Copyright Notice

University of Southampton staff and students are reminded that copyright subsists in this extract and
the work from which it was taken.
This Digital Copy has been made under the terms of a supplier licence which allows you to:
access and download a copy
print out a copy
This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied to or made by you under the terms of this
Licence are for use in connection with this Course of Study. You may retain such copies after the end
of the course, but strictly for your own personal use.
All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be destroyed
and/or deleted if and when required by the University.
Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution (including by e-
mail) is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder.
The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the work and
neither staff nor students may cause, or permit, the distortion, mutilation or other modification of the
work, or any other derogatory treatment of it, which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of
the author.

Copy taken from: Xie, X. (2010). Why are students quiet? Looking at the Chinese context
and beyond. ELT Journal, 64(1). pp.10-20.
Course of Study for which created: LING6021
Original Supplier (Publisher) of source document: Oxford University Press
Why are students quiet? Looking
at the Chinese context and beyond
Xiaoyan Xie
This paper is part of a larger project on teacherstudent interaction and the
contextual issues which shape them. It reported that the reticence of English
majors is caused by the communicative environment that the teachers create in
their interactions with their students. The data were collected through
observations, audio- and videotaping, and stimulated reection across a two-and-
a-half-month period. Informed by Vygotskys (1978) sociocultural theory which
puts talk at the core of successful teaching and learning, the analysis presented
reveals howthe teachers thematic control leads to students lowinteraction levels.
Based on the ndings, implications are discussed and some possible changes to
teaching practices proposed, which are applicable not only to the Chinese context
but beyond.
Introduction Recently, an increasing body of empirical and anecdotal evidence regarding
the learning styles and strategies of Chinese English learners has emerged.
In most existing literature, Chinese learners of English are portrayed as
reticent and quiet in class. They are reluctant to participate in classroom
activities; they hardly volunteer replies; they seldom answer, let alone
initiate questions; even if they answer, they give brief replies; they seldom
speakupabout their opinions evenif they have one; andthey holdbackfrom
expressing their views (for example Cortazzi and Jin 1996; Jackson 2002).
Chinese students inactive participation in class prompted researchers to
look for causes which they found in a range of issues, focusing inparticular
on Chinese students cultures of learning, that is socially transmitted
expectations, beliefs and values about what good learning is (Cortazzi and
Jinibid.: 169). Fewhave attributed it to the interactive environment that the
teachers establish through the way they interact with their students. Based
on data derived froma larger qualitative project which investigates teacher
student interaction at a Chinese university and the contextual issues, this
article sets out to provide empirical evidence regarding aspects of teachers
interactional features which lead to Chinese students non-participation.
The issues arising from problematic teaching practices and implications
described in this article will be of interest to Chinese teachers in particular,
but may also be of use to teachers from other backgrounds espousing
similar teaching philosophies and discourse practices.
10 ELT Journal Volume 64/1 January 2010; doi:10.1093/elt/ccp060
The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication August 28, 2009

