking the language.

Table 4.1: Students’ perceptions towards the use of English in Creativity and Innovation class and Effective Communication class as obtained by the survey Strongly agreed or agreed to each of the following statements;

Class

The use of English in CI % EC % Helps to improve my spoken English 130 89.04 125 85.62 Provides opportunities for expressing myself in English

127 86.99 124 84.93

Helps to build my confidence using the language

125 85.62 124 84.93

Promotes discussion and participation in class

122 83.56 122 83.56

Encourages active and lively participation in class

124 84.93 118 80.82

Promotes interaction between students and lecturer 121 82.88 117 80.14

Promotes interaction among students 122 83.56 119 81.51 Note: CI – Creativity and Innovation Class EC – Effective Communication Class

The use of English in the teaching of both papers has also given the

respondents the opportunities to express themselves in the language. The survey

indicated that 124 (84.93%) students in the Effective Communication class and

127 (86.99%) students in the Creativity and Innovation class either ‘strongly

agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that they have more opportunities expressing themselves in

the language.

47

The survey conducted also revealed that the respondents believed the use

of English in both classes would be able to promote discussion as well as class

participation. Table 4.1 shows that 122 (83.56%) students indicated that they

either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ the use of English could promote discussion

and class participation. An almost similar result was also obtained for the

statement ‘the use of English encourages active and lively participation in class’.

As for interaction between students and lecturer, and between students and

students, the survey also resulted in positive perceptions. More than 80% of the

respondents believed that the use of English in both papers would be able to

promote interaction between students and lecturer as well as between students and

students.

4.3 Students’ Oral Participation in Creativity and Innovation Class

versus in Effective Communication Class

Based on the data obtained from the observation sessions, the survey as

well as the interview, the following findings were registered.

First of all, the analyzed data showed there were slightly differences on

how students used the language in both classes. The survey conducted revealed

that more students used English in Effective Communication class compared to in

Creativity and Innovation class. Table 4.2 (see page 49) shows that 74 (50.68%)

students from Effective Communication class ‘always used English during the

class discussions’ compared to 69 (47.26%) in Creativity and Innovation class.

The table also shows that 86 (58.90%) of the students in the Effective

Communication class ‘always used English during the class activities’ as

compared to only 55 (37.67%) students in Creativity and Innovation class.

48

Table 4.2: Students’ oral participation in Creativity and Innovation class and Effective Communication class as obtained from the survey

Class Strongly agreed or agreed to each of the following statements CI % EC %

I always use English during the class discussions

69 47.26 74 50.68

I always use English during the class activities

55 37.67 86 58.90

I always respond to lecturer’s questions 99 63.46 87 59.59 I always ask questions. 58 39.73 50 34.25 I always respond to questions asked by my friends

110 75.34 103 70.55

I always speak in class, even if without being called / asked

54 36.24 48 32.88

Note: CI – Creativity and Innovation Class EC – Effective Communication Class

As found out by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), and Edwards and Mercer

(1987) cited in Howe (1997), whole class interaction was usually characterized by

teacher initiation, student response and teacher feedback. The observation

sessions conducted in Effective Communication classes confirmed the claimed by

those scholars mentioned. In these classes, it was observed that most of the times,

the lecturer was the one who started off class discussions. This usually came in

the form of questions. Some students then would try to respond to the questions

and followed by feedback from the lecturer. The analyzed data indicated that out

of 121 exchanges recorded, 76 (62.81%) exchanges were initiated by the lecturer

(Refer Table 4.3, page 50).

Although the same interaction pattern could be seen in Creativity and

Innovation classes, the observation sessions conducted revealed that the students

had a fair share in initiating class discussions. Table 4.3 showed that out of 154

exchanges recorded, 77 (50%) exchanges were initiated by the lecturer. Thus, the

results of the study suggested that in Creativity and Innovation classes, the

possibilities of students to start off discussions were higher compared to in

Effective Communication classes.

49

Table 4.3: Students’ oral participation in Creativity and Innovation class and Effective Communication class as obtained from the observation sessions

Class Effective

Communication Creativity & Innovation

No. Item

Exchanges % Exchanges %

1

Volunteer to respond to lecturer’s questions (without prompting)

48 39.67% 58 37.66%

2

Respond to lecturer’s questions after being prompted

28 23.14% 19 12.34%

3 Ask questions to the lecturer 15 12.40% 25 16.23%

4 Ask questions to other students 8 6.61% 12 7.79%

5 Respond to peers 10 8.26% 18 11.69%

6

Give opinions, comments etc. without being asked

12 9.92% 22 14.29%

TOTAL 121 100% 154 100%

In spite of that, the survey conducted indicated that majority of the

students would not take part in whole-class discussions unless asked or prompted

by the lecturer. Table 4.2 in page 48 shows that only 54 (36.24%) of the students

in the Creativity and Innovation class would volunteer to give comments or share

their opinions without being asked first. As in Effective Communication class,

only 48 (32.88%) of the students would do the same.

The observation sessions conducted in both classes also recorded low

numbers of exchanges. In Effective Communication classes, out of 121 exchanges

recorded, 12 exchanges were under the item ‘Give opinions, comments, etc.

without being asked’. This is equivalent to 9.91% of the total exchanges recorded.

In Creativity and Innovation classes, on the other hand, the number of exchanges

under the same item was slightly higher. As shown in Table 4.3 above, a total of

22 (14.29%) exchanges were recorded in the Creativity and Innovation classes.

50

It was also found that not many students like to ask questions during the

lessons. The survey, as shown in Table 4.2 (see page 48), indicated that only 58

students (39.73%) and 50 students (34.25%) liked to ask questions in Creativity

and Innovation class and Effective Communication class respectively.

A resemblance pattern was also obtained from the quantified data taken

during the observation sessions. From the 4 observations conducted in Effective

Communication classes, a total of 23 questions were asked by the students; 15

questions were asked to the lecturer and another 8 were asked to other students.

This is equivalent to 19.01% of the total exchanges recorded (Refer Table 4.3,

page 49). The number of questions asked in Creativity and Innovation classes

however was slightly higher. A total of 37 questions were asked whereby 25

questions were for the lecturer and 12 questions were asked to other students.

This is equivalent to 24.03% of the total exchanges recorded in the Creativity and

Innovation classes observed.

Some of the reasons given by the respondents for not asking questions

were

‘…don’t ask a lot of questions or other students will think you are busy body.’

SSA2 ‘…if you ask a lot of questions, meaning you were not listening to the lecturer. Or, you were busy doing something else.’

SSB2 ‘…I think it is rude to interrupt the lecturer when he is teaching. If I have something to ask, I will wait after class.’

SSC1 In fact, what SSC1 mentioned was true. In all the observation sessions, the

researcher noticed that many of the students would wait until the lessons ended

before they approached the lecturer and asked questions. Some respondents felt

that if they asked questions during the lessons, they would interrupt the flow of

the lessons. They also preferred to ask questions or seek for clarifications after the

51

classes had ended as they were afraid that the issues they raised or the questions

they asked were not of the concerns of other students.

‘…if the lecture is interrupted by so many questions, this will affect the lecturer’s teaching. May be he will not have enough time to teach what he wanted to teach during the lesson.’

SSB3 ‘…sometimes the questions I asked do not concern other students. Or, sometimes my questions are out of topic. So I don’t want my friends to waste their time.’

SSC1

Although the students did not like to ask questions, responding to them

was not a problem. The results of the survey conducted also further strengthen

this finding. As shown in Table 4.2 (see page 48), out of 146 students, 99

(63.46%) students claimed that they always ‘responded to the lecturer’s

questions’ in the Creativity and Innovation class and 86 (58.90%) students in

Effective Communication class. The respondents also claimed that they ‘always

responded to questions asked by their friends’. A total of 110 (75.34%) and 103

(70.55%) of the students from Creativity and Innovation class and Effective

Communication class respectively either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ to the

statement asked in the questionnaire.

The quantified data obtained from the observation sessions also showed

that students did not have any problems responding to their friends’ questions

during class discussions. From the 8 questions asked in Effective Communication

classes, 10 responses were provided. Similarly, from the 12 questions posed in

Creativity and Innovation classes, 18 responses were given by the students (Refer

Table 4.3 in page 49).

Finally, there was also a noticeable seating arrangement related to

classroom participation. Students who liked to contribute in whole-class

discussions tended to sit at the front of the class whereas for those who usually

acted as observant would prefer to sit at the back. This finding seemed to confirm

to what Morrison and Thomas (1975) have pointed out. Their study showed that

52

students with low self-esteem say less in class and sit further back in the

classroom compared to students with high self-esteem.

