View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

Unequal Participation and Willingness to Communicate

Brad Barker

ABSTRACT
Students who are reluctant to speak out in the classroom are commonly encountered by language
teachers. As part of a teaching journal project, this paper is a self-refection based on
observations of student behavior and performance during English Discussion Class (EDC)
at a private Japanese university. Two classes were observed during a fourteen-week fall
semester with a focus on four students who did not participate as much as their peers. Possible
causes of unequal participation are discussed using a model of willingness to communicate
(WTC). Instances of teacher intervention to alleviate the problem are described, and changes in
student behavior and performance are noted. Several concrete measures that may be effective for
encouraging equal participation are suggested. This paper concludes by suggesting future
strategies for addressing the issue of students participating less than their peers.

INTRODUCTION
The first four weeks of class were devoted to informal observation of student behavior and
performance. I began writing weekly journal entries in week 5 and continued until week 14. It
was not until week 8 that I settled on the aspect of student behavior I wanted to observe: unequal
participation. Specifically, I was concerned about students who were not participating as much
as their classmates. Overall, consistent unequal participation issues were not widespread in my
classes. The majority of students understood the importance of balanced discussions and
participated well. Students were also generally very patient and supportive of their classmates.
However, I noticed that four students in particular were consistently not participating as much as
their peers. I decided to observe two groups and focus on two students from each group. Both
classes that I decided to observe were level II classes: one made up of science majors and the
other arts majors.

Group 1 - Student A (male) / Student B (female) - Level II - College of Science

TOEIC Scores Ranging 470 – 775 (Listening 285 - 415; Reading 160 - 360)

Group 2 - Student C (male) / Student D (female) - Level II - College of Arts

TOEIC Scores Ranging 465 - 640 (Listening 295 - 310; Reading 165 - 330)

At Rikkyo University, all freshmen are required to take two semesters of EDC. Students
are placed into classes according to their TOEIC listening placement test scores. Students are
assigned one of four different levels (I, II, III, and IV). Level I is the highest and level IV is the
lowest. In addition, students are grouped with classmates from the same college. Some variation
in student ability is expected. The highest score on the TOEIC test is 990: 495 for listening and
495 for reading (ETS, 2013). I noticed that there was considerable difference in students’
TOEIC scores within the two groups that I chose to observe. In Group 1, the combined TOEIC
scores ranged from 470 to 775. Listening scores ranged from 285 to 415. Reading scores ranged
from 160 to 360. Student B had both the lowest total score (470) and the lowest reading score
(160) in the group. Her listening score was about average for the group (310). Student A was
near the top of the class with respect to total score (580), listening (350) and reading (230). In
Group 2, total TOEIC scores ranged from 465 to 640. Listening scores ranged from 295 to 310.
Reading scores ranged from 165 to 330. Student C had both the lowest total score (465) and the

39
New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion

lowest reading score (165) in the group. His listening score was very similar to the scores of his
classmates (300). In fact, there was very little variation in this group (295-310). Student D
ranked highly with respect to total score (610). Her listening score was the lowest, but not
significantly different from the scores of her classmates (295). Her reading score was near the
top (315). Some insight regarding participation issues was gained from analyzing students’
placement test scores. Later in this paper, I will discuss the significance of these test scores.
I found that the most serious cases of unequal participation tended to occur in level II
classes. Overall, students in level II classes were highly motivated to participate and share ideas
during discussions. In general, students were proficient enough in the L2 that they consistently
performed well during group discussions. Several students were dominant and, if left unchecked,
could give little opportunity for more passive students to join the discussion and hold the floor.
Students who tend to dominate discussions to the detriment of their peers is another problematic
aspect of unequal participation. Discussions in level II classes were generally fast paced and
little room for thinking time or false starts was tolerated by more dominant students. This
created a high pressure environment for the more passive students, and this was a notable source
of tension during several observed lessons.
One of the primary features of an effective EDC discussion is that it must be balanced and
interactive. Discussions should be equal and constructed by all participants (Hurling, 2012, p. 1-
2). This is communicated to students both verbally by instructors and in written format via the
bilingual Student Handbook. In four-person discussions everyone should speak for roughly 25
percent of the time and listen actively for 75 percent of the time. Active listening entails verbally
reacting to what was said (e.g. I see. / I agree. / Uh-huh.), asking follow-up questions, and
expressing understanding or lack of understanding (I understand / Sorry, I don’t understand.). If
someone is not participating equally, this can have a negative impact on all students involved.
Because discussions are mutually constructed, students must rely on group members in order to
have effective discussions. For example, if students are reluctant to ask questions to classmates,
grades of all participants may suffer. In addition, research has lent empirical support to the
notion that learner-learner interactions can promote L2 acquisition (Adams, 2007). A lack of
learner-learner interaction is troubling within the context of EDC, especially considering that
one of the key features of an EDC lesson is teacher-free discussions. Learners must have
frequent interactions with peers to fully benefit from and pass the course. Concerning
assessment, participation alone amounts to 20 percent of students’ grades for each regular lesson
(nine out of fourteen lessons).

DISCUSSION
After conducting the second discussion test (week 9) I noted in my teaching journal that students
who participated less during regular lessons showed notable improvement in participation during
the discussion test. In Group 1, Student A performed very well and achieved a high score on the
test. Student B still struggled to participate and appeared visibly nervous during the discussion
test. It appears that self-confidence was a factor in her inability to participate fully in the
discussion. In Group 2, both Student C and Student D performed well and achieved high scores
on the discussion test. This can be partially explained by the concepts of extrinsic motivation
and intrinsic motivation. As defined by Ryan and Deci, “extrinsic motivation is a construct that
pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome” (2000, p. 60).
In contrast, “intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent
satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence” (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 56). It is
likely that students feel more extrinsically motivated to perform well during discussion tests.
Students may be motivated to get a good grade, especially considering that for EDC, discussion

40
 Brad Barker

tests involve one group discussion that makes up 10 percent of students’ final grades. Regular
lessons involve two or more discussions that make up a total of 6.4 percent of students’ final
grades. Students may also want the satisfaction of doing well on the test, but that would also fall
under the category of extrinsic motivation.
During week 10, it was very beneficial to talk to the prior instructors of the students I
chose to observe. They confirmed that these students did have issues with unequal participation
and WTC during the spring semester as well. Concerning Student B, the instructor believed that
she had some anxiety and confidence issues that may have prevented her from participating fully.
Recommendations included praise and positive feedback, assigning specific roles to students,
and utilizing more pair and small group work. The instructor also noted that pairing this student
with peers that show a tendency to help their classmates can help. One classmate was observed
encouraging his classmates to join discussions and share ideas. He would often ask questions
that helped create more balanced discussions, such as “What’s your opinion (name)?” and
“What do you think?” This student was also observed giving encouragement during a peer
feedback activity. He would clearly say, “Why don’t you join us more in the next discussion?”
Concerning students from Group 2, the instructor from spring semester indicated that these
students may not be participating equally due to shyness and personality. He also noted that
Student D seemed to participate more when grouped with other female students. Based on these
recommendations, I gave more consideration to student pairings and groupings.
Willingness to communicate is defined as a “readiness to enter into discourse at a
particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre, Dornyei, Clement, &
Noels, 1998, p. 547). I have included a model of WTC that can shed light on some of the reasons
why students may be reluctant to communicate (See Figure 1). The top three layers (Layers I, II,
and III) represent situational influences on WTC that may vary depending on the situation and
time. The bottom three layers (IV, V, and VI) represent more stable influences on WTC that
would operate independent of the situation (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547). I suspect that one
cause of students participating less is that they lack a real desire to communicate with their peers.
For unknown reasons, they displayed a lack of interest in entering into dialog with their peers
(Layer III, Box 3, Desire to Communicate with a Specific Person). Affiliation is thought to
foster a desire to communicate. Research from the field of social psychology has found that,
“affiliation often occurs with persons who are encountered frequently, physically attractive
persons, and those who are similar to us in a variety of ways” (Lippa, as cited in MacIntrye et al.,
1998, p. 548-549). Even though these variables were often present, it seems that some students
do not have much of a desire to communicate with peers in the classroom setting using the L1 or
the L2. This was evidenced by both in-class behavior, and a lack of interaction before and after
class using the L1. Based on observations, this issue seemed most pronounced with Student A
and Student B. Self-confidence is also a likely cause of unwillingness to communicate among
the observed students (Layer III, Box 4. State Communicative Self-Confidence; Layer IV, Box 7,
Self-Confidence). Some scholars see self-confidence as involving both perceived competence
and a lack of anxiety (Clement, as cited in MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 549). This can be a more
stable matter of personality (Layer IV, Box 7) or more situation specific (Layer III, Box 4).
Student A and Student B both demonstrated a lack of self-confidence evidenced by visible
nervousness and even worried and discouraged comments such as “I can’t speak.” Student C and
Student D appeared to be quite self-confident. It is important to recognize that some aspects of
WTC cannot be affected by how we teach and intervene when issues arise, for example,
personality (Layer VI, Box 12). Some students are simply more introverted and may be
uncomfortable or disinterested in speaking out much during discussions.

41
New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion

Figure 1: Heuristic Model of Variables Influencing WTC

(MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1998)

As mentioned before, due to the imperfect nature of assigning proficiency levels to

students, some variation in proficiency is expected. Based on my observations, I believe
proficiency contributed to some students’ lack of WTC. Both Student B and Student C had
significantly lower TOEIC scores than their classmates. These students were often drowned out
by more dominant and proficient peers. However, this variation in proficiency is only one factor,
and it cannot be used as an explanation for less willingness to communicate for all students.
Some scholars have noted that highly competent individuals can display a strong unwillingness
to communicate in the L2 in some situations. Interestingly, low proficiency students often
display a tendency to communicate in the L2 whenever possible (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Both
Student A and Student D had high TOEIC scores. Student A lived in an English-speaking
country for several years as a child. I suspect that his listening and reading abilities are quite
high compared to his peers due to his time overseas. However, upon returning to Japan his
speaking abilities seem to have suffered due to few opportunities to use the L2. Although his
pronunciation remains quite natural, he was frequently observed struggling to articulate his
opinions and ideas. When observing classes I realized that there are other factors at work as well.
Student D indicated that she had some health issues during the semester which led to her being
fatigued. Despite her high proficiency and the possibility that she was willing to communicate, it
is likely that her health issues affected her performance during the semester.

Drawing Attention to Unbalanced Discussions

One straightforward way to encourage equal participation is simply to draw students’ attention
to the importance of balanced discussions. One method that has been used during EDC is
drawing a simple diagram on the board that illustrates ideal participation during a four-person

42
 Brad Barker

discussion (See Figure 2). Similarly, diagrams illustrating balanced three-person and five-person
discussions can be used as well. I have used this strategy to varying degrees of success. During
week 10, students in Group 2 seemed to participate more after simply reminding them of the
need to participate equally, writing the diagram on the whiteboard, and informing them that they
should speak for 4 minutes and listen actively for 12 minutes. Another way to do this is to elicit
how much time each student should speak during a sixteen minute discussion with four students,
for example, by writing 16 minutes on the board and eliciting the answer 4 minutes (Ohashi,
2013, p. 22). Further, this can be followed by questions such as “Is it OK for one student to
speak for more than 8 minutes?” or “Is it OK to speak for 2 minutes?” in order to emphasize the
point (Ohashi, 2013, p. 23).

Figure 2: Diagram Illustrating a Balanced Discussion

Carefully Considering Student Groups and Pairs

Frequently, students who were reluctant to join group discussions performed much better during
pair work activities. Likewise, they showed a tendency to participate more when in smaller
discussion groups. During week 11, I observed that both students in Group 1 participated more
when placed into a three-person discussion group. However, the discussions remained somewhat
unequal at times. Student A tended to simply agree with others’ opinions and contribute little
additional content to discussions. During the same week, when Student C and Student D were
placed together in a pair work activity, the discussion was very balanced. The same students
performed much better when placed into smaller discussion groups of three people during this
lesson. Both students demonstrated superior participation and received the maximum score for
participation. It seems beneficial to place students who participate less into smaller groups when
possible.

Reviewing Function Phrases that Foster Equal Participation

Another method that had some success was to review past function phrases. In week 10, I
reviewed “Joining a Discussion” phrases from semester one by writing them on the white board
(See Figure 3). I instructed students to join discussions and help their group members join the
discussion by using these function phrases. Student A used the function phrases and participated
slightly more than usual. Student B did not take the opportunity to join the discussion. It seems
that personality and self-confidence created an unwillingness to communicate that cannot be
overcome by such teacher intervention. In the same week, I used the same technique with Group
2. Both students participated more and showed noticeable improvement. “Asking for Opinions”
phrases can also be useful for encouraging equal participation. I often instruct students to use
classmates’ names when using this function, for example, “What do you think (name)?”

43
New Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion

Figure 3: Function Phrases that Foster Equal Participation

Joining a Discussion Asking Others to Join a Discussion

Can I start?
Can I make a comment? Does anyone want to comment?
Can I add something? Does anyone want to add something?
Can I ask a question?

Asking for Opinions

What’s your opinion?

What do you think?
What does everyone think?

Setting Specific and Realistic Goals

In week 10, in addition to instructing students to use “Joining a Discussion” phrases, I told
students that everyone must use a “Joining a Discussion” phrase two times or more. Setting
easily attainable goals seems most beneficial. As another example, students can be told that
everyone must ask at least two follow-up questions during the discussion. I found that it is also
helpful to have students reflect on whether the goal was attained or not after the discussion. This
can be done in a variety of ways. One simple and effective way is by having students raise their
hands to indicate the number of times the function phrases were used. For example, the teacher
can say, “Raise your hand if you used a ‘Joining a Discussion’ function phrase (two) time(s).”

Additional Observations
During week 12, I observed that both students in Group 2 (Student C and Student D)
participated more during discussions despite the fact that I did not draw attention to equal
participation during this lesson. It is possible that past teacher interventions contributed to this
increased participation. Students may also have taken several weeks to realize the importance of
equal participation and change their own behavior in the classroom.

CONCLUSION
At Rikkyo University, all freshmen are required to complete two semesters of EDC. At the
moment it is not possible to change a student’s level based on performance in semester one. This
is due to institutional constraints in that once students are registered within the university at a
specific level, it is not possible to change levels. This is unfortunate because I think problems of
unequal participation could often be alleviated or even resolved if instructors could recommend
that specific students change levels based on their performance in semester one. I believe that
two of the students I chose to observe would have been much more self-confident and willing to
communicate if they had been placed into a level III class during semester two based on
instructor recommendation (Student A and Student B). Despite Student A’s high listening and
reading proficiency, I feel that a level III class would have been more appropriate. It is likely
that he would feel more self-confident speaking with peers who are equally or less proficient in
speaking ability. However, it is also possible that leveling down students could have a negative

44
 Brad Barker

effect on self-confidence and WTC (Layer III, Box 4, State Communicative Self-Confidence;
Layer IV, Box 7, Self-Confidence).
Assigning students specific roles may also be an effective way to encourage equal
participation, although I have not personally experimented much with this strategy beyond
giving one student the role of group leader. Other EDC instructors have had success using roles
to promote balanced discussions (Burgess, 2012; Glover, 2012). As an example, students can be
given cards with simple instructions and helpful phrase starters, for example, “Student 1:
Paraphrase your group members. - Do you mean…? So, what you’re saying is…? / Student 2:
Ask follow-up questions to your group members to get more information. - When…? Why…?
If…?” In future EDC lessons, I would like to experiment with these and other strategies for
encouraging balanced discussions and equal participation by all students.

REFERENCES
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 29-51).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, P. (2012). Active listening in group discussions: Encouraging equal participation. New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1, 2.15 – 2.17.
ETS TOEIC Website. Retrieved on February 12, 2014 from
http://www.toeic.or.jp/english/toeic/about/result.html
Glover, S. (2012). Techniques to encourage quieter students in the classroom. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1, 2.18 – 2.22.
Hurling, S. (2012). Introduction to EDC. New Directions in Teaching and Learning English
Discussion, 1, 1.2 – 1.9.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dornyei, Z., Clement, R., Noels, A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to
communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern
Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
Ohashi, K. (2013). Restoring equal participation in group discussions. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 1(2) 21-25.
Ryan, M. R., Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.
1999.1020 or http://www.idealibrary.com

45