System 28 (2000) 435±446

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Asian students' reticence revisited

Xiaotang Cheng *
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875,
People's Republic of China

Received 15 June 1999; received in revised form 27 December 1999; accepted 10 January 2000

Abstract
Recent ESL/EFL literature has frequently reported that Asian (especially East Asian) stu-
dents of English as a second/foreign language are reticent and passive learners. Cultural
attributes of Asian societies are often cited as the main causes for such alleged behaviour of
reticence and passivity. Based on counter evidence against these allegations, this article argues
that it is a dangerous over-generalisation to say Asian students are reticent and passive lear-
ners. Results from existing research show that many Asian students do have a strong desire to
participate in classroom activities. The article also argues that if some Asian students are
indeed observed to be quieter than expected in certain circumstances, the causes are situation
speci®c rather than culturally pre-set. These situation-speci®c causes could be the di€erences
between teaching methodologies and the lack of required foreign language pro®ciency. Inter-
pretations based on cultural attributes should not be considered as an easier diagnosis for all
problems arising in ESL/EFL practices. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Asian students; ESL/EFL learners; Learner behaviour; Culture

1. Introduction

In recent ESL/EFL literature, Asian (especially East Asian) learners of English as

a foreign/second language have been arguably reported as reticent and passive lear-
ners. The most common allegations are that these students are reluctant to partici-
pate in classroom discourse; they are unwilling to give responses; they do not ask
questions; and they are passive and over-dependent on the teacher (Jones et al.,
1993; Braddock et al., 1995; Cortazzi and Jin, 1996; Tsui, 1996). Although some
researchers (e.g. Littlewood and Liu, 1996) have challenged these allegations,
more interested researchers have chosen to explore the causes behind such alleged

* Tel.: +86-10-62205487; fax: +86-10-62209393.

E-mail address: cheng_xiaotang@yahoo.com (X. Cheng).

0346-251X/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0346-251X(00)00015-4
436 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446

reticence and passivity. By resorting to sociocultural interpretations of the Asian

societies, many researchers (e.g. Flowerdew and Miller, 1995; Ferris and Tagg, 1996;
Turner and Hiraga, 1996) conclude that reticent and passive behaviour results from
certain cultural attributes of Asian societies. In this paper I will ®rst argue that the
notion that Asian students of English are reticent and passive learners is an over-
generalisation. Then I will argue that, in the circumstances where behaviour of reti-
cence and passivity is indeed observed, situation speci®c factors such as teaching
methodologies and language pro®ciency level rather than cultural attributes are to
blame. Please note that the signi®cance of this argumentation lies in the assumption
that active participation is very important in language learning.

2. Asian students' alleged reticence and passivity

In the past two or three decades, as English is increasingly becoming an interna-

tional language, Asian countries and regions, notably China, Japan, and South
Korea have undertaken reform in the teaching of English as a foreign or second
language, which in turn has generated more and more research interest in ESL/EFL
practices in these countries and regions (Cortazzi and Jin, 1996; LoCastro, 1996; Li,
1998; Park and Oxford, 1998; Littlewood, 1999). Unfortunately, one of the recent
reported ®ndings is that more often than not Asian learners of English are generally
reticent and passive learners (Jones et al., 1993; Braddock et al., 1995; Flowerdew
and Miller, 1995; Cortazzi and Jin, 1996; Ferris and Tagg, 1996; Turner and Hiraga,
1996; Tsui, 1996; Jones, 1999).
Braddock et al. (1995, cited in Jones, 1999) conducted a substantial survey at
Macquarie University in Sydney. One of their ®ndings was that 60% of the sta€
respondents viewed Asian students, who constitute the vast majority of international
students on campus, as quiet and inactive in class and reported much better com-
munication with Australian, American, and European students.
Cortazzi and Jin (1996) asked 15 highly experienced Western teachers of English
working in Chinese universities about the strong and weak points of Chinese stu-
dents' learning styles. The results show that on the positive side, Chinese students
were diligent, persistent, thorough and friendly; they were very good at memorising;
and they had a strong desire to learn English well. On the negative side, however,
these Western teachers reported that Chinese students were not active in class; they
were unwilling to work in groups; they preferred whole-class work or individual
work (to group-work or pair-work); and they were shy and passive.
In a study that investigated college and university professors' view of ESL stu-
dents' diculties with academic listening and speaking tasks, Ferris and Tagg (1996)
found that a number of Western professors believed ESL students need to overcome
cultural inhibition or shyness about speaking up in class, to learn to ask and answer
questions e€ectively, and to communicate more with native speakers of English or
less with speakers of their own language. Twelve professors speci®cally mentioned
Asian students as having cultural di€erences which inhibited their oral participation
in class and their willingness and ability to ask questions.
 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446 437