‘…students who sit in front are usually those who completed their homework. They come to class prepared.’

SSA3 ‘…many lecturers tend to ask questions to students who are at front of the class. I don’t like to be asked, so I prefer to sit at the back.’

SSC2

4.4 Factors Influencing Students’ Oral Participation

Liu (2001) has suggested that students’ oral participation were due to five

major factors; cognitive, linguistic, affective, pedagogical, and socio-cultural. The

findings of the current research also revealed that factors influencing the

respondents’ oral participation can be categorized into the five major factors

mentioned by Liu.

4.4.1 Linguistic Factors

The findings of the study revealed that students’ linguistic abilities played

a great influence on their classroom participation. In fact, all the 10 respondents

interviewed mentioned that proficiency in English would determine whether they

would take part in class discussions or just remained silent. Respondents from

Group A, for example, attributed their active participation to their ability to use

the language. As SSA3 put it in the interview

‘…definitely I would say that my ability to speak in English fluently helped me to share my ideas in Creativity and Innovation class and also Effective Communication class. As I speak the language everyday, it is not a problem for me to participate in these two classes. In fact, in other Engineering classes, I think, I

53

use English a lot when asking questions or participating. My lecturers do not mind if I use English in their classes.’

SSA3

As for SSA1, having represented her previous secondary school in debate

and public speaking competitions, she believed that her experience helped her to

participate actively in class discussions. From the observations conducted, the

researcher noticed that SSA1 was a natural speaker of the language. She did not

only participate naturally and effortlessly, but she also knew when to speak and

what to say. Liu (2001) regards this type of participation as total integration

participation.

‘…My experience in taking part in public speaking competitions when I was in my secondary years has really helped me to participate actively in these two classes. I don’t think English is a problem to me.

SSA1

For SSA2, on the other hand, she believed that her fluency in the language

had enabled her to express herself better and thus made her active in class

discussions. By taking part in class discussions, according to her, she did not only

improve her spoken English but it has also helped her to understand the lesson

better. In fact, in both classes, Creativity and Innovation as well as Effective

Communication, SSA2 was one of the most active students (See descriptions of

interview respondents in Chapter 3). She asked a lot of questions and at one

occasion, she even argued with the lecturer as she was not satisfied with the

lecturer’s explanation.

‘…I must say that I was able to contribute to the discussions because I don’t think I have any problem speaking in English. Not to say that my English is perfect, but the confidence I have in using the language helped me to respond to questions asked by the lecturer and also to say whatever I have in my mind regarding the topic being discussed. …By participating, I think, I can improve my English better and also help me to understand the topic better.’

SSA2

54

Like SSA2, many other students would agree that their participation in

class discussions would not only help them to understand the topic better but also

would be able to improve their language. However, their attempts to be more

active in the discussions were hampered by their lack of ability in the language.

SSB2 and SSB1 explained

‘… it is not because I don’t want to participate in discussions. Most of the times, I can understand what the lecturer is saying, or my friends are talking. I have my ideas too. But when I want to speak, I think, I don’t have the words to say. I cannot find the right words. When I got the words, then, my friends has mentioned what I’m trying to say, or the lecturer ask another question.’

SSB2

‘…Actually, I don’t have problems understanding the lecture or understanding the questions, but, the problem is because of my language. I need more time to think, to put words, to make sentences before I can speak in class. Sometimes, I try to find the words from my dictionary first. Sometimes, I ask my friends to translate. But for presentation, I think, I have more confidence. Usually I will write first.’

SSB1

SSB2 and SSB1’s comments led us to another factor; lack of vocabulary.

Because of that, many students required more time thinking and finding the right

words before they could take part in the discussions. As such, they lost valuable

time to speak at the right moment as the discussion had moved to other directions.

This problem was made worse as many students were still having problems with

English sentence structures as explained by SSC2

‘… I think that my English is bad. I have problems constructing sentences. Usually, I take a lot of time to make a sentence in English. I don’t know… English is very difficult.

SSC2

While many students did not have much problems understanding spoken

English, some students had lots of difficulties. SSC3, for example, found it very

difficult to follow the lessons.

55

‘…my English is very weak. I have problems understanding what the lecturer talks about. I think if it is in Bahasa Melayu, I will not have any problems participating. But because it is in English, I just keep quiet.’

SSC3

Table 4.4: The factors influencing students’ oral participation as obtained by the

survey I do not take part or reluctant to take part in oral class discussions because

SA/A % D/SD % Points score

Rank

The topic does not interest me 91 62.33 55 37.67 415 1

I am nervous 100 68.49 46 31.51 411 2 I have problems putting my thoughts into words

97 66.44 49 33.56 399 3

My English is weak 93 63.70 53 36.30 397 4 I am afraid that my answers are wrong 90 61.64 56 38.36 390 5

I am a shy person 78 53.42 68 46.58 380 6 Other students have participated (S) 88 60.27 58 39.73 379 7

I do not know what to say 79 54.11 67 45.89 378 8

I do not want to be the centre of attraction 78 53.42 68 46.58 373 9

I am afraid of being penalized if I make mistake

73 50.00 73 50.00 368 10

I am afraid of being seen as ‘stupid’ if my answers are not right

77 52.74 69 47.26 365 11

Other students will think that I am trying to show off

55 37.67 91 62.33 343 12

The lecturer does not pick on me. 50 34.25 96 65.75 336 13

I am afraid of the lecturer 43 29.45 103 70.55 329 14

Notes: SA/A – Strongly agreed/agreed, D/SD – Disagreed/ Strongly disagreed

56

The students’ responses and comments during the interview sessions were

well reflected in the survey conducted. The survey conducted revealed that

linguistic factors were the major reasons why students’ did not actively take part

in class discussions. As shown in Table 4.4, 97 students (66.44%) admitted that

they ‘have problems putting their thoughts into words’ and 99 students (63.70%)

either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that their English was weak. These two

statements were ranked third and fourth from a list of 14 reasons why the students

did not take part in class discussions.

4.4.2 Pedagogical Factors

The observations conducted indicated that the way lecturer carried out the

lessons gave an impact on the way students participated in class discussions. In

one of the observation sessions in the Effective Communication class, the

researcher noticed that participation was rather lacking. During the lesson, the

lecturer was talking about the roles of meeting participants, i.e. the roles of the

chairman, the secretary as well as the ordinary members. In doing so, using the

over-head projector as the teaching aid, the lecturer resorted to lecture-type

teaching technique in which almost all the students were busy copying the notes

from the transparencies.

The lecturer did ask a few questions; however, because he had so many

things to be covered during the lesson, the students were not given enough time to

respond. In fact, after he posed the questions, the lecturer would often

immediately provide the answers to his own questions.

As SSA3 commented,

‘…some lecturers I think do not give enough opportunities for us to contribute our ideas during the lesson. Either it is too lecture-type, or the lecturer simply does not allow active participation from the students.’

SSA3

57

In another session, the same lecturer managed to draw his students to

participate in discussions. Adopting workshop-style, the lecturer divided the class

into several groups and asked each group to conduct a meeting. Before the groups

started their meetings, the lecturer asked the students to verbally list out the things

they need to discuss during the meetings. The lecturer also called a student to

write the list on the whiteboard. Interestingly, during this activity, a lot of

discussions were taking place. Interactions in the forms of questions,

clarifications and confirmations were exchanged between the student who wrote

on the whiteboard and the rest of the class. Expressions such as ‘how do you spell

the word?’, ‘Can you repeat your sentence, please?’, ‘What do you mean by…?’,

and ‘…I don’t think we should include this point.’ were used. The researcher also

noticed that the lecturer just observed the on-going discussions and only gave his

comments after the students had completed the discussions.

A similar scenario was also witnessed during an observation in a

Creativity and Innovation session. In this class, many students were busy taking

part in class discussions. In this session, the lecturer introduced a thinking

technique called ‘Alternatives’ to the students. Instead of giving a lecture about

the technique, the lecturer guided the students on how to use the technique. The

lecturer gave a problem and asked the students to solve the problem. While the

students were busy giving their ideas, the lecturer wrote the ideas on the

whiteboard. Occasionally, the lecturer asked the students to elaborate on their

ideas. The lecturer also asked the students to improvise the ideas brought forward

by the other students. To maximize students’ participation, the lecturer also called

out a few students to contribute.