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Literature review Sociocultural theory maintains that cognitive development originates in
social interaction, and in classroom settings learning occurs through
interaction mediated primarily by speech in the learners zone of proximal
development (ZPD) (Vygotsky 1978). ZPD refers to the difference between
what the learner is capable of achieving unaided and what they are able to
accomplish with an experts help. In classroom settings, this expert role is
mostly assumed by the teacher, who, through talking with their students,
can provide effective assistance thus enabling them to perform at a higher
level. This effective assistance requires the teacher to attend to both the
cognitive and affective dimensions of instruction, which can be achieved by
building an academically motivating, caring, and safe interactive
atmosphere withstudents. Only inthis kindof environment will teachers be
able to facilitate and promote meaningful interactionand optimize learning
opportunities, thus making learning more likely.
Empirically, studies in classroom discourse have shown that the language
used by the teacher affects the language produced by the students, the
opportunities generated for the students, and hence the kind of learning
that occurs (for example Gutierrez 1994; Johnson1995). Boththese authors
have argued that by imposing less control over the content and direction of
classroom interaction, teachers could produce more opportunities for
student participation in the learning process, leading to longer student
responses and more complex and topically related student thoughts, thus
facilitating learning. Less thematic control or less control over the content
of the discourse could include allowing students to initiate topics which
are of great interest to them and accepting any student contribution on
the topic.
As this interactive mode of teaching prevails in the Western world, Chinese
students apparent reticence in English classrooms has puzzled and
worried teachers from the West. Many Western researchers have set out
to uncover what holds Chinese students back from participating in
classroom interaction. Recently, this research interest has also been shared
by Chinese researchers.
Researchers have claimed a myriad of underlying causes for it, of which
Chinese cultures of learning were the central concern. The much-cited
Cortazzi and Jin (op.cit.) study has shed important insights into this line of
enquiry. Their study accounted for Chinese university students reluctant
participation by reference to several Chinese traditional values:
1 Saving face is given great importance in cultural and social life. To save
their own face, a student did not venture an unsure reply for fear of
making mistakes and being laughed at. To protect the face of their
teachers and peers, they refrained from speaking up when they had
divergent opinions.
2 They put collective benets before individual interests and so avoided
bothering teachers with questions which might only have concerned
themselves. They only raised questions when they could not nd out
answers unaided.
3 Inuenced by Confucian values of modesty, the students hesitated to
contribute. Instead they waited for another student to set a precedent by
speaking up rst, allowing them to avoid being seen as the show off.
Why are students quiet? 11

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

4 They respected the elder and senior by looking up to teachers as authority
gures and not challenging or interrupting them with questions.
Similar cultural themes have also been articulated in other researchers
studies (Peng 2007; Tan 2008).
Researchers (for example Liu and Littlewood 1997) also ascribed Chinese
students non-participation to the teacher-centred format that students had
been accustomed to operating in since formal schooling. For example,
students were required to wait to be called on, to listen to the teacher
attentively, and not to make noise. Cortazzi and Jin (op.cit.) summarized
Chinese students cognitive style as learning through listening (p. 748).
The students inCortazzi and Jin(op.cit.) studies seldominitiated questions
or challenged teachers, which, however, did not necessarily mean that they
were passive. Infact, they were engaging with the content of the interaction
non-verbally.
Other causes which have beenfound to contribute to Chinese students low
interaction levels were a lack of opportunity to use English for
communicative purposes and their lack of English prociency and
condence (Jackson 2002; Liu and Littlewood 1997).
Of all the above-mentioned studies, few linked students non-participation
to the teachers discourse style. Jackson (ibid.) and Tans (op.cit.) studies
are notable exceptions. Jackson reported that a limited range of questions,
the paucity of high-order questions, and insufcient wait-times also led
to students reticence. Tan argued that the teachers were partly responsible
as they usually expected predetermined correct answers fromthe students,
which stopped the students from experimenting with new ideas and the
target language. Inadequate wait-times also led to students brief replies or
no replies at all.
Undoubtedly, all the above-mentioned causes play a part in Chinese
students reticence. However, one important contributor, that is the
interactive environment in which students are immersed seems to warrant
more research interest than it is currently getting. Although a few
researchers have touched upon some causes associated with teacher
student interaction patterns, most of themrelied primarily on impressions
and speculations. The current paper thus represents an empirical
contribution to this issue.
Researchcontext and
data collection
The classroom discourse on which this paper draws is a small part of the
discourse gathered for a larger project. The larger project investigates
teacherstudent interaction during teacher-fronted class time in English
classes at a Chinese university. It involves case studies of two Integrated
Reading instructors and their respective rst-year English major classes.
The two classes included in the study both comprised 30 students, the
average size for English major classes in China. The students, ranging in
age from18to 20years, had beenlearning Englishfor about six years before
entering university.
The university at the centre of this study normally assigns highly
experienced and qualied teachers to instruct Integrated Reading to ensure
that a solid foundation in language competence is laid for the students.
12 Xiaoyan Xie

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The two Chinese teachers involved were Miss Qian and Miss Hou
(pseudonyms). Miss Qianhad beenteaching for ve years with a BAdegree
in English language and an MA degree in Tourism. Miss Hou had been
teaching for 20 years with a BA degree in English language. Like English
major teachers inother universities, the twoteachers hadsome latitude as to
which parts of a teaching unit to cover, although they followed mandatory
textbooks. The students are assessed by regular end-of-semester
examinations written by their teachers.
For English majors in Chinese universities, Integrated Reading is a key
course, integrating four basic language skills: listening, speaking, reading,
and writing. Speaking is prioritized in the rst two years of the four-year
programme.
The data were collected through observations, audio- and videotaping,
and stimulated reection (SR) across a two-and-a-half-month period. In the
SR, both the teachers and chosen students were asked to view video clips
of the lessons and reect and comment upon their interactive behaviours.
Altogether I collected 33 hours of lesson observations and recordings from
each case study teacher.
In spite of the inherent limitations of the case study research approach,
in this case being directed towards two English major classrooms at
a Chinese university, I believe that the teachers discourse practices
presented in this article are typical of university English classrooms in
theChinese context. This belief is basedonmy six years teachingexperience
and observing lessons given by teachers at numerous Chinese universities.
Data analysis After transcribing all the data, I loaded it on to the computer analysis
program, Nvivo for coding and categorization. The data were analysed
qualitatively to identify and code pedagogical and interactional features.
Over time and multiple iterations of such analysis, recurrent themes and
patterns were identied.
Inthe following section, I amgoing to use lessontranscripts to demonstrate
how the teachers interactional features contributed to students reticence.
Apart from lesson transcripts, participants viewpoints gathered from the
SR sessions are also used as predominant sources of data.
Results The data demonstratedthat bothcase study teachers imposedtight thematic
control over classroom interaction in four ways:
n
they adhered to their own regimented plans
n
they elaborated on student contributions whenever possible
n
they evaluated student replies in matters of opinion
n
they decided upon the relevance of student-initiated ideas.
Adhering to
predetermined
lesson plans
Some researchers warn that by adhering strictly to a predetermined lesson
plan, a teacher can easily allow many learning opportunities produced by
students to slip by and fail to promote negotiated interaction
(Kumaravadivelu 2003). Look at the following example which occurred
when Miss Qian engaged the students in talking about a discussion topic,
Who is the leader in your family, in preparation for reading a text entitled,
Why are students quiet? 13

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Chinese WomenYesterday and Today. (See Appendix for transcription
conventions.)
Transcript 1
1 Teacher and ..
2 now please tell me
3 and I also want to know
4 in your family
5 who is the leader
6 Sx father
7 mother
8 Xie me
9 Teacher you/
10 Xie please tell me in your family who is the leader
11 Xie WO (me)
12 Teacher now sit down please
13 because
14 because your answer is far from my imagination/
15 and also expectation
16 Wang ((hand up))
17 Teacher and now Wang
18 Wang there are two leaders in my family
19 my mother and my father
20 Teacher who is the chief leader
21 Wang generally if
22 if they need something . . .
23 TA MEN SHANG LIANG ZHE BAN (they make a joint
decision)
24 Teacher generally speaking or in general
25 in your family there are two leaders
26 and
27 all the time
28 they can make a good discussion with each other
29 about your family affairs right/
30 such as your family business
31 or the property
14 Xiaoyan Xie

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

32 or which university
33 you choose right/
34 which city you will settle down right/
35 so your parents
36 make a good decision
37 or discussion
38 Wang yeah
While engaging students with the discussion topic, Miss Qian favoured
student replies which conformed to the content of the text, thus facilitating
her smooth transition fromone to the other as she said in the SR, I wanted
to hear at least one student saying that my mum is in charge of the
whole family so that I could enter the text. The text is about the changed
status of women nowadays, that is the society used to be dominated by men
and now women hold up half of the sky. Also, she rejected replies which
did not conform, for instance, on hearing Xie answer me (line 8), she felt
surprised and called out her name, repeating the question for her to
reconsider (line 10). She remarked inthe SRI wanted her to reconsider her
reply as her reply me was too far away from the text. Xie reiterated her
reply (line 11) and the teacher asked her to sit down and explicitly signalled
that her reply was undesired (lines 1315).
Elaborating on
student
contributions
whenever possible
In the data, the teachers extended student contributions in the follow-up
move in an IRF (Initiation, Response, Follow-up) sequence (Sinclair and
Coulthard 1975) by providing exemplication, justication or clarication,
or additional ideas for them. That is to say, the students put forward certain
ideas and the teachers took the ideas over and developed them further
themselves. Take Transcript 1 above as an example, where Wangs
contribution did not mention anything regarding what her parents made
joint decisions about (lines 213); however, when Miss Qian expanded on
Wangs contributions in the follow-up move, she included her own
additional ideas suchas your family business (30), or the property (line 31),
which city you will settle down (line 34). Faced with brief replies, rather
thanopenupthe follow-upmove (thus handingthe oor backtothe student
contributors for them to develop their own ideas), both teachers would
elaborate onthese if they were capable of doing so; otherwise they moved on
without doinganything. Lookat the followingexample (Transcript 2), which
occurred when Miss Qian was calling for the answer to her question about
the advantages of nuclear energy.
Transcript 2
1 Teacher and the next
2 the second advantage
3 Wang no pollution
4 Teacher yes thats right
5 the nuclear power doesnt produce smoke
Why are students quiet? 15

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

6 nuclear power doesnt produce smoke
7 or carbon dioxide
8 carbon dioxide
9 means nuclear power doesnt contribute to the green house
effect
((several turns later))
18 and anything else
19 Sx effective
20 Teacher effective
21 andanythingelse/ ((shiftingher looktothe rest of the class))
In the above example, one student advanced the idea of no pollution
(line 3), which the teacher agreed with and elaborated upon by explaining
why nuclear energy was pollution free (lines 59). In contrast, the teacher
simply repeated another students idea (effective, line 20) and then moved
on. In the SR, Miss Qian said that she had prepared for the response no
pollution and so was capable of expanding on this possible reply, whereas
she had no idea whether nuclear energy was effective or not and thus had
nothing to say about it. When asked to comment on it, Wang, the student
involved, expressed a wish that the teacher would create an open forum
for discussion as she knew quite a lot about that topic. So, as a result of
elaborating ona topic, the teacher sometimes deprives student contributors
of an opportunity to participate in extended dialogue, to develop a topic,
and to make explicit their thinking. Cazden (1988) claimed that this strict
IRF sequence (with the closed follow-up move) was more facilitative of
teacher control of classroom discourse than of students learning.
Evaluating student
opinions
Miss Hou viewed differences in students understanding not in terms of
their personal experiences but simply as errors. The following example
(Transcript 3) is illuminating here and occurred when the teacher was
involving the class in a discussion about the means of transportation in
China and the United States.
Transcript 3
1 Teacher and what about the bus system in China
2 Sx complicated
3 Teacher complicated/
4 Convenient
5 Ss yes
6 Hasi yes convenient than America
7 Teacher Yes
8 so wherever you go
9 you can take buses right
16 Xiaoyan Xie

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The teacher initiated the above segment by seeking the students opinion
about the bus system in China. The question sounded like an open-ended
one. However, the teacher only accepted one candidate item, that is
convenient, rejecting another students idea (complicated, line 2) as
signalled by the rising intonation and stressed (line 4) and elaborated upon
her own perspective (lines 79). In the SR, the teacher dwelled on the
convenience of the bus system in China and expressed her
incomprehension of the idea of complicated.
Deciding upon the
relevance of student-
initiated ideas
In the data, the teachers not only judged subjective opinions but also
shut down student-initiated ideas that while tangential, may have been of
educational value. Student-initiated ideas were only allowed so long as
they conformed to the teachers agenda. Look at the following excerpt
(Transcript 4), which occurred whenMiss Hou posed a discussion question
regarding a sentence from a text.
Transcript 4
1 Teacher look here
2 I suggest you take advantage of living in China
3 and go to lectures,
4 Movies,
5 and plays
6 8,888 times
7 Sx does she really mean that he should practise 8,888 times?
8 Li no just made a joke
9 Teacher well/
10 its a kind of exaggeration
11 but why 8,888
12 Li just mean that they are so many
13 Teacher why not 9,999
14 but why 8
15 Li 8 is a good number
16 8 is a good number
17 or we say a lucky number ok
18 Hasi 6 is also lucky
19 6
20 well/
21 in Chinese
22 6, 8 and 9
23 they are all lucky numbers ok
Why are students quiet? 17

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

24 Hasi sh is also lucky
25 NIAN NIAN YOU YU (there is a surplus every year)
26 um
27 but it has nothing to do with gures
The students could bring up new information, but it had to be topically
related to what was under discussion. In the above excerpt, when Hasi
initiated the idea of six is also lucky (line 18), the teacher acknowledged it
by showing agreement and expanding on it (lines 1923). However, when
Hasi advanced another idea about sh being lucky (line 24), the teacher
didnot accept it saying it has nothing to do withgures (line 27). Inthe SR,
Hasi argued that good luck was not only associated with numbers but
with other things as well and wished that the teacher had given the class the
opportunity to talk about this good luck topic in a more extended way as
it was very interesting.
Implications The ndings revealed that the students passive speech role did not seem
to be solely attributable to their cultures of learning, limited language
resources, or anxiety as some researchers (for example Cortazzi and Jin
1996; Jackson, 2002) have claimed but also to an absence of opportunities
for interaction as a result of too much teacher control. It is hard to imagine
that students straightjacketed by these restrictive interaction patterns can
develop either linguistically or cognitively.
The extended data identied a range of contextual issues shaping
teacherstudent interaction, largely arising fromthe transmission mode of
teaching, whereby the teachers relied on the restrictive IRF mode to
reinforce their sole legitimacy as knowledge providers. Consequently, little
scope was provided for students thoughts and ideas, which were often
classied as errors when they did not conformto the teachers. The need to
adhere to a rigid schedule may also have contributed; however, this did
not emerge in interviews or observations. Additionally, teachers may fear
acknowledging ignorance or exposing limited language prociency, having
long been held as authorities in status and knowledge.
In order to raise the quality of teacherstudent interaction, a starting point
might be a reective approach, in which teachers gather data about their
interactive behaviours, examine their beliefs about language and language
teaching, and then critically reect on their discourse practices to see
how their epistemologies are reected in these and how they shape their
students beliefs (Jones 2001).
Possibilities for
change
With regards to current teaching practices, I propose the following
possibilities for improvement:
Inclassroomexchanges, teachers couldopenupthe follow-upmove tohand
back the interaction to the students and to engage the students in further
talk. Inso doing, they could introduce another interaction patterning which
breaks the restrictive IRF sequence and offers different interactional
possibilities, an important step towards giving the students some control
over classroom interaction. As Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, and Long
18 Xiaoyan Xie

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

(2003) suggested, to engage students substantively, teachers need to offer
high-level evaluation, which incorporates student replies into further
questions. This extension can have many benets. First, it can increase
the amount of student talk. Second, the extension can scaffold the
students inexpressingwhat they want but fail tosay due to limitedlinguistic
resources and motivate them as they work within the ZPD. Third, the
extensioncanhelpestablishlinks betweenthe oldandthe newinformation,
thus extending the students thinking and understanding. Lastly, students
perspectives and experiences can be drawn upon as sources of knowledge
as well.
Openingupthe follow-upmove will helptooffer students a variety of modes
of discourse. However, it must be founded upon a basis of mutual respect
and trust between the teacher and students (Dufcy 2005). I suggest that
teachers strive to build up a safe interactive atmosphere in two ways. First,
rather than seek an answer which matches their expectations, they
should accept any and all student contributions (Johnson 1995: 154) and
accept them as an indication of where students are, what they know, and
howthey have come to that understanding (Hymes 1981). Second, teachers
could create a public forum for student responses, providing a fertile
terrain for the sharing of ideas, opinions, feelings, and attitudes where
students are treated as a valuable and valid source of knowledge.
Conclusions The study investigated the effect of teacher control over and dominance of
students passive speech role in classroom discourse. Some specic
interaction patterns which inhibited students willingness to contribute
actively were identied in two Chinese English major teachers by way of
observations, video- and audio-taping, and interviews. The ndings suggest
that the teachers should relax their control and allow the students more
freedomto choose their owntopics so as to generate more opportunities for
them to participate in classroom interaction. Doing so might foster
a classroom culture that is more open to students desire to explore the
language and topics that do not necessarily conform to the rigid bounds of
the curriculum and limited personal perspectives of the teachers. This, in
turn, will help them develop both linguistically and cognitively by
enhancing meaningful interaction.
Regardless of the cultural context, the benets of granting students greater
freedom in classroom participation are worthy of consideration. However,
as Johnson (op.cit.) asserts, the degree of control and freedom the teacher
grants depends on the communicative behaviours that the teacher and
students fromagivencultureconsider appropriate. Sowhat is theappropriate
degree of variability that Chinese teachers, or indeed teachers from other
cultures, should allow for in order to expand the patterns of classroom
communication? This questionstill needs to be addressed infuture research.
Final revised version received June 2009
References
Cazden, C. B. 1988. Classroom Discourse: The
Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Cortazzi, M. and L. Jin. 1996. Cultures of learning:
language classrooms in China in H. Coleman (ed.).
Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Why are students quiet? 19

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Dufcy, P. 2005. Becoming in classroom talk.
Prospect 20/1: 5981.
Gutierrez, K. D. 1994. How talk, context, and script
shape contexts for learning: a cross-case comparison
of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education 5/3&4:
33565.
Hymes, D. 1981. Ethnographic monitoring in
H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, and K. H.-P. Au (eds.).
Culture and the Bilingual Classroom: Studies in
Classroom Ethnography. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Jackson, J. 2002. Reticence in second language case
discussions: anxiety and aspirations. System 30/1:
6584.
Johnson, K. E. 1995. Understanding Communication
in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jones, P. 2001. Mind in the classroom in
J. Hammond (ed.). Scaffolding: Teaching and Learning
in Language and Literacy Education. Australia:
Primary School Teaching Association.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2003. Beyond Methods:
Macrostrategies for Language Teaching.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Liu, N. F. and W. Littlewood. 1997. Why do many
students appear reluctant to participate inclassroom
learning discourse? System 25/3: 37184.
Nystrand, M., L. L. Wu, A. Gamoran, S. Zeiser, and D.
A. Long. 2003. Questions in time: investigating the
structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom
discourse. Discourse Processes 35/2: 13596.
Peng, J. 2007. Willingness to communicative in the
Chinese EFL classroom: a cultural perspective in
J. Liu (ed.). English Language Teaching in China:
New Approaches, Perspectives and Standards. London,
New York: Continuum.
Sinclair, J. M. and R. M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an
Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and
Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tan, Z. 2008. Questioning in Chinese university
EFL classrooms: what lies behind it? Regional
Language Centre Journal 38/1: 87103.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind inSociety: The Development
of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
The author
Xiaoyan Xie is a lecturer in the English School at
Shanghai International Studies University, China.
Her research interest is in classroom discourse. She
did both her MA and PhD in the School of
Linguistics andAppliedLanguage Studies at Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Email: xiesh2@gmail.com
Appendix
Transcription
conventions
Ss Indicating several students speaking at once
Sx Indicating unidentied student speaker
Xie Indicating identied student speaker, Xie
1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Denoting an intonation unit
(( )) Representing researchers comment
( ) Representing English translations of Chinese utterances
CAPITALS Representing Chinese utterances
in bold Denoting original text from the textbook
/ Indicating rising intonation
underlining Indicating stressed words
.. Denoting a pause of approximately two seconds
Following this convention, each additional (.) represents an additional
second.
Pauses of less than one second are not transcribed.
20 Xiaoyan Xie

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
a
m
p
t
o
n

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

3
,

2
0
1
3
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
e
l
t
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m