In another study of the notion of culture in foreign language university lectures in

Hong Kong, Flowerdew and Miller (1995) reported that lecturers, especially
expatriate lecturers, were frustrated with students' reluctance to give their opinions,
even when asked. They speculated that the negative attitude to participation may
have something to do with the local and academic cultures that students operate in.
In a detailed survey of teachers' attitudes to the competence of non-native-
English-speaking (NNS) students in all faculties at the University of Canberra, 66%
of respondents registered concern that NNS students, especially those from Asia,
tend to be markedly more reticent in tutorials than their native-English-speaking
(NS) counterparts (Jones et al., 1993, cited in Jones, 1999).
In Turner and Hiraga's (1996, cited in Liu and Littlewood, 1997) study of the
e€ect of di€erent cultural assumptions on academic tutorials, it was found that
Japanese students in Britain appeared passive and unwilling to engage in dialectic
and analytic discourse in tutorials. Turner and Hiraga suggest that Japanese aca-
demic culture, which values the demonstration rather than transformation of
knowledge, could be the cause of students' passive behaviour.
Tsui (1996) asked ESL teachers working in secondary schools in Hong Kong to
re¯ect on their own teaching and identify a speci®c problem that might form the
basis for classroom action research. Over 70% of a group of 38 teachers identi®ed
getting more student oral response as one of their major problems. These teachers
described their students as ``passive'', ``quiet'', ``shy'', ``unwilling to speak English''
and so forth.
Apart from these ®ndings from empirical studies, other researchers have voiced
their speculations about Asian learners' characteristics based on their studies of
sociocultural aspects of Asian societies. For example, Littlewood (1999) predicts
that East Asian students will be concerned to maintain harmony within their groups.
They may therefore be reluctant to engage in argumentative discussion, in which
opposing ideas are confronted and examined critically in order to test and clarify
them. Therefore, in open classroom, Littlewood concludes that East Asian students
will be reluctant to ``stand out'' by expressing their views or raising questions, par-
ticularly if this might be perceived as expressing public disagreement. Biggs (1996,
p. 47) summarises some Western misperceptions of the so-called Confucian-heritage
cultures, one of which is that ``overseas Asian students typically take a low pro®le,
rarely asking questions or volunteering answers, let alone making public observa-
tions or criticisms of course content. . .''.

3. Evidence against the allegations

Language learning is an extremely complex process, which is further complicated

by the learners' individual di€erences and their di€erent social, political and cultural
background. As Tudor (1998, p. 319) puts it, ``the reality of language teaching [and
learning] emerges from a dynamic interaction of [individual and sociocultural]
rationalities, a process which is unique to each classroom and which can rarely be
predicted in advance''. It is reasonable to say that it is extremely dicult (if possible
438 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446

at all) to identify a shared learning behaviour of a number of groups of people who

range over a wide geographical and cultural landscape. Therefore, I argue that the
idea of Asian ESL/EFL learners' reticence and passivity is largely a groundless myth
rather than a universal truth.
My instinctive distrust of the myth primarily derives from my 10 years' teaching
experiences in China, the numerous class observations that I have made at all levels
of English language teaching (ELT) in China, and my discussions with colleagues
from around the world. Among the students that I have taught or observed, some
are indeed reticent and passive, but many are extremely active and even aggressive.
My teaching experiences and my observations have convinced me that Asian stu-
dents (at least Chinese students) are not culturally predisposed to be reticent and
passive in language learning.
In order to testify whether my teaching experiences and my observations are
exceptions, I conducted an informal survey about other teachers' attitudes towards
Asian learners' alleged reticence and passivity. With a neutral tone, I posted the
allegations mentioned above on TESL-L (a world-wide e-mail discussion forum for
teachers of English as a second language) and asked for colleagues' reactions.
Within a few days, I received enthusiastic feedback. Eight out of 10 replies chal-
lenged the stereotypes set up against Asian learners. Some of the teachers were so
strongly against the allegations that they even gave detailed descriptions of the
classes they have taught, where students gave no sign of reticence and passivity at
all.
Littlewood and Liu (1996) conducted two large-scale surveys of university
teachers and students in Hong Kong. The researchers found that students gave no
evidence of reluctance to adopt active speech roles in the classroom. On the con-
trary, students in Hong Kong welcomed opportunities (at least in their English
classes) for active participation at secondary as well as tertiary levels. For example,
the data show that ``group discussion'' ranked ®rst in the order of preference of
twelve English lesson activities in Forms 6 and 7. This strong desire for active par-
ticipation contrasts sharply with the passive role that students are said to adopt.
This is also supported by Littlewood's (1999) report that in his discussions which he
conducted in China, he found students were generally critical of their teachers for
not raising enough points for discussion in class.
Results of Spratt's (1999) study also indicate that students in Hong Kong have a
positive attitude towards classroom participation. Since the primary aim of Spratt's
study was to compare learners' preferred activities with teachers' perceptions of
what those preferences were, the research results do reveal what activities students
like most. Among 48 classroom activities, the mean scores for 20 activities were
above 4.00 (including 4.00, estimated from graph) on a 1±6 Likert scale. This means
students like these 20 activities. Among these 20 activities, 12 are related to class-
room participation:

1. Taking part in discussions.

2. Taking part in language games.
3. Working in small groups.
 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446 439

4. Listening to others using English in class.

5. Talking to classmates in English in class.
6. Listening to classmates giving oral presentations.
7. Classmates giving me oral/written feedback in class.
8. Doing practical tasks, e.g. survey, oral presentations.
9. Working in pairs.
10. Interacting in English with classmates in class.
11. Giving group presentations.
12. Taking part in role-plays.

Park and Oxford (1998) have reported on an experimental English Village Course
program for college students in Korea. The aim of the program was to compensate
for the students' lack of exposure to communicative English during their regular
(academic) terms. The program was successful in providing a steady supply of
interesting and challenging opportunities for participants to take part in natural
English communication. Students attending the program were very active and
revealed great willingness to participate in the various activities provided. The suc-
cess of this program tells us that when a suitable environment is available, most
learners can be active and participative.
Thein (1994) has reported another success story of an intensive English program
conducted at the Asian Institute of Technology in Thailand. The participants in the
program, who came from di€erent Asian countries, had previously been accustomed
to the traditional teacher-centred teaching and learning style. It was feared that they
would not bene®t from the learner-centred teaching and learning style which the
program adhered. However, after a few initial dicult days, the participants began
to interact with everyone in the class, participate in discussions, ask questions,
respond to others, and put forward their own views. They exercised considerable
initiative in class.
So, on the one hand, teachers and professors complain that Asian ESL/EFL stu-
dents are reticent and passive in class and reluctant to participate in group discus-
sions. On the other hand, reports about students' preferences and behaviour indicate
that they do like group discussions, they do want to take active roles in class, and
they do want to cooperate with the teacher. If both the professors and the students
are telling the truth, there are two possibilities to account for this paradox.
One possibility is that the professors' and teachers' complaints originated from
their impression of a small number of Asian students who are indeed reticent and
passive in class. From the evidence cited earlier, it is reasonable to infer that Asian
ESL/EFL students (maybe students throughout the world) are on a continuum from
``very active'' to ``very passive''. Some students are very active, some are very passive,
and some are in between. Perhaps the proportion of the ``very passive'' ones among
Asian students is larger than the proportion of their Western counterparts. And
please bear in mind that the impression of reticence and passivity does not have to
be made only when the professors have seen all Asian students are quiet in the class.
Please also note that in the allegations cited above, the impression of Asian students'
reticence and passivity is expressed by ``some teachers'', ``a number of professors'' or
440 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446

``66% professors'' rather than all teachers or professors. There is a Chinese saying
albeit vulgar, that a tiny grain of rat faeces spoils a whole pot of porridge, meaning a
tiny bad part of a thing leaves an impression that the whole thing is bad.
The other possibility is that Asian students say that they like to take an active role
in class but, in reality, some of them are unable to do so due to various reasons.
Obviously the two possibilities co-exist in ESL/EFL reality. As to what proportion
of Asian students are ``very passive'' and whether this proportion is substantially
larger than that of their Western counterparts, more extensive empirical research will
suce for an answer, especially if the researchers use more e€ective research meth-
ods (such as class observations) rather than questionnaires tapping professors'
impressions, which are often in¯uenced by hearsay stories. The rest of this paper will
focus on the question: why are some Asian ESL/EFL students unable to take an
active role in the classroom though they may have a strong desire to do so?

4. Questionable interpretations of the reticent and passive behaviour

When interpreting Chinese students' alleged passive learning behaviour, Cortazzi

and Jin (1996) attribute much of the cause to the unique Chinese culture of learning,
which is deeply rooted in Chinese traditional values about education since Con-
fucius. The Confucian in¯uences have been frequently cited in the literature as the
main cause of the perceived reticence of not only Chinese students but also students
in other Asian countries. It is believed that in Confucian times (and a long time after
that period) there was great respect from the pupils for the knowledgeable teacher.
Passivity and reticence were indications of respect for the teacher. It was not only
acceptable but also desirable for students to listen to and obey the teacher. Chal-
lenging the teacher by asking questions was not believed to be an accepted practice.
``. . .consciousness and recognition of teacher authority has been a signi®cant aspect
of Chinese traditional values since Confucius and a strong element in Chinese
approaches to learning.'' (Cortazzi and Jin, 1996, p. 179).
This seemingly strong argument is, however, a distortion of the Confucian doc-
trine. Confucius did advocate respect for knowledge and knowledgeable persons.
And nobody can see anything wrong with this deserved respect. However, respecting
knowledge and knowledgeable teachers does not mean students should be compliant
and passive to the teacher. This is manifested in Confucius's well-known saying: ``shi
bu bi xian yu di zi; di zi bu bi bu ru shi'', which means ``the teacher does not always
have to be more knowledgeable than the pupil; and the pupil is not necessarily
always less learned than the teacher''. Confucius had another saying which is known
to virtually every household in China ``san ren xing, bi you wo shi'', meaning
``among any three persons, there must be one who can be my teacher''. Obviously
Confucius was not in favour of the idea that the pupils should blindly accept what-
ever the teacher imparts. Besides, the traditional Chinese education values ``chal-
lenging'' greatly. One motto frequently recommended for Chinese students is ``Qin
xue hao wen'', meaning ``(a good student should) study hard and always be ready to
ask questions''. Liu and Littlewood (1997) expressed a similar view by analysing the
 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446 441

Chinese term for ``knowledge''. In Chinese, the term for ``knowledge'' is made up of
two characters. One is xue (to learn) and the other is wen (to ask). This means that
the action of enquiring and questioning is central to the quest for knowledge. So
respect for teachers does not seem to be a major cause for some Asian students'
reticence in class, and the notion that Asian students are not inclined to challenge
the teacher's authority is largely an illusion. Stephens (1997) conducted a small scale
survey of Chinese students in the UK. A substantial part of the results are against
Cortazzi and Jin's (1996) interpretations.
Inhibition caused by cultural di€erences between the East and the West is also
often cited as the cause of Asian students' reticence. It is argued that Asian cultures
generally value collectivism and discourage individual self-expression, creativity, and
critical thinking; whereas Western culture displays the opposite characteristics (see
Kubota, 1999, for more discussion). However, these perceptions must be taken with
caution. If cultural di€erences between the East and the West cause inhibition for
Asian students, does it mean all Asian countries have the same type of culture,
which typically causes inhibition? Or does it mean Asian countries do have di€erent
cultures, but these di€erent cultures coincidentally all cause inhibition for language
learners? The answer to neither of these two questions is armative.
Another factor that is often cited as a cause of the perceived reticence and pas-
sivity is anxiety or fear of making mistakes. And this anxiety factor is also allegedly
related to certain aspects of Eastern culture, such as the desire to be right and perfect
and fear of losing face (Liu and Littlewood, 1997; Jones, 1999). It is true that a high
degree of anxiety is likely to have a debilitating e€ect on second language learning
(Ellis, 1994). However, there is no evidence that learners' degree of anxiety is related
to their local culture. When analysing the causes behind Hong Kong students'
anxiety in the classroom, Tsui (1996) concludes that the degree of anxiety in the
language classroom largely depends on the teacher's strategies (e.g. questioning
techniques). Successful strategies minimise language learning anxiety and unsuc-
cessful strategies exacerbate language learning anxiety.
No one would deny the existence of perceived cultural di€erences in various
aspects of human experiences. However, attributing some Asian language learners'
reticence and passivity to their cultural attributes is groundless and detrimental to
cross-culture studies. As Stephens (1997, p. 123) puts it, ``in seeking cultural expla-
nations for miscommunication between Chinese students and their tutors in the UK,
there is a danger of overlooking what gaps may exist in students' language pro®-
ciency and experience, and at the same time resorting to over-generalisations about
culture which have a surface appeal, but which are not supported by strong research
evidence.''

5. More plausible interpretations

Having read the earlier arguments against the cultural interpretations of some
Asian students' reticent and passive behaviour, the reader might ask, ``What then
are the causes for the reticence that has been observed?'' My general contention is
442 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446

that the causes are situation speci®c, though methodological di€erences and lan-
guage pro®ciency are the two most common causes.
As previously mentioned, language learning is an extremely complex process. Any
particular observed behaviour may be caused by a combination of many factors.
When behaviour of reticence and passivity is observed in class, it may result from
unsuitable methodology, lack of required language pro®ciency, irrelevant or even
o€ensive topics, lack of rapport between the teacher and the students, lack of moti-
vation, and even students' mood on a particular day. Of course, these factors are
interrelated. For example, an unsuitable methodology usually causes demotivation.
It is unrealistic and, more importantly, beyond the scope of this article to discuss all
these causes. Therefore, I will focus on the two most common factors: unsuitable
methodologies and lack of language pro®ciency.
Di€erent language teaching methodologies entail di€erent learners' roles in the
classroom. In a teacher-centred teaching and learning environment, the learners are
doomed to reticence and passivity. If learners have had a long learning experience in
such an environment, they are likely to develop reticent and passive behaviour. Let
us look at an ELT classroom example from Japan. In a review of English language
education in Japan, LoCastro (1996) describes some Japanese ELT classrooms as
follows:

. . . there are on average 47 students per class, sitting in six rows with individual
desks and chairs, facing the front of the room where the teacher stands or sits
on the raised podium. In junior and senior high schools, the teacher may use a
microphone, although this practice is more common in the cram schools and
universities where the classes may have one hundred or more students (p. 49)

. . . an overwhelming proportion of class time is composed of teacher talk. . .

The teacher asks a question, apparently addressing it to a student, but then
answers it, makes an assessment or comment on the answer, and then gives an
acknowledgement in the form of a common listener response such as ``hai, so
desu'' (yes, that is so) (p. 52).

Whatever rationale is behind this practice, the result is that such a rigid format
and solemn atmosphere obviously do not encourage students to speak freely. What
makes it worse is that the pattern of classroom interaction does not give students a
chance to speak at all. The teacher plays all the roles in the ``pseudo-interaction''.
And of course the teacher may well say that ``the students are reluctant to speak so I
simply give them the answer.''
With a less teacher-centred method, the classes are very likely to be completely
di€erent. This is supported by the class observations that I have made in China.
Every year, I supervise 6±8 pre-service EFL teachers doing teaching practice in sec-
ondary schools. Although the students are of quite similar background, their beha-
viour in di€erent classes di€ers greatly because the practice teachers are
experimenting with di€erent methods. When methods of a learner-centred nature
are adopted, the classes tend to be much more active. This is supported by accounts
 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446 443

from other teachers. The following is a Western teacher's (Mary Rebscher, personal
e-mail communication) account of a class she taught in Korea:

[I] completed pre-skill activities (e.g., brainstorming and suggesting appropriate

vocabulary that might be used, setting schemata), a main activity that ®ts the
performance level of the students (giving a well-designed intermediate-level
activity to intermediate-level students), and then post-activity exercises (e.g.
debrie®ng, summarising). The students were involved and enthusiastic. It was
hard for me to get them to quiet down and pull together as a whole class at the
end of the activity.

Before Rebscher went to Korea, her teacher and colleagues had given her some
well-intentioned advice about ELT in Korea. So she read information of all sorts on
Confucianism and Buddhism in order to understand her students' behaviours better.
However, as Rebscher explains, ``passing on the stereotypes was more impeding
than helpful''. What really helped her was not her preoccupations about Korean
students but her e€ort to select a more e€ective method for her class.
Of course, if students have studied in a quiet environment for a relatively long
time, the tendency to remain reticent and passive will be greater. This is why some
Asian students studying in Western universities are likely to give the impression of
being reticent and passive because in the West, class discussion and interaction are
taken for granted. However, these approaches may be new and even strange to
Asian students. They may not see any point in taking part in discussions at all. Even
if they do see the point and have a strong desire to participate, they may not be
ready yet, partly because they are not used to the new teaching style and partly
because they are unsure about the Western style discourse conventions such as the
rules of turn-taking and the use of non-verbal language. Western professors, who do
not bother to ®nd out why these students are quiet, usually jump to the conclusion
that the reticence is due to students' reluctance and passivity.
However, the problem is not con®ned to students who go abroad to study. Home
students also experience the same problem when methodological con¯icts arise. For
example, in China most Western teachers are asked to teach speaking and listening
classes, because that is where they are believed to be able to contribute most. And
these teachers are generally happy with the students' participation in class because
most students have a strong motivation to experience authentic English with their
Western teachers. However, occasionally Western teachers are also asked to teach
reading and writing. Without knowing how reading and writing lessons are con-
ducted by Chinese teachers, the Western teachers naturally follow the Western way
of teaching, which involves a lot of discussion work. Typically it is here where con-
¯icts arise. For most Chinese students, reading is the most important part of their
English course, the aims of which are to expand vocabulary, consolidate grammar
(at elementary level), increase knowledge and hopefully develop e€ective reading
strategies and fast reading speed. Discussions do not seem to ®t in reading lessons.
Consequently Western teachers teaching reading and writing lessons are very likely
to experience students' reluctance to participate in class discussion.
444 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446

Pair-work and group-work, which are presumably e€ective class techniques, are
often used in Western style teaching, but many (not all!) Asian students still do not
know what they are and how they work. Without any orientation or brie®ng about
these activity formats, some Western teachers tend to impose them on students
without knowing whether students wish to be involved in pair-work or group-work.
However, ``obliging people to do otherwise could appear to be an infringement of
personal liberty and choice, and it is hard to see how this can ®t in with any attempt
to genuinely humanise the classroom'' (Hyde, 1993, p. 347). The consequence of this
imposition is obvious. The students will remain quiet, either as an indication of not
knowing what to do or as a resistance to the teaching method.
To summarise, any teacher, Western or Eastern, who plans to use methodologies
which inevitably involve students' participation must make sure that the students are
familiar with and accept such methodologies. Otherwise, methodological orientation
or adaptation should be made in advance. Before I move on, I would like to point
out that not all ELT classrooms in Asian countries are like the Japanese one cited.
Even in Japan, positive changes are taking place (LoCastro, 1996).
The second most common factor that leads to reticence in ESL/EFL classes is
students' lack of required language pro®ciency. Tsui (1996) reports that most tea-
chers (in her study) attributed student reticence to low English pro®ciency. This is
especially true when students have paid too much attention to the development of
receptive skills and too little attention to that of productive skills, such as oral
communicative ability. When Asian ESL/EFL students with poor oral commu-
nicative ability study at Western universities, they are more likely to be quiet. As
Jones (1999, p. 257) points out, ``beyond doubt, language diculty is a signi®cant
factor in inhibiting e€ective communication between NNS students and their NS
teachers and counterpart''.
Most Asian ESL/EFL students who seek study opportunities in Western uni-
versities have to take TOEFL, GRE, IELTS or other equivalent language tests.
However, a high score on any of these tests does not necessarily mean the test takers'
overall English pro®ciency has reached the level that the score is supposed to indi-
cate. In China, TOEFL takers spend hundreds of hours doing simulated tests to
develop test-taking strategies rather than improving their real language skills. The
practice cassettes for listening comprehension are invariably taped with standard
American English. The speech and accent are manipulated closest to the real tests.
No doubt, these students can obtain high scores, but their language pro®ciency,
especially their oral communicative skills, is far from what is required for their
intended academic studies. Mason (1995, cited in Ferris and Tagg, 1996) claims that
students with TOEFL scores high enough for admission to most US university
programs (550±600) may not be linguistically pro®cient enough for the academic
listening tasks confronting them.
Naturally we can make an inference that if Asian students have fewer problems
with language, both in perception and production, they are more likely to take
active roles in class. This is supported by Stephens's (1997) report that Chinese stu-
dents participate freely and independently in discussion where they understand the
language that is being used, and where the ground rules for the expression of ideas
 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446 445

are made clear. Providing necessary support and allowing learners the opportunity
to plan before they produce may also encourage greater learner participation in the
language classroom.

6. Conclusion

In this article, I have argued that allegations of reticence and passivity set up
against Asian ESL/EFL learners are over-generalisations. A close look at the
researches from which these allegations originate tells us that the allegations are
largely based on the impressions of a small number of teachers or professors regis-
tered in small scale surveys, many of which were conducted outside Asian countries.
Therefore, it is not surprising that counter evidence is not dicult to ®nd as I have
done in Section 3 of this paper.
However, it is relatively easier to establish whether or not Asian students are
reticent and passive learners than to explain why some Asian learners have indeed
been observed to be quieter than expected. In this article I have argued that the
in¯uences of cultural attributes have been exaggerated as the hidden causes of per-
ceived reticence and passivity. I have also argued that when behaviour of reticence
and passivity is indeed perceived, the causes are situation speci®c, though I have
elaborated more on the two most common causes: unsuitable methodologies and
lack of required language pro®ciency. Other common factors and solutions to the
problem in question still await further research.

Acknowledgements

The author of this paper would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for pro-
viding insightful revising suggestions.

References

Biggs, J., 1996. Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In: Watkins, D.A.,
Biggs, J. (Eds.), The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual In¯uences. CERC, Hong
Kong.
Braddock, R., Roberts, P., Zheng, C., Guzman, T., 1995. Survey on skill development in intercultural
teaching of international students. Macquarie University, Asia Paci®c Research Institute, Sydney.
Cortazzi, M., Jin, L., 1996. Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In: Coleman, H. (Ed.),
Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 169±206.
Ellis, R., 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ferris, D., Tagg, T., 1996. Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: problems, suggestions,
and implications. TESOL Quarterly 30 (2), 297±320.
Flowerdew, J., Miller, L., 1995. On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL quarterly 29 (2), 345±373.
Hyde, M., 1993. Pairwork Ð a blessing or a curse: an analysis of pair work from pedagogical, cultural,
social and psychological perspectives? System 21 (3), 343±348.
446 X. Cheng / System 28 (2000) 435±446

Jones, J., 1999. From silence to talk: cross-cultural ideas on students' participation in academic group
discussion. English for Speci®c Purposes 18 (3), 243±259.
Jones, J., Bell, J., Bush, D., Cotton, F., Galloway, B., Martina, M., 1993. Survey of the attitudes of tea-
chers to the performance of their international students. Unpublished report. University of Canberra
Committee for the Enhancement of Teaching Quality, Canberra.
Kubota, R., 1999. Japanese culture constructed by discourses: implications for applied linguistics research
and ELT. TESOL Quarterly 33 (1), 9±35.
Li, D., 1998. ``It's always more dicult than you plan and imagine'': teachers' perceived diculties in
introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly 32 (4), 677±700.
Littlewood, W., 1999. De®ning and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics 20
(1), 71±94.
Littlewood, W.T., Liu, N.F., 1996. Hong Kong Students and Their English. Macmillan, Hong Kong.
Liu, N.F., Littlewood, W., 1997. Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom
learning discourse? System 25 (3), 371±384.
LoCastro, V., 1996. English language education in Japan. In: Coleman, H. (Ed.), Society and the Lan-
guage Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 40±58.
Mason, A., 1995. By dint of: student and lecturer perceptions of lecture comprehension strategies in ®rst-
term graduate study. In: Flowerdew, J. (Ed.), Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 198±218.
Park, Y.Y., Oxford, R., 1998. Changing roles for teachers in the English Village Course in Korea. System
26 (1), 107±113.
Spratt, M., 1999. How good are we at knowing what learners like? System 27 (2), 141±155.
Stephens, K., 1997. Cultural stereotyping and intercultural communication: working with students from
the People's Republic of China in the UK. Language and Education 11 (2), 113±124.
Thein, M.M., 1994. A non-native English speaking teacher's response to a learner-centred program. Sys-
tem 22 (4), 463±471.
Tsui, A., 1996. Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In: Bailey, K., Nunan, D. (Eds.),
Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 145±167.
Tudor, I., 1998. Rationality and rationalities in language teaching. System 26 (3), 319±334.
Turner, J.M., Hiraga, M.K., 1996. Elaborating elaboration in academic tutorials: changing cultural
assumptions. In: Coleman, H., Cameron, L. (Eds.), Change and Language. BAAL and Multilingual
Matters, Clevedon.