The results of the study also indicated that there were slight differences

between whole-class discussions and group discussions. First, although research

has shown that male students were generally more active in class discussions

(Dart & Clarke, 1988; Howe, 1997), the current study found that in whole-class

discussion, female students were more talkative compared to the male students.

The female students were not only seen as more responsive, they were also

seemed to be more interested in following the lessons. The male students, on the

58

other hand, were a little bit passive. Nevertheless, the fact that the female students

outnumbered the male students 28 to 12 might contribute to this phenomenon.

Second, it was also found that whole-class discussions were mainly

dominated by a few class members. The other students, on the other hand,

preferred to listen and take notes. In group discussions, however, more students

were seen taking part. This can be seen by the responses given by the respondents

during the interview sessions.

‘…in class discussions, only a few will have the chance to speak but in group, I think, everybody can speak… I don’t like to speak in front of the class. I feel nervous and my English is bad. …in small group, I feel more relax. It’s ok if I make mistakes.’

SSB1 ‘… students who are good in English, they speak more. Because my English is not so good, so I just listen.’

SSB2

‘…I prefer to have group discussions. I can speak more.’

SSC4

Third, it was also found that in whole-class discussions, English was the

dominant language used. However, in group discussions, many students reverted

to Bahasa Melayu. During the group meetings (as described in page 57), the

researcher who was seating next to a group noticed that some students were using

Bahasa Melayu during the discussion. However, the Bahasa Melayu words and

expressions were translated into English by other students in the group. The

researcher believes in spite of the mother tongue being used in the discussions,

with the feedback provided by their friends, these students learnt some English

words.

‘…because I am not good in English, I use Bahasa Melayu in discussions. But when I want to speak in front of class or if the lecturer ask us to present something, I write first. So, I use English’

SSC1

59

‘…I try to use English in both classes. But Creativity is not an English class, I think it’s ok to use BM when I have problems with English words. The lecturer also sometimes uses BM when he teach.’

SSC4 ‘…sometimes I use Bahasa in English class especially in small group discussions. But when the lecturer ask me, I will use English.’

SSB2

This finding was in fact similar to the previous study by Lim (2003). Lim

found that students tend to speak the native language when they were native

speakers around. In this current study, all the respondents could speak and

understand Bahasa Melayu. Therefore, even when the lessons were conducted in

English, many of them would revert to Bahasa Melayu.

In addition to the way a lesson was being conducted, students’

participation was also determined by the students’ interest level toward certain

topics. The results from the survey indicated that 91 students (62.33%) were

either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that they did not take part in class discussions

if ‘the lesson was boring’ (Refer to Table 4.4, page 55).

The interview also indicated that many of the respondents would

participate if they had interest in the topics being discussed. Otherwise, if the

topics were deemed boring, they were reluctant to take part.

‘…well, it depend on the topic. If the topic is interesting, I will participate. Usually, when the topic is interesting, I have many things to say. But if the topic is boring to me, let other students speak.’

SSB1

60

‘…I guess I participate more in Creativity class. In Effective Communication class, I speak less. You know, most of the times, we learnt the same thing we learnt when I was in matriculation. The same meeting format, writing minutes, how to prepare for presentation. All the same. Boring. But, Creativity class is different. Something new. So it is more interesting. Also, it is more relevant to my course.’

SSB3

4.4.3 Cognitive Factors

Having the linguistic knowledge does not guarantee a student to take part

in class discussions. The findings of the study revealed that knowing what to say

was as important as knowing how to say. In fact, a comment by SSA1 proved this

point. In the interview, SSA1 said,

‘…I will only participate if I know what to speak. I mean, if I do not know the topic well, or I am not sure what I want to say is correct, I will just keep quiet. For me, content is also important. You know, I don’t want to embarrass myself talking nonsense.’

It was not a surprise though that students were unable to participate

because of their lack of knowledge in the subject matter. The findings from the

survey showed that less than 50% of the respondents made some preparations

before entering the class. Out of 146 respondents, only 45 students (30.82%)

prepared some questions to be asked during the class. To another statement, ‘I

prepare some notes so that I know what to ask’, 78 (53.42%) of the respondents

admitted that no notes were prepared before the lessons began (Refer to Table

4.5, page 67).

As a result, 79 (54.11%) of the respondents stated that they ‘did not know

what to say’ during the class discussions as one of the reasons why they were

unable or reluctant to participate (See Table 4.4, page 55). According to SSC3

and SSC4,

61

‘…I don’t participate because I don’t know what to say!’

SSC3

‘…my problem is I’m not sure what should I say.

SSC4

Further pressed whether they did some preparations prior to the lessons,

the two respondents admitted that for the two classes; Creativity and Innovation

class and Effective Communication class, they believed they do not need to do so.

Both SSC3 and SSC4 felt that the two subjects were general subjects where only

general knowledge and common sense were required. For other Engineering or

Mathematics subjects, on the other hand, both respondents agreed that extra

efforts were needed in order for them to understand the topics.

‘… I just go to class, listen, copy notes and do whatever the lecturer asked us to do. For my major subjects, it is different. They are difficult. The night before the class, usually I will revise the previous topics. I will also make sure that I read my text books for the next topic. If I don’t, then it is very difficult to understand the lesson.’

SSC3

‘…for Creativity class and English class, I don’t think there is a need for me to work hard. They are too general. In Creative Thinking class I think, it’s just logic and common sense. But for Statistical class, it is different. I need to understand the concepts and I have to do a lot of calculations. Usually I spend hours understanding the concepts and doing the exercises.’

SSC4

Lack of knowledge in the subject matter also reduced the possibilities of

students participating in class discussions. As commented by SSB2,

‘…sometimes, the lecturer asked us to prepare some notes or find some information from the Net to be discussed in the next class. If I have time or I’m not busy, I will try to follow what the lecturer tell us to do. Then, I have something to say in class. But, if I don’t find the materials, I will keep quiet. I will not say anything in class… because I afraid what I say is wrong.’

SSB2

62

As such, they were afraid to participate for the reason they might provide

the wrong answer. From the survey, 90 (61.64%) of the respondents either

‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that they did not or were reluctant to participate

because they ‘were afraid that their answers were wrong’ (See Table 4.4, page

55).

4.4.4 Affective Factors

The findings of the study also revealed that the factors influencing

students’ participation were interrelated. For example, because of their language

deficiency as well as their lack of knowledge in the subject matters, many

students were not confident when speaking in the public. As such, they felt very

nervous whenever they attempted to participate. Some of the respondents

commented that:

‘…when I’m not sure on what I want to say I will feel a little bit nervous.’

SSA2

‘…I feel very nervous when I want to speak in class. Meaning, with other students listening to me.’

SSB3 ‘…because my English is bad, I always feel not confidence speaking in front of class. I think my friends will notice my mistakes.’

SSC4 ‘…every time I want to give my opinions, I feel very nervous. Sometimes, I sweat. Sometimes my voice just don’t go out. I guess, it is because of my language.’

SSC1

63

From the survey, it was found that 100 (68.49%) of the respondents either

‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that nervousness was one of the reasons why they

did not participate in class discussions. In fact, nervousness was ranked second

from the list as shown in Table 4.4 in page 55.

Likewise, students who were good in the language and were equipped

with the necessary knowledge would have more confidence contributing to the

class discussions. The following proves the assumption:

‘…because of the preparations and revisions I made, I am able to take part in class discussions. I feel confidence answering the lecturer’s questions and also sharing my points to the class.’

SSA3

However, in group discussions, nervousness does not seem to be a

problem to many students. SSB1 commented

‘…I don’t like to speak in front of the class. I feel nervous and my English is bad. …in small group, I feel more relax. It’s ok if I make mistakes.’

SSB1

Shyness was another influencing factor which could affect students’

participation. However, shyness, according to McCroskey (1991), is a behavior

that could be the result of any one or a combination of the following factors: skill

deficiencies, social introversion, social alienation, ethnic/cultural divergence,

unfamiliarity with academic discourse, lacking confidence in subject matter,

and/or communication apprehension. The survey conducted in this study as

shown in Table 4.4 (See page 55) revealed that slightly more than half of the

respondents believed that their shyness had affected their involvement in

classroom discussions.

As stated in Chapter Two, Tatar (2005) claimed that some students did not

participate because they would like to avoid making mistakes and any

embarrassing situation that could damage their public image. In other words, for

these learners, keeping silent is an effective face-saving strategy. The current

64

research found that 77 (52.74%) of the students were ‘afraid of being seen as

stupid if their answers were not right’. The survey also found that 90 (61.64%) of

the respondents would not take part in discussions because they were ‘afraid that

their answers were wrong’ (Refer to Table 4.4, page 55).

4.4.5 Socio-Cultural Factors

According to Liu (2001), the socio-cultural category refers to the

participants’ beliefs, values, and moral judgments that are heavily influenced by

their cultural backgrounds and educational experiences.

In this study, a few factors could be placed under socio-cultural category.

Firstly, many respondents believed that they should only talk when they were

very sure what they uttered was correct. As such, as mentioned above, 90

(61.64%) of the respondents would not take part in discussions because they were

‘afraid that their answers were wrong’.

‘…I will only participate if I know what to speak. I mean, if I do not know the topic well, or I am not sure what I want to say is correct, I will just keep quiet... You know, I don’t want to embarrass myself talking nonsense.’

SSA1

The respondents also believed that providing wrong answers would lead to

the unnecessary attention from their classmates. According to SSC3 and SSB1

‘…people will remember you if your answers are wrong or does not make sense’

SSC3 ‘…I don’t want to be laughed at because of my stupid answers’.

SSB1

65

In the survey, it was revealed that 78 (53.42%) respondents either

‘strongly agreed’ or agreed’ to the statement ‘I do not want to be the centre of

attraction’ (Refer Table 4.4, page 55).

The belief that it was rude for a student to interrupt while the lecturer was

teaching was another factor related to socio-cultural category. For them, they

should not speak unless they were asked to. Speaking too much was also

considered as rude as it was a sign of disrespect to the lecturer as well as other

students. As commented by SSC3 and SSC4,

‘…I come to class because I want to learn something from the lecturer… not listening to some students who talk too much. Sometimes, I just feel that they should keep quiet. Let the lecturer teach. It is rude.’

SSC3

‘…I find it rude to interrupt the lecturer. Unless, you are asked to speak then you can speak.’

SSC4

The respondents also believed that there was no need for them to take part

in discussions if other students had already participated. This, according to SSC2,

would only waste their time. The survey also revealed that 88 (60.27%) of the

respondents would not take part if ‘other students have participated’ (Refer to

Table 4.4, page 55).

‘…well, if some students have given the answers, why should I say more? I don’t think everybody must give their answers to what the lecturer asked. If everybody speaks the same thing, this will waste our time’

SSC2

66

4.4.6 Other Factors

The survey conducted, however, found that some factors listed out in the

questionnaire were not really affecting their involvement in class discussions. As

shown in Table 4.4 in page 55, these factors were ranked 11 from the list of 14

factors. Based on the survey, only 55 (37.67%) of the respondents felt that ‘other

students will think that I am trying to show off’ was a reason why they did not or

were reluctant to take part in class discussions. Similarly, for the statements ‘The

lecturer does not pick on me’ and ‘I am afraid of the lecturer’, only 50 (34.25%)

and 43 (29.45%) of the respondents respectively believed that these were factors

which influenced their classroom participations.

4.5 Strategies Used When Participating in Classroom Interactions

One of the objectives of this study was to find out the strategies used by

the respondents when participating in classroom interactions. To elicit the

strategies used, the interview and survey were used.

Results from the survey showed that most of the respondents would think

carefully and silently rehearse what they have in mind before they could

contribute to class discussions. Table 4.5 shows that out of 146 students, 115

students (78.77%) of them either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ to the statement ‘I

think carefully about what to say and then say it out loud’. As SSB1 put it

‘…I need more time to think, to put words, to make sentences before I can speak in class. Sometimes, I try to find the words from my dictionary first. Sometimes, I ask my friends to translate… before I could say what I want to say, I practice it. Of course, I will do it silently. I have to make sure people will understand what I say.’

This finding was actually similar to what Lim (2003) has described. Lim’s

study revealed that Korean students tend to speak to themselves silently when

they have to speak in turn. Mentally rehearsing on what to say enables them to

produce perfect sentences.

67

Table 4.5: Strategies used by the respondents when participating as obtained from the survey When I participate SA/A % D/SD %

Points score

Rank

I think carefully about what to say and then say it out loud

115 78.77 31 21.23 427 1

I focus on what to say rather than on the language.

117 80.14 29 19.86 426 2

I do not mind if my grammar is wrong

102 69.86 44 30.14 414 3

I listen to my friends’ responses before I participate

112 76.71 34 23.29 413 4

I write and say what I have written.

109 74.66 37 25.34 413 4

I ask friends sitting next to me what to say before I participate.

92 63.01 54 36.99 390 6

I prepare some notes so that I know what to ask.

68 46.58 78 53.42 357 7

Before the class begins, I prepare some questions to be asked during the class

45 30.82 101 69.18 329 8

Notes: SA/A – Strongly agreed or agreed

D/SD – Disagreed or Strongly disagreed

Apart from mentally practicing on what to say, another strategy used by

the students was writing down the ideas. By putting the ideas into a written form,

the students would feel more confident. The survey carried out showed that 109

(74.66%) of the respondents either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ to the statement

that they ‘write and then say what they have written’.

68

‘…before I can share my points, I usually write it down. Doing that, I feel more confidence and I have more time to think too.’

SSB2

The survey conducted also showed that 92 (63.01%) of the respondents

would ask their friends who were sitting next to them what to say before they

could participate. The small discussions with their friends, according to the

respondents, would enable them to check whether the answers or points they

wanted to share to the whole class were correct and to avoid the unnecessary

embarrassment. For some students, the strategy has also enabled them to get some

ideas on what to say.

‘…to check if what I want to say is correct, I will ask my friends first.’

SSC2 ‘…I ask my friend what to say. My friend will tell me and then I will tell the class.’

SSC1

As mentioned earlier, the respondents believed that knowing what to say

was as important as knowing how to say it. Thus, the survey revealed that 117

(80.14%) of the respondents viewed content as the primary concerned when it

come to class participation. As such, when participating, 102 (69.86%) of the

respondents did not mind if their grammar was wrong (Refer to Table 4.5, page

67). SSB3 and SSC4’s responses during the interview confirmed this finding.

‘…my focus is on the content. I know my English is not good. So I don’t care if my grammar is wrong. I think the lecturer will understand to what I am trying to say.’

SSB3

‘…when I want to say something, I will make sure I know what to say. Once I do that, I will try to translate my idea into English.’

SSC4

69

To ensure that they have the necessary knowledge and therefore would be

able to contribute to class discussions, some students prepared some notes before

the class began. Some students also prepared some questions to be asked during

the lessons.

However, the habits of preparing notes and questions before the classes

began were not widely practiced by many students. The survey showed that only

68 (46.58%) of the respondents prepared some notes and only 45 (30.82%) of the

respondents prepared some questions to be asked (Refer to Table 4.5, page 67).

Moreover, the data gathered from the interview revealed that most of the students

who did some preparations in terms of notes and questions prior to a lesson were

those who participated actively in class discussions. The students who spoke less

or did not participate at all either rarely or never prepared.

‘…usually the lecturer will tell us what to cover for the next class. So, I will try to find some materials and make notes. When I do that, I will have some ideas what the lecturer is going to say. It also helps me to sort of prepare some questions to ask.’

SSA1

‘…I will make sure I read something before I enter the class. It gives me ideas what to ask during the class and helps me to understand the lesson better. When I speak, then I know I’m on the right track.’

SSA2 ‘…sometimes, the lecturer asked us to prepare some notes or find some information from the Net to be discussed in the next class. If I have time or I’m not busy, I will try to follow what the lecturer tell us to do. Then, I have something to say in class. But, if I don’t find the materials, I will keep quiet. I will not say anything in class… because I afraid what I say is wrong.’

SSB2

‘…honestly, I don’t prepare for the class. I just go in and listen to the lecturer.

SSC2

70

Another interesting finding of this study was related to how some students

depended on other students’ participation before they themselves could take part

in class discussions. This strategy, which the researcher termed as ‘wait and see’

strategy, was employed by the students who were not sure what to say at first and

thus relied on other people’s opinions before they could form theirs. This strategy

was also used to avoid any repetitions on ideas or opinions provided by other

students. Thus, the student would remain silent if somebody had mentioned an

idea similar to his. Otherwise, if nobody raised the idea, then the student would

share his points to the class. SSA1 and SSB3 commented

‘…I will listen first what others say. If they talked the same thing that I have in my mind, I will not say it. But if no one says it, then I will share my ideas with others.’

SSA1

‘…when I don’t have any idea, I will wait for my classmates to response and when my classmates give their ideas… I will listen to them. This will give me ideas on what to say. So, I can add or improve their ideas.’

SSB3

The survey conducted also confirmed the point discussed above. As

shown in Table 4.5 in page 67, out of 146 respondents, 112 (76.71%) students

admitted that they would ‘listen to their friends’ responses first before they could

participate’ as one of the strategies when participating in class discussions.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The case study was conducted in order to see how the use of English as

the medium of instructions has affected the students’ oral participation in

Creativity and Innovation and also Effective Communication classes. The

findings of the study were discussed in great details in the previous chapter,

Chapter Four.

Thus, in this chapter, the researcher will summarize the methodology used

as well as the findings of the study. In addition, the chapter will also discuss some

of the implications of the study. Some recommendations for future research will

also be forwarded.

5.2 Summary of the Study

The purpose of this study was to see the differences in students’ oral

classroom participation in two papers offered in the university; Creativity and

Innovation paper and Effective Communication paper.

72

Basically, this research was conducted in order to answer three research

questions; (1) the differences in students’ oral participation in the two papers

mentioned, (2) the factors which influenced their participation, and (3) the

strategies they employed when participating.

Overall, a total of 146 first year Engineering students took part in this

study. A class of 40 students from the total number of participants was involved

in the observation sessions. Based on the observation sessions, 10 students were

selected for the interview sessions.

This study which adopted the qualitative research design used 3 different

methods. The methods were observation, interview and survey. As such, 3

instruments were used; observation form, interview questions and questionnaire.

The research started off with a series of observation sessions. Throughout

the research, a total of 8 observation sessions were conducted; 4 were in the

Creativity and Innovation classes, and another 4 in the Effective Communication

classes. The 10 students identified during the observation sessions then were

interviewed. This was followed by the distribution of questionnaire to all 146

students taking part in this study.

5.3 Summary of the Findings

Generally, majority of the students agreed that the use of English in both

papers would give them opportunities to improve their speaking skills. Apart from

that, they also believed that the use of English would, among other things, provide

opportunities to express themselves, promote discussions and participations, and

promote interaction between students and lecturer as well as between students and

students.

73

5.3.1 Students’ Oral Participation in Creativity and Innovation Class and

Effective Communication Class

First of all, the findings of the study revealed that more students used

English in Effective Communication classes compared to in Creativity and

Innovation classes.

The study also revealed that in Creativity and Innovation classes, the

possibilities of students to initiate the discussions were higher. In Effective

Communication classes, on the other hand, interactions were mainly lecturer-

initiated.

The findings of the study also suggested that in both classes, majority of

the students would not take part in whole-class discussions unless asked or

prompted by the lecturer. Only about 40% of the students would volunteer to

share their opinions or comments without being asked first.

It was also found that students did not like to ask questions during the

lessons. Instead, the students preferred to wait until the class has ended before

they could ask questions or seek for clarifications from the lecturer. In the

Effective Communication classes, from the total exchanges recorded during the

observation sessions, about 20% of them were questions asked by students. In

Creativity and Innovation classes, it was about 25%. Thus, it was also found that

students in Creativity and Innovation classes asked slightly more questions as

compared to in Effective Communication classes.

Although the study revealed that students did not like to ask questions

during lessons, responding to questions was not a problem. Majority of the

students claimed that they always responded to questions asked by the lecturers as

well as by their peers.

Finally, findings of the study suggested that students who contributed

actively in whole-class discussions tended to sit at the front of the class while

students who were least active preferred to sit at the back of the class.

74

5.3.2 Factors Influencing Students’ Oral Participation

The study found that the factors which influenced students’ participation

were actually interrelated. However, as Liu (2001) suggests, these factors can be

categorized into 5 main factors.

a. Linguistic Factors

The study conducted revealed that the students’ English linguistic abilities

would determine whether the students would take part in class discussions. The

findings of the study indicated that students who were fairly good in the language

had no problems participating. Whereas, students who were at low proficiency

levels faced some difficulties in participating as their attempts to take part in class

discussions were hampered by their lack of abilities in the language.

In relation to that, there were at least two problematic areas identified;

lack of vocabulary and inability of students to master English sentence structures.

Because of that, they spent much time looking for the correct words and putting

the words into correct sentence structures before they could take part in

discussions.

b. Pedagogical Factors

The study revealed that the way a lecturer conducted his/her class would

affect students’ involvement in class discussions. The study found that in a

lecture-type class, participation was rather lacked. Workshop-type lessons, on the

other hand, would encourage students to participate more. The study also found

that assigning students into small groups would also increase the possibilities of

them discussing and thus providing them with the opportunities to use the

language.

75

The study also revealed that there were differences in students’

participation in whole-class discussions and group discussions. In whole-class

discussions, female students were more active compared to the male students. It

was also found that whole-class discussions were mainly dominated by a few of

the class members. Group discussions, however, were able to encourage more

students to take part. The study also showed that in whole-class discussions,

English was the dominant language used. However, many students were found

using Bahasa Melayu during group discussions.

Apart from that, students’ participation was also determined by the

students’ interest level toward certain topics. Topics which were deemed

interesting to them would draw more students to participate. Otherwise, if they

felt that the topics were uninteresting, they were reluctant to take part.

c. Cognitive Factors

Having the linguistic knowledge would not guarantee a student to take

part in class discussions. The findings of the study indicated that knowing what to

say was just as important as to knowing how to say. Because of that, the study

found that many of the students did not take part in class discussions because they

did not have the necessary knowledge in the subject matters.

The study also found that the students’ lack of knowledge in the subject

matters was due to their lack of preparation prior to entering a class. The findings

showed that less than 50% of the respondents made some preparations before

entering the class. Some students believed that there was no need to prepare for

Creativity and Innovation as well as Effective Communication classes because

these classes were not very demanding compared to other Engineering and

Mathematics subjects.

76

d. Affective Factors

The study suggested that because of their language deficiency as well as

their lack of knowledge in the subject matters, many students were not confident

when speaking to the class. And because of that, students felt very nervous when

they tried to speak.

The study also revealed that many students remained silent because they

were shy. Keeping silent was also seen as a way to avoid making mistakes and

any situation that could damage their public image.

e. Socio-Cultural Factors

The study showed that many students believed they should only speak

when they were very sure what they wanted to say was correct. Providing wrong

answers would lead to the unnecessary attention and caused embarrassment.

The belief that it was rude for a student to interrupt while the lecturer was

teaching was another factor related to socio-cultural category. For them, they

should not speak unless they were asked to. Speaking too much was also

considered as rude as it was a sign of disrespect to the lecturer as well as to other

students.

The study also revealed that students felt that there was no need to

participate if other students had contributed to the discussions. Repeating the

same ideas or answering the same questions would only waste the valuable lesson

time.

77

5.3.3 The Strategies Used When Participating

The study was able to identify 7 strategies employed by the students when

they participated. The 7 strategies are as follows:

First, the study showed that most of the respondents would think carefully

and silently rehearse what they have in mind before they could contribute to class

discussions.

Another strategy used by the students was writing down the ideas. Putting

the ideas into a written form would provide the students more time to think and

organize their ideas. The students would also feel more confident.

The third strategy employed by the students was asking friends sitting

next to them what to say before they could participate. The small discussions with

their friends would enable them to check whether the answers or points they

wanted to share to the whole class were correct and thus to avoid the unnecessary

embarrassment. For some students, the strategy has also enabled them to get some

ideas on what to say.

The study also showed that many students viewed content as the primary

concerned when it comes to class participation. As such, when participating,

many students did not mind if their grammar was wrong.

To ensure that they have the necessary knowledge and therefore would be

able to contribute to class discussions, some students prepared some notes before

the class began. Some students also prepared some questions to be asked during

the lessons.

Finally, some students would wait for other students to participate before

they themselves could take part in class discussions. This strategy was usually

employed by the students who were not sure what to say. By listening to other

people’s opinions, students could form theirs. This strategy was also used to avoid

any repetitions on ideas or opinions provided by other students. If somebody had

78

mentioned an idea similar to his, the student would remain silent. Otherwise, if

nobody raised the idea, then the student would share his points to the class.

5.4 Implications of the Study

Based on the findings of the study, thus a few suggestions are forwarded.

5.4.1 Theoretical Implications

a. The study showed that in a non-English language class such as Creativity

and Innovation class, the possibilities for the students to initiate whole-

class discussions were higher compared to in an English language class as

in Effective Communication class. The study also showed that students in

Creativity and Innovation classes asked more questions and were more

willing to give opinions and comments without being asked first compared

to in Effective Communication classes. Therefore, it is recommended that

the use of English as the medium of instructions be extended to other non-

English language papers. The researcher believes that the use of English

as the medium of instructions in the teaching of non-English language

papers will provide the students with the much needed natural setting for

mastering and acquiring the language.

b. The study also indicated that students who were active in class discussions

tended to sit at the front while students who were less active preferred to

sit at the back of the class. It is suggested that, where possible, classroom

design should allow U-shaped seating arrangement to be set up. Thus,

linked-chairs should not be used for classrooms. U-shaped seating

arrangement will ensure all the students to face each other and nobody

will sit at the front or at the back of the class. For that to happen, the

number of students should be reduced perhaps to 25 students per class

from the current practice of 40 students per class.

79

5.4.2 Pedagogical Implications

a. Although the study revealed that students did not like to ask questions,

responding to them was not a problem. To help the students as well as to

provide opportunities for students to use the language, it is recommended

that teacher asks a lot of questions during lessons. However, the teacher’s

questions should require answers that go beyond a single word or

predictable patterns. Students can be asked to expand their answers by

giving reasons why they believe a particular response is correct, or by

explaining how they arrived at a particular conclusion.

b. The findings of the study suggested that many students were still having

problems with the language. Lack of vocabulary and inability to master

the English sentence structures were the two problematic areas identified.

Thus, it is recommended here that activities to improve the students’

vocabulary be planned. Apart from improving the students’

communicative skills, language teachers should also focus on the

grammatical aspects of the language.

c. The study revealed that workshop-type class encouraged more students to

take part in class discussions. Therefore, it is recommended here that

lecturers opt for this kind of class instead of the conventional lecture-type

class. Approaches such as task-based learning, project-based learning and

problem-solving learning can be used so that more opportunities can be

provided for the students to use the language and thus improve their

linguistic abilities.

d. It was also found that students would readily participate in discussions if

they have the knowledge in the subject matters. Thus, it is important for

the lecturer to provide the students with adequate reading materials before

the topics are introduced or discussed.

80

e. Related to (d), students can also be assigned to small groups so that they

will be able to discuss the materials outside of the class time. In addition,

working in group enables the good students to help the less proficient

students in the language. Groups can also be asked to present the materials

they read. The process of preparing for the presentation will provide the

students with more opportunities to use the language and improved their

linguistic abilities.

f. The study also revealed that students were reluctant to take part in

discussions for fear of making mistakes. Students should be informed that

making mistakes is a part of learning process. As Swain (1993) points out,

the feedback and responses in the form of interactional modification given

by the listeners will enable the speaker to modify or reprocess his/her

output. As a result, it will make the student to be more aware of the

structural rules of the language and thus, language development is

enhanced.

g. Related to (f), teachers should guide the students in communicating or

discussing ideas. Therefore, specific error correction should be given a

minor role. Too much explicit error corrections would only discourage the

students from communicating in the language. Instead, indirect modeling

of a corrected form in the context of a response is preferable to direct

correction.

h. The study indicated that many students believed it was rude for a student

to interrupt while the lecturer was teaching. The students also believed

they should only speak when they were asked to. To demystify these

beliefs students should be informed on the benefits of taking part in class

discussions. As speaking fluency can only be attained by doing it,

engaging oneself in discussions can also improve understanding. By

sharing the ideas with the class, a student is able to check whether his

understanding is correct through the feedbacks given by the lecturer and

other students.

81

5.5 Recommendations for Future Research

For future research, the following recommendations are forwarded.

a. In this study, the respondents selected were mainly from engineering

background. The researcher believes that if students from other

backgrounds, the results of the study would be different. As such, for

future research, it is recommended that students from other backgrounds

such as from Arts and Humanities Faculties are selected as the

respondents.

b. In this study, there was only a group of students involved in the

observation sessions. To get a better understanding of the issues, future

research should involve more groups of students.

c. In addition to that, future researcher may consider more sessions for the

observation to take place. More observation sessions will not only enable

the future researcher to obtain more reliable data, but it will also eliminate

unnecessary variables. Comparisons can also be made if the observation

is divided into two phases; one at the beginning of students’ academic

years; one at the end of students’ academic years.

d. Future research may also include more participants for the interview

purposes. More interviewees mean more different views can be elicited

and this will provide a better understanding on the issues of students’

participations.

e. As mentioned in Chapter One, the findings of the study were based on the

data collected from the students. Therefore, for future research it is

recommended that the lecturers’ points of view be included. The findings

of the future research will not only complement the findings of the current

study but will also be able to give a clearer understanding on the issues

being discussed.

82

f. In this research, the quality of the students’ participation was not taken

into considerations. Therefore, future research should consider quality of

students’ participation in its discussions.

g. It is also recommended that for future research, students’ participation in

other papers which are taught in English should be looked into.

83

REFERENCES

Althaus, S. (1997) Computer-Mediated Communication in the University. Classroom: An Experiment with On-line Discussions. Communication Education 46 (1997), 158 – 169. [On-line]. Accessed March 20, 2006. http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/conference_papers/ _manuscripts/sal96a.pdf

Ashcraft, N. (2006). The Human Impact of the Conversion to English-Medium Instruction. The Seventh Annual U.A.E University Research Conference.

Balla, J. and Pennington, M. C. (1995). Bilingualism in Microcosm: The Evolution of Occupation – Related Discourse Communities in Hong Kong Tertiary Education. Working Papers of the Department of English, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Spring 1995.

Barry, K., King, L., & Burke, M. (2000). Student Talk in a Whole Class andCooperation Learning Setting in a Philosophy for Children Program. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, Sydney 4-7 December 2000

Choong, K. F. (2004). English for the Teaching of Mathematics and Science (ETeMS): From concept to implementation. English Language Teaching Centre, Malaysia.

Cole, S. (1998). The Use of L1 in Communicative English Classrooms. TheLanguage Teacher Online.

http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/dec/cole.html

Fawzia Al-Seyabi.(2002). Factors Affecting Students’ Oral Participation in University Level Academic Classes within the Omani Context. Paper presented at Second Annual National National ELT Conference. March, 27 –28, 2002. Sultan Qaboos Univerisity, Oman.http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/pgr/egcl/gspd5/Abstracts/AlSeyabi.shtm

Gill, S. K. (2004). Language Policy and Planning In Higher Education In Malaysia: A Nation In Linguistic Transition.

Gomez, A.M., Arai, M.J., & Lowe, H. (1995). When Does a Student Participate in Class? Ethnicity and Classroom Participation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (81st, San Antonio, TX)

Graddol, D. (1997). The Future of English? A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of the English Language in the 21st Century. The British Council.

Han, E. (2007). Academic Discussion Tasks: A Study of EFL Students’ Perspectives. Journal Vol. 9 (1).

84

Howe, C. (1997). Gender and Classroom Interaction: A Research Review. Edinburgh: The Scottish Council for Research in Education.

Jacob, S.M., Huui, L.M., & Ing, S.S. (2006). Employer Satisfaction with Graduate Skills - A Case Study from Malaysian Business Enterprises. Paper presented at International Conference on Business and Information Singapore http://bai2006.atisr.org/CD/Papers/2006bai6231.pdf

Jaasma, M. A. (1997). Classroom Communication Apprehension: Does Being Male or Female Make a Difference? Communication Reports, 10, 219-229.

KUiTTHO. (2003). 10 Years Blueprint.

Lee, P. (2005). Students’ Personality Type and Attitudes Toward Classroom Participation. Proceedings of the CATESOL State Conference, 2005.

Lim, H. Y. (2003). Successful Classroom Discussions with Adult Korean ESL/EFL learners. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 5. http://iteslj.org/Technique/Lim-AdultKorean.shtml

Liu, J. (2001). Asian Students' Classroom Communication Patterns in U.S. Universities : An Emic Perspective. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

McCroskey, J. D. (1991). Quiet Children and the Classroom Teacher (2nd Ed.). Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skill.

Ortega. L. (1997). Processes and Outcomes in Networked Classroom Interaction:Defining the Research Agenda for L2 Computer-Assisted Classroom Discussion. Language Learning & Technology. Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1997, pp 82-93. http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/ortega/

Phillips, J., Smith, B., and Modaff, L. (n.a). “Please Don’t Call on Me:” Self-esteem, Communication Apprehension, and Classroom Participation.

