Moosmayer et al. 1

Understanding Active Class Participation Assessment in China

Dirk C. Moosmayer; Daniel Borgia; Thomas WingYan Man; Gary Schwartz

Nottingham University Business School China

Contact: dirk.moosmayer@nottingham.edu.cn

THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS.

FEEDBACK IS VERY WELCOME!

September 2014

Moosmayer et al. 2

ABSTRACT

The paper investigates the introduction of assessment based on active class participation

(ACP) in a British – i.e. English language – Higher Education Institution (HEI) in China.

Existing research highlights the importance of ACP for increased learning, but also the

difficulties of applying ACP in a Chinese context due to cultural and language barriers. We

present empirical data collected during the introduction of ACP assessment in a British HEI

in China. We find that the introduction of ACP increases students’ general attitude towards

participation in class as well as the perception of their individual performance. At the same

time students gain a greater awareness of the discipline’s complexity. When trying to better

understand students ACP scores, we find a surprisingly low connection between traditional

assessment and ACP scores. In contrast, impact of shyness and language competence are high.

Finally, determinants found relevant in earlier studies – namely gender and comfort – seemed

not relevant in China. The results call for a broader discussion on what we assess and what

role language skills should play in assessing business programs.

Moosmayer et al. 3

INTRODUCTION

The past decades have witnessed calls for shifting management education away from an

exclusive focus on teaching towards more emphasis on students’ learning (e.g. Barr and Tagg

1995; Bok 1988). In the scope of these discussions, students were moved more and more into

the centre of educational activity. Involving students into in-class discussions has become a

preferred approach in this context as it was found that participation in discussions facilitates

student learning (Christensen 1991; Elmore 1991). Through discussions, students are further

given a more active role in their own learning processes that goes beyond memorizing for

passing exams (Wilson, Pollock and Hamann, 2007). It has been shown that active in-class

engagement increases learning quantity (Weaver and Qi 2005) and results in better

performance (Bonwell and Eisen 1991).

Besides these more quantitative effects, more interactive teaching styles may have further

positive effects on student learning, e.g. on knowledge sharing among students, on the

retention of learned information (Ewens 2000), and on the development of independent

learning skills (Sivan, Leung, Woon, & Kember, 2000). Interactive class discussions, often

including decision situations, also have a positive impact by shifting the focus away from

knowledge reproduction towards knowledge application (Jones, 2008). Particularly case

discussions are suitable to build a bridge from conceptual knowledge to practical applicability

(Christensen and Hansen 1987). Davis (1993: 63) summarizes the practical relevance of class

discussions as gaining “practice in thinking through problems and organizing concepts,

formulating arguments and counter arguments, testing (…) ideas in a public setting,

evaluating the evidence for their own and others’ positions”. Acquiring such soft skills is

particularly relevant for business students who in their future role as managers need to “think

through problems, organize concepts, analyze information, formulate arguments, synthesize

and evaluate evidence, and respond to diverse points of view” (Dallimore et al. 2010: 615).

Moosmayer et al. 4

Besides the positive impact on these cognitively oriented competences and cognitive skills,

class discussions may also improve communication skills, which have been shown to be

critical for success in work life (Albrecht and Sack 2000). Generically the impact of class

discussion relates to content knowledge and to communication skills (Dallimore, Hertenstein,

and Platt 2010).

Besides this shift in the focus of applied methods in the business curriculum, there has also

been a more global development in the markets of business schools: Asian students, in

particular students from China, have gained increased importance as business school

customers. Not only is the number of Chinese students at Higher Education Institution (HEI)

in English-speaking countries increasing, but global HEIs more and more expand into the

Chinese market (e.g. Fazackerley 2007). Additionally, the increasing number of intercultural

marriages results in more students having one Chinese parent (Sinclair & Britton Wilson,

1999) and thus further increase the need to consider Chinese culture in the classroom across

the globe.

Considering Chinese culture and the perceptions and behaviours of Chinese students has also

a special relevance in the context of interactive teaching methods and active class

participation as cultural factors interplay with perceptions of active class participation (ACP)

(Chu and Kim 1999). Chinese students were found to usually show low levels of participation

in class discussions (Biggs, 1991). At the same time it has been found that Chinese students

usually do not apply deep learning strategies but focus on achievement oriented approaches

in which they apply strategies in which they focus on those activities that allow them to

achieve better results (Ballard & Clanchy, 1997; Biggs, 1996; Samuelowicz, 1987; Volet &

Tan-Quigley, 1999). Interestingly, it has been shown that the learning through the

achievement oriented approach is as strong as that through deep learning (Watkins and Biggs

Moosmayer et al. 5

1996). Hence, assessing students’ active class participation (ACP) as a part of their course

mark, which has generally been shown to encourage class participation (Dallimore et al.

2006), becomes even more important when teaching Chinese students.

In this paper we therefore aim to gain an understanding of how assessing ACP changes

Chinese students’ attitudes and perceptions of their engagement in class and what factors

impact students ACP scores. We therefore develop a model that explains the impacts on

students’ ACP in a Chinese context. Thereafter we introduce an empirical study that was

undertaken when introducing the assessment of active class participation at a British HEI in

China. We use the collected data to explore the changes in students’ perceptions and to

further test the developed determinant model of ACP. Finally, we discuss the results and

highlight how they may connect to and differ from existing research.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Students’ non-ACP performance

For understanding students’ ACP performance, it seems appropriate to connect it to three

different aspects of more general learning indicators. At first it seems expectable that students

have some higher or lower level of general knowledge and cognitive capacity that influences

all their assessments. It could thus be expected that students’ ACP score is positively

associated with the general point average (GPA) that students received in the other courses

taken in the previous semesters.

H1: The higher students’ GPA, the higher their ACP scores.

Secondly, a more specific influence could result from a student’s talent in and interest for a

specific subject. Accordingly, one should expect that the marks for different assessments

Moosmayer et al. 6

within one course are associated with each other. In this context, Dallimore et al. (2008)

found engagement in class discussion associated with oral and written communication skills.

Consequently, ACP may also impact written skills and should thus be associated with written

assessments. Further support for an association between ACP scores and written assessments

like course work or exams comes from research that shows the connectedness of spoken and

written performance (e.g. Kroll & Vann, 1981; Whiteman, 1981). Hence, we hypothesize:

H2: The higher students’ non-ACP mark in a class, the higher their ACP score.

Finally, Dallimore et al.’s (2008) finding that oral and written skills are connected might also

imply that students could get a better understanding of written material through ACP and

thereby further increase their ACP performance. As discussed in the introduction, the impact

of active participation in class discussions is manifold and includes a deeper understanding of

the different facets of a problem and a stronger theoretical understanding of the discussed

issues (Davis 1993). It is thus likely that students, who achieve a deeper understanding of a

course’s content knowledge through class participation, can further improve their

participation and thus score better.

H3: The more students’ get a deeper understanding of course content through ACP, the

higher their ACP scores.

Shyness as a barrier to ACP

While ACP is positively connected to learning and learning outcomes, shyness seems to

constitute a key barrier to students’ active participation in class (Majid et al. 2010). As an

effect of being shy, students prefer not to engage in class discussion as this seems to be the

safer alternative (Sixsmith, Dyson and Nataatmadja, 2006). This shyness has been

extensively discussed as communication apprehension (e.g., Burk 2001), classroom

Moosmayer et al. 7

apprehension (Aitken and Neer 1993; Myers and Rocca 2001), or fear and anxiety of

communicating (Horwitz & Young, 1991; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; McCroskey, 1977).

Similarly, Dallimore et al. (2006, 2008, 2010a, 2010b) discuss comfort as a key determinant

of ACP and learning.

In Chinese contexts, shyness might be particularly pronounced: While asking questions

during office hours and personal discussions with the instructor (Volet & Tan-Quigley, 1999)

are completely legitimate, in-class behaviour is substantially different (Hodne 1997, Chu and

Kim 1999; Kember 2000). In general, the Chinese student-teacher relationship is a more

(power) distant one (Hofstede 2001), in which the student is traditionally not given voice and

in particular not expected to express a viewpoint opposing from the instructor’s one (Tani

2008). This can be motivated by wanting to safe either one’s own or the instructor’s face. In

this line of argument, Tani (2008) showed based on a sample of 1303 students from

Singapore that Asian students ranked ‘too risky’ as the number 1 reason for not asking

questions in class. Moreover, only 20 % felt comfortable asking questions, compared to more

than 50 % feeling uncomfortable (ca. 30 % marked “neither”). Most concretely, Boohar and

Seiler (1984) found that students who do not speak up in class receive up to 7% lower marks

in their courses. We thus predict that increased shyness leads to reduced participation in class

and thus to a lower ACP score.

H4: The more shy students feel about participating in class discussion, the lower the ACP

score.

Language

Connected to the issue of shyness is the aspect of students’ language skills. Language

competence has been identified as having impact on ACP (Man-Fat, 2005) and Chinese

students have often difficulty to express their selves in English (e.g. Cheng, 2000; Woodrow

Moosmayer et al. 8

& Sham, 2001). In the Chinese culture, correctness is highly desirable and students may thus

be less likely to engage in class discussions if they fear to make language mistakes (Brick and

Louie 1984). This is in line with research by Majid et al (2010) who found that cultural

barriers, and more concretely a lower level of English proficiency are major barriers to ACP.

In line with the above mentioned differences of in-class communication compared to office

hour discussions, the degree of formality which is typically higher – particularly perceived

higher by students – in class, has a negative impact on a speaker’s willingness to engage in

interaction in a foreign language (Price, 1991; similar Meijas, Applbaum, Applbaum, &

Trotter, 1991). A lack of confidence in mastering a foreign language of education has been

identified as threat to ACP. Particularly interesting for Chinese students is, that their written

command of English is often much better than their ability to interact orally (Liu, 2000), and

that the resulting reduced confidence in spoken English reduces the willingness to engage in

ACP (Watkins, 1996). Since it is likely that a higher degree of participation leads to a higher

mark, we predict:

H5: The higher students’ perceived language competence, the higher the ACP score.

Gender and age

Some studies considered gender and age as determinants of students’ level of ACP. It was

found that male students are more active in class (Megan 2001), and that they should receive

higher ACP scores. Similarly, older students have been found to interact more in class than

their younger peers (Howard and Baird, 2000). However, some studies suggested some

interactions in a way that female students were most likely to engage in ACP when they are

elder (Fritschner 2000). In our study, we use gender and age as controls. These demographic

variables cannot be influenced and thus seem less interesting to be understood in detail. It

Moosmayer et al. 9

seems more important to assure that they do not confound any other major effects This results

in the following model for students’ ACP score:

ACP Score = β0 + βC2 Age + βC1 Gender

+ β1 GPA + β2 Non-ACP + β3 Understanding + β4 Shyness + β5 Language

β0-5: Regression weights; βC1-C2: Regression weights of control variables

METHOD

Approach

In order to explore the perceptions and effects of assessing ACP, we collected student data at

the beginning and the end of a semester and matched it with student marks. The institution

chosen is the Chinese campus of a British University. Students are predominantly Chinese.

The business program is taught in English and students go through a mandatory preparation

year in which they are taught English for business purposes and receive further training in

academic writing and presentation skills. The institution introduced ACP as a part of

students’ assessment in the semester in which the study was conducted. Active class

participation was usually stimulated by applying case study method. Students were assessed

applying the rubric displayed in appendix 1. A pre-survey was collected in the first session of

the module. A post-survey was collected in the last session of the module. In the

questionnaires, students were asked to give their student ID on a voluntary basis to allow

matching of pre- and post-survey as well as module marks. At the time of the post-survey

students had not received any information on their performance in any part of the assessment.

The study integrates those five different modules in which active class participation was

assessed in that semester. In all modules, the ACP mark contributed 20 % to students’ total

mark. The other 80 % were usually evaluated through course work or exam (both due after

survey collection).

Moosmayer et al. 10

Sample

A total of 723 pre-surveys were collected. The same questionnaire with six additional

questions was used for the post-survey and resulted in 585 responses. As some students made

use of the option not to reveal their student ID, 351 observations could be used after matching

pre- and post-survey data. We further excluded observations from non-Chinese students (16

observations), resulting in an analysed sample of 335 responses. 74.4 per cent of the

respondents were female. 67 % self-reported that they had never been evaluated on class

participation before. Another 21 % reported having been evaluated on ACP in 1 or 2 classes.

Students are marked on a 0-100 scale with a common average mark of around 60.

28 % self-reported an average performance before the semester in which the study was taken

of between 50 and below 60 (second lower), 57 % reported a second upper performance (60

to below 70). 12 % reported mark averages of 70 and above (distinction).

Measures

The items applied in this study mainly relied on the work by Dallimore et al. (2006, 2008,

2010a, 2010b) with a particular relevance of Dallimore et al. (2010a). Further existing studies

were used to capture the broad array of possible influences.

For assuring that we include the most relevant aspects, we considered a wide array of aspects

in our questionnaire and included further aspects that have not been discussed in detail above

but that have been of interest in earlier studies. For example, the items in our study include

aspects such as peer participation (Souza et al. 2010; Brookfield and Preskill 1999;

Christensen 1991; Leonard 1991), student comfort (Dallimore et al. (2006; 2010a) the degree

to which tasks are challenging and interesting (Gilmore and Schall 1996), but also factors like

class size (Finn, Pannozzo and Achilles, 2003), instructor’s gender (Crombie et al., 2003),

and faculty authority (Howard and Baird, 2000), need for preparation (Weaver and Qi _2005),

Moosmayer et al. 11

and instructor’s expectations and efforts (Scollon and Bau 1981). The set of items that were

included in the pre- and post-survey are displayed in table 1. All aspects were measured as

single item measures, which is in line with the existing research in this domain. An approach

to identify consistent factors across pre- and post-survey data through exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) remained unsuccessful, indicating that the items cover diverse independent

facets of students ACP attitudes and perceptions.

Analyses

To explore the impact of introducing ACP assessment, we used a paired t test to compare pre-

and post-survey evaluations of the diverse facets. The results are displayed in table 1. Then,

stepwise regression was applied to evaluate the hypothesised model (table 2). All calculations

were made using SPSS 19. The selection of the discussed determinants found further support

as these were the one’s suggested by the SPSS function ‘stepwise’. Moreover, none of the

items increased R2

ad from .15 to .16 when being added. Finally, a manual procedure was

applied to seek for the model with the highest R2

ad by adding and removing single items. The

result is suggested in Appendix 2. However, this model is apparently not useful to understand

the key influences on ACP score.

RESULTS

Effects of introducing active class participation as a part of students overall mark.

By comparing students perceptions evaluated in the pre- and post-test study, we can gain an

understanding of the impacts of introducing ACP assessment. Table 1 presents the mean

values and standard deviations of the evaluated items. Moreover, t test results indicate

whether or not introducing ACP assessment had significant impact on students’ perceptions

and attitudes.

Moosmayer et al. 12

Understanding students’ ACP score

The stepwise regression analysis shows that the control variables gender and age remained

insignificant over all models. Pre-test performance, i.e. students’ self-reported GPA level in

the semester before the study, had significant (p<.01) impact in all models with a regression

weight between .21 and .17 and thus support hypothesis 1. Interestingly, the predictive power

of the module’s non-ACP performance, i.e. the mark for course work and exams in the same

module, was weaker (between .11 and .13) and less significant (at p<.05), still supporting

hypothesis 2. