"Dear Kingos, It's all right to be noisy!" Why is it so hard to get them talking?
aa r X i v : . [ m a t h . HO ] D ec “DEAR KINGOS, IT’S ALL RIGHT TO BE NOISY!”WHY IS IT SO HARD TO GET THEM TALKING? Natanael KarjantoDepartment of Mathematics, University College, Natural Science CampusSungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Republic of Korea
Abstract
This paper discusses an effort to encourage student-instructor interactive engagementthrough active learning activities during class time. We do not only encouraged the Kingosto speak out when an opportunity arises but also required them to record their activeparticipation in a student journal throughout the semester. In principle, any activities whichconstitute active learning can and should be recorded in the ‘Student Journal’. These include,but not limited to, reading definition, theorem, problem, etc.; responding to questions andinquiries; asking questions; and pointing out some mistakes during class time. Despite anincentive for this participation, our experience teaching of different mathematics courses inseveral consecutive semesters indicates that many Kingos resist in speaking out publicly,submitting an empty journal at the end of the semester. Students’ feedback on teachingevaluation at the end of the semester reveals that many dislike and against the idea of activeparticipation and recording it in a journal. This paper discusses the reason behind thisresistance and provides some potential remedies to alleviate the situation.
The Kingos mentioned in the title of this article refers to the students in our institution. Inthe context of this paper, they are only a subset of students who enrolled in our mathematicscourses.
Adopting and implementing interactive engagement and students’ active participation are notonly fostering a fun and interesting environment for studying but also cultivate students with thegoal of deeper learning and long-term retention rate. The literature contains a non-exhaustivelist of pedagogy involving some kind of active learning in various disciplines. There exists ampleevidence that active learning is more superior than a passive one, from improving students’grade, minimizing the number of failures and increasing the lifespan of retention learningrate (Crouch and Mazur, 2001; Freeman et al. , 2014).We observed two potential challenges which may limit the success of active learning strategy:Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) and English-Medium Instruction (EMI). The former is notonly known for its quiet class culture and passive-receptive learning style but also includescultural differences and language barrier. Hence, both challenges are closely related. Indeed,typical CHC students are often reluctant in expressing opinions and not accustomed to classroomparticipation. Some of them even go further by resisting curriculum, pedagogy, and context, asrecently revealed by (Huang, 2018).EMI is not only popular in Europe but also in Asia because offering it may improve theuniversity’s reputation and ranking (Cho, 2012). This ambition can be hampered due to thelack of language proficiency, from both instructors and students alike, as evidenced in theKorean context (Byun et al. , 2011). We should learn from our European colleagues on how tomplement EMI successfully (Klaassen and De Graaf, 2001). Admittedly, the issue surroundingEMI is not simple and any bold step in adopting it has fostered debates, challenges, andcontroversies (Doiz et al. , 2012).
The theoretical framework for this study is a combination of journal writing, CHC classroomand EMI environment. For the student journal, it is a tool to acquire and improve reflectivethinking (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1987). For CHC, it is based on both the conventional teacher-centered approach to teaching and learning as well as the ‘activity theory’ which enhancesconstructivist learning reforms (Engeström, 1999; Ng, 2009). For EMI, it is based on the‘dynamic bilingual education’, which involves the practice of using English for communicationpurpose as well as promoting multicultural awareness (Baker, 2011; Garcia, 2009).
We are interested in answering the following research questions:1. What is students’ feedback after experiencing active learning for which they also need torecord their participation in a student journal?2. What are some challenges and potential remedies for this type of pedagogy, particularly inthe context of CHC-EMI environment?
We only consider the qualitative aspect of active participation and student journal using thestudents’ feedback and perception collected at the end of the semester.
The participants in this study are the Kingos who are enrolled in three mathematics coursesoffered at the Natural Science Campus of our university: Single Variable Calculus (two sec-tions, 134 students), Multivariable Calculus (two sections, 84 students) and Linear Algebra (sixsections, 336 students), for two years from Fall 2016 until Spring 2018. The total numberof participants is 554 and their age ranges from 18 to 24 years old. We also adopted theconvenience sampling method due to its efficiency and accessibility.
We obtain the students’ feedback from the online questionnaire administered by the AcademicAffairs Team. We focus on the second part of this questionnaire which solicited the students’suggestions for the instructor in improving the teaching.
The submission rate of the journal ranges from 38% to 94%, depending on the course and thesemester. From those who submitted the student journal, around 30% of the Kingos have neverparticipated during the class, as indicated by empty journal submission or unrelated commentwritten down just for the sake of filling out the form. From our class observation, only around10% of the Kingos participated regularly and filling out the student journal. Digging in furtheron students’ feedback confirms our initial hypothesis that many Kingos dislike the idea of active2articipation and recording it in a student journal, as the following comments show. “I think student journal doesn’t improve anything. Hope we don’t do it.” (Spring 2017, Single-VariableCalculus)“I hate commenting.” (Fall 2016, Multivariable Calculus)“I think Student journal can’t help my LA studying.” (Fall 2016, Linear Algebra)“I think student journal is not useful.” (Fall 2017, Linear Algebra)“It seems that the instructor was enforcing too much on active participation.” (Spring 2018, LinearAlgebra)
From these comments, we observe that generally the Kingos do not like the idea of partici-pating in the class, particularly when they have to speak out publicly in front of their peers andwriting down what they have done in the student journal. Many Kingos prefer the passive-receptive learning style by observing and listening to the instructor talking in front of theclassroom.
Several factors may contribute to the Kingos’ resistance in participating actively in class. Duringtheir previous educational experience, many of them grow up in a learning environment withwhere active participation is not required and the learning style is passive-receptive. In severalcases, speaking up publicly is frown upon since the culture dictates them to remain quiet froman early age, to listen attentively in class, particularly when the teacher is talking and explaining,and not to challenge authority even though there exist some obvious mistakes. This type oflearning style is common among students who were educated in the CHC environment. In eachstudent’s mind, there is a ‘little-Confucius’ subconsciously reminding them to do what they areused to do, despite an invitation to do otherwise.In addition to the cultural background, language skill also plays an important role. Themathematics courses are offered as EMI and the Kingos have diverse English proficiency, aswell as mathematical ability. From our observation, many students in the West generally havehigher English proficiency even though English is not their first language in comparison to theKingos. Many factors can contribute to this, including how similar the students’ first languageto English, the quality of English education at the secondary level, and admission criteria ofEnglish proficiency, such as TOEFL or IELTS score. The majority of Kingos are selectedthrough the national examination. English testing is a component, but communication skillsand particularly public speaking are not examined.Regarding the diversity of mathematical ability, our observation indicates that academically-prepared students tend to cooperate more in active participation and in writing the studentjournal, even though some of them have limited English ability. It also makes sense that weakerstudents tend to avoid participation because they might not understand the material or get lostin the discussion.The remedy for the latter is beyond our discussion in this paper, but for the former, wecould address the culture before implementing active learning pedagogy. The purpose is notentirely to override the culture as a whole but to have a common ground of learning culturewhere we stand at the same level and could progress together to make successful teachingand learning. We may explain to the Kingos at the beginning of every semester that activeparticipation is required if they wish to enroll in a particular course and that there will bepoints awarded for active participation, and these will be counted toward their final score.Furthermore, we can assure them that it is all right to be noisy during the class because itis part of the learning process. We conjecture that the pedagogy of interactive engagement inthis special CHC-EMI environment will be more effective if both the instructors and the Kingospossess high proficiency not only in English but also in Korean.3 eferences
Baker, C. (2011).
Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.) . Bristol, UK: MultilingualMatters.Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-medium teaching in Koreanhigher education: Policy debates and reality.
Higher Education , 62(4), 431–449.Cho, D. W. (2012). English-medium instruction in the university context of Korea: Tradeoff betweenteaching outcomes and media-initiated university ranking.
The Journal of Asia TEFL , 9(4), 135–163.Crouch, C. H. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results.
American Journalof Physics , 69(9), 970–977.Dewey, J. (1933).
How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process .Boston, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R.Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.),
Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2012).
English-medium instruction at universities: Global chal-lenges . Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(23), 8410–8415.Garcia, O. (2009).
Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective . Oxford, UK: Wiley-BlackwellPublishing.Huang, Y.-P. (2018). Learner resistance to English-medium instruction practices: A qualitative case study.
Teaching in Higher Education , 23(4), 435–449.Klaassen, R. & De Graaff, E. (2001). Facing innovation: Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruc-tion innonnative context.
European Journal of Engineering Education , 26(3), 281–289.Ng, C.-H. (2009). Exploring the linkage between reforms and learning in the Asia-Pacific region: Anactivity theory perspective. In C.-H. Ng & P. D. Renshaw (Eds.),
Reforming learning: Concepts, issuesand practice in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Schön, D. A. (1987).
Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design of teaching and learning inthe professions . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.