Risley, L. (n.a). Oral participation in the Foreign Language Classroom. Online discussion. FLTEACH FAQ. http://www.cortland.edu/flteach/FAQ/FAQ-OP1-shy.html

Salter, D. W., & Persaud, A. (2003). Women's Views of the Factors That Encourage and Discourage Classroom Participation. Journal of College Student Development; 44, 6; ProQuest Education Journals. pp. 831 – 844.

Shahrier Pawanchik. (2006). Improving Students’ Proficiency In English. EuropeanApplied Business Research Conference Florence, Italy

85

Sibat, S.P. (2005). Leaping out of the Unemployment Line. Insite@UNIMAS Teaching & Learning Bulletin Vol. 6.http://www.unimas.my/centres/calm/insite6/index.htm

Shimuzu, J. (2006). Why Are Japanese Students Reluctant to Express Their Opinions in the Classroom? review.keio-up.co.jp/PaperFolder/pdf/01/2006/0104802.pdf

Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing aren’t Enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 50/1.

Swain, M. (1997). The Output Hypothesis, Focus on Form and Second Language Learning. Berry, V., Adamson, B., Littlewood, W. (eds). Applying Linguistics: Insights into Language in Education. Hong Kong: The English Centre.

Tatar, S. (2005). Why Keep Silent? The Classroom Participation Experiences among Non-Native English Speaking Students. Language and Intercultural Communication. Vol. 5, No. 3 & 4. pp. 284 – 293.

Theberge, C. L. (1994). Small Group vs. Whole-Class Discussion: Gaining the Floor in Science Lessons. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA. April 7, 1994).

Tsou, W. (2005). Improving Speaking Skills Through Instruction in Oral Classroom Participation. Foreign Language Annals; Spring 2005; 38, 1; ProQuest Education Journals. Pp. 46 – 55.

UMB 1052 Effective Communication Course Outline. (2005)

UMC 1022 Creativity and Innovation Course Outline. (2005)

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing Face-to-Face and Electronic Discussion in the Second Language Classroom. CALICO Journal,Volume 13 Numbers 2 &3. [On-line] Accessed March 20, 2006. http://calico.org/journalarticles/ Volume13/vol13-2and3/Warschauer.pdf

Weschler, R. (1997). Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English Classroom: Introducing the Functional-Translation Method. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 11. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-UsingL1.html

86

APPENDIX A: OBSERVATION FORM

SESSION: 1 ( ) TIME: 2 ( ) DATE:

COURSE: UMB1052 ( ) UMC1022 ( )

NO. OF STUDENTS: ( )

No. Item Frequency Total

1Volunteer to respond to lecturer’s questions (without prompting)

2Respond to lecturer’s questions after being prompted

3 Ask questions to the lecturer

4 Ask questions to other students

5 Respond to peers

6 Give opinions, comments etc. without being asked

87

NOTES:

88

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Does the use of English in Creativity & Innovation class help you to improve your speaking skills? How?

2. Does Effective Communication class help you to improve your speaking skills? How?

3. Between the Creativity & Innovation class and the Effective Communicationclass, in which class do you participate more? Why?

4. What makes you participate in the oral classroom discussions?

5. What makes you not participate in the oral classroom discussions?

6. What strategies do you use when participating in classroom discussions?

89

APPENDIX C: Questionnaire

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIASKUDAI JOHOR

_______________________________________________________

QUESTIONNAIRE_____________________________________________________________

___

DEAR RESPONDENTS,THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS DESIGNED TO SEEK

YOUR OPINIONS ON THE USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGEIN UMB1052 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND UMC1022 CREATIVITY & INNOVATION

PAPERS.

PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY.

ALL INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL STRICTLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESEARCH ONLY.

________________________________________________________________

ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN SAYADIFACULTY OF EDUCATION

zainals@kuittho.edu.my

90

Indicate your response by ticking (√) the appropriate space under each question.

Section A

1. Gender Male ( )Female ( )

2. Age Less than 20 ( )20 – 24 ( )25 – 30 ( )

More than 30 ( )

3. Highest academic qualification SPM/SPMV ( )Matriculation ( )

Certificate ( )Diploma ( )

5. Level of studies Diploma ( )First Degree ( )

6. What do you think your current level of English is?a. Spoken Excellence ( )

Good ( )Fair ( )

Poor ( )

b. Written Excellence ( )Good ( )

Fair ( )Poor ( )

91

Section B

Using the scale of ‘Strongly Agree’ (SA), ‘Agree’ (A), ‘Disagree’ (D), and ‘Strongly Disagree’ (SD), to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements.

7. The use of English in Creativity & Innovation class SA A D SD Helps to improve my spoken English. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Provides opportunities for expressing myself in English. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Helps to build my confidence using the language. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Promotes discussion and participation in class. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Encourages active and lively participation in class. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Promotes interaction between students and lecturer. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Promotes interaction among students. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

8. Effective Communication class SA A D SD Helps to improve my spoken English. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Provides opportunities for expressing myself in English. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Helps to build my confidence using the language. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Promotes discussion and participation. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Encourages active and lively participation in class. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Promotes interaction between students and lecturer. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Promotes interaction among students. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

9. In Creativity & Innovation class SA A D SD I always use English during the class discussions. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always use English during the class activities. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always respond to lecturer’s questions. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always ask questions. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always respond to questions asked by my friends. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always speak in class, even if without being called /

asked. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

10. In Effective Communication class SA A D SD I always use English during the class discussions. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always use English during the class activities. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always respond to lecturer’s questions. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always ask questions. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always respond to questions asked by my friends. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I always speak in class, even if without being called /

asked. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

92

11. When I participate SA A D SD I think carefully about what to say and then say it out

loud. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I write and say what I have written. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I ask friends sitting next to me what to say before I

participate. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I listen to my friends’ responses before I participate. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I focus on what to say rather than on the language. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I do not mind if my grammar is wrong ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Before the class begins, I prepare some questions to be

asked during the class. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I prepare some notes so that I know what to ask. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

12. I do not take part or reluctant to take part in oral class discussions because SA A D SD I am a shy person. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) My English is weak. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I do not know what to say. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I have problems putting my thoughts into words. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Other students have participated. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) The lecturer does not pick on me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I am nervous. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I am afraid of the lecturer. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I am afraid of being penalized if I make mistake. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Other students will think that I am trying to show off. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I do not want to be the centre of attraction. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I am afraid that my answers are wrong ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I am afraid of being seen as ‘stupid’ if my answers are

not right. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) The lesson does not interest me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Others (please specify)

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME & COOPERATIONzainals@kuittho.edu.my

93

APPENDIX D: CODED DATA FROM THE OBSERVATION SESSIONS

Does students’ participation in Creativity and Innovation class differ to in Effective Communication class?

Teacher initiate students response teacher feedback CIS1, CIS2, CIS3, CIS4,ECS1, ECS2, ECS3, ECS4

Students initiate teacher response / other students response (whole-class)

CIS1, CIS2, CIS4, ECS3

Students asked questions after the lessons CIS2, CIS3, ECS1, ECS2, ECS4

Students used Bahasa Melayu especially in group discussions CIS1, CIS2, CIS3, CIS4, ECS2, ECS3, ECS4

The number of questions was low

ClassEffective

CommunicationCreativity & Innovation

No. Item

Exchanges % Exchanges %

1

Volunteer to respond to lecturer’s questions (without prompting)

48 39.67% 58 37.66%

2

Respond to lecturer’s questions after being prompted

28 23.14% 19 12.34%

3 Ask questions to the lecturer 15 12.40% 25 16.23%

4 Ask questions to other students 8 6.61% 12 7.79%

5 Respond to peers 10 8.26% 18 11.69%

6

Give opinions, comments etc. without being asked

12 9.92% 22 14.29%

TOTAL 121 100% 154 100%

94

Factors influencing students’ oral participation.

Whole-class discussions – not many students took part– dominated by a few students mostly by students who have no problems

with the language– female students were more active– seating arrangement – students who are active tend to sit at the front

Group-discussions- almost everybody took part- use of Bahasa Melayu in discussions- present in English

Lecture-type class- students listened and took note- no questions asked- teacher had to prompt a few times before some students responded to the

teachers’ questions

Student-centred- students asked questions- students responded to questions

95

APPENDIX E: CODED DATA FROM THE INTERVIEW SESSIONS

Does students’ participation in Creativity and Innovation class differ to in Effective Communication class?

Asking questionsSSA2 don’t ask a lot of questions or other students will think you are busy

body.SSB2 if you ask a lot of questions, meaning you were not listening to the

lecturer. Or, you were busy doing something else.SSC1 I think it is rude to interrupt the lecturer when he is teaching. If I

have something to ask, I will wait after class.SSB3 if the lecture is interrupted by so many questions, this will affect the

lecturer’s teaching. May be he will not have enough time to teach what he wanted to teach during the lesson.

SSC1 sometimes the questions I asked do not concern other students. Or, sometimes my questions are out of topic. So I don’t want my friends to waste their time.

Seating arrangementSSA3 Students who sit in front are usually those who completed their

homework. They come to class prepared.SSC2 many lecturers tend to ask questions to students who are at front of

the class. I don’t like to be asked, so I prefer to sit at the back.

Use of Bahasa MelayuSSC4 I try to use English in both classes. But Creativity is not an English

class, I think it’s ok to use BM when I have problems with English words. The lecturer also sometimes uses BM when he teach.

SSB2 sometimes I use Bahasa in English class especially in small group discussions. But when the lecturer ask me, I will use English.

96

Factors influencing students’ oral participation.

Linguistic FactorsStudent QuoteSSA1 My experience in taking part in public speaking competitions when I

was in my secondary years has really helped me to participate actively in these two classes. I don’t think English is a problem to me.

SSA2 I must say that I was able to contribute to the discussions because I don’t think I have any problem speaking in English. Not to say that my English is perfect, but the confidence I have in using the language helped me to respond to questions asked by the lecturer and also to say whatever I have in my mind regarding the topic being discussed. …By participating, I think, I can improve my English better and also help me to understand the topic better.

SSA3 Definitely I would say that my ability to speak in English fluently helped me to share my ideas in Creativity and Innovation class and also Effective Communication class. As I speak the language everyday, it is not a problem for me to participate in these two classes. In fact, in other Engineering classes, I think, I use English a lot when asking questions or participating. My lecturers do not mind if I use English in their classes.

SSB1 Actually, I don’t have problems understanding the lecture or understanding the questions, but, the problem is because of my language. I need more time to think, to put words, to make sentences before I can speak in class. Sometimes, I try to find the words from my dictionary first. Sometimes, I ask my friends to translate. But for presentation, I think, I have more confidence. Usually I will write first.

SSB2 it is not because I don’t want to participate in discussions. Most of the times, I can understand what the lecturer is saying, or my friends are talking. I have my ideas too. But when I want to speak, I think, I don’t have the words to say. I cannot find the right words. When I got the words, then, my friends has mentioned what I’m trying to say, or the lecturer ask another question.

SSC2 I think that my English is bad. I have problems constructing sentences. Usually, I take a lot of time to make a sentence in English. I don’t know… English is very difficult.

SSC3 my English is very weak. I have problems understanding what the lecturer talks about. I think if it is in Bahasa Melayu, I will not have any problems participating. But because it is in English, I just keep quiet.’

97

Pedagogical/Educational FactorsStudent QuoteSSA3 Some lecturers I think do not give enough opportunities for us to

contribute our ideas during the lesson. Either it is too lecture-type, or the lecturer simply does not allow active participation from the students.’

SSB1 In class discussions, only a few will have the chance to speak but in group, I think, everybody can speak… I don’t like to speak in front of the class. I feel nervous and my English is bad. …in small group, I feel more relax. It’s ok if I make mistakes.

SSB1 Well, it depend on the topic. If the topic is interesting, I will participate. Usually, when the topic is interesting, I have many things to say. But if the topic is boring to me, let other students speak.

SSB2 Students who are good in English, they speak more. Because my English is not so good, so I just listen.

SSB3 I guess I participate more in Creativity class. In Effective Communication class, I speak less. You know, most of the times, we learnt the same thing we learnt when I was in matriculation. The same meeting format, writing minutes, how to prepare for presentation. All the same. Boring. But, Creativity class is different. Something new. So it is more interesting. Also, it is more relevant to my course.’

SSC4 I prefer to have group discussions. I can speak more

Cognitive FactorsStudent QuoteSSA1 I will only participate if I know what to speak. I mean, if I do not know

the topic well, or I am not sure what I want to say is correct, I will just keep quiet. For me, content is also important. You know, I don’t want to embarrass myself talking nonsense.’

SSB2 Sometimes, the lecturer asked us to prepare some notes or find some information from the Net to be discussed in the next class. If I have time or I’m not busy, I will try to follow what the lecturer tell us to do. Then, I have something to say in class. But, if I don’t find the materials, I will keep quiet. I will not say anything in class… because I afraid what I say is wrong.

SSC3 I don’t participate because I don’t know what to say!

SSC4 My problem is I’m not sure what should I say

98

Affective FactorsStudent QuoteSSA2 when I’m not sure on what I want to say I will feel a little bit nervous.SSB3 I feel very nervous when I want to speak in class. Meaning, with other

students listening to me.SSC4 because my English is bad, I always feel not confidence speaking in

front of class. I think my friends will notice my mistakes.SSC1 every time I want to give my opinions, I feel very nervous. Sometimes, I

sweat. Sometimes my voice just don’t go out. I guess, it is because of my language.

SSA3 because of the preparations and revisions I made, I am able to take part in class discussions. I feel confidence answering the lecturer’s questions and also sharing my points to the class.

SSB1 I don’t like to speak in front of the class. I feel nervous and my English is bad. …in small group, I feel more relax. It’s ok if I make mistakes.’

Socio-Cultural FactorsStudent QuoteSSA1 I will only participate if I know what to speak. I mean, if I do not know

the topic well, or I am not sure what I want to say is correct, I will just keep quiet... You know, I don’t want to embarrass myself talking nonsense.

SSC3 people will remember you if your answers are wrong or does not make sense

SSB1 I don’t want to be laughed at because of my stupid answers’.SSC3 I come to class because I want to learn something from the lecturer…

not listening to some students who talk too much. Sometimes, I just feel that they should keep quiet. Let the lecturer teach. It is rude.

SSC4 I find it rude to interrupt the lecturer. Unless, you are asked to speak then you can speak.

SSC2 Well, if some students have given the answers, why should I say more? I don’t think everybody must give their answers to what the lecturer asked. If everybody speaks the same thing, this will waste our time

99

Strategies used when participating.

Mental rehearsalSSB1 I need more time to think, to put words, to make sentences before I can

speak in class. Sometimes, I try to find the words from my dictionary first. Sometimes, I ask my friends to translate… before I could say what I want to say, I practice it. Of course, I will do it silently. I have to make sure people will understand what I say.

Asking friendsSSC1 I ask my friend what to say. My friend will tell me and then I will tell

the class.SSC2 To check if what I want to say is correct, I will ask my friends first.

Write and speakSSB2 Before I can share my points, I usually write it down. Doing that, I feel

more confidence and I have more time to think too.SSC1 because I am not good in English, I use Bahasa Melayu in discussions.

But when I want to speak in front of class or if the lecturer ask us to present something, I write first. So, I use English

Content vs languageSSC4 When I want to say something, I will make sure I know what to say.

Once I do that, I will try to translate my idea into English.SSB3 My focus is on the content. I know my English is not good. So I don’t

care if my grammar is wrong. I think the lecturer will understand to what I am trying to say.

Listen to othersSSB3 When I don’t have any idea, I will wait for my classmates to response

and when my classmates give their ideas… I will listen to them. This will give me ideas on what to say. So, I can add or improve their ideas.

SSA1 I will listen first what others say. If they talked the same thing that I have in my mind, I will not say it. But if no one says it, then I will share my ideas with others.

100

PreparationSSC2 Honestly, I don’t prepare for the class. I just go in and listen to the

lecturer. SSB2 Sometimes, the lecturer asked us to prepare some notes or find some

information from the Net to be discussed in the next class. If I have time or I’m not busy, I will try to follow what the lecturer tell us to do. Then, I have something to say in class. But, if I don’t find the materials, I will keep quiet. I will not say anything in class… because I afraid what I say is wrong.

SSA2 I will make sure I read something before I enter the class. It gives me ideas what to ask during the class and helps me to understand the lesson better. When I speak, then I know I’m on the right track.

SSA1 Usually the lecturer will tell us what to cover for the next class. So, I will try to find some materials and make notes. When I do that, I will have some ideas what the lecturer is going to say. It also helps me to sort of prepare some questions to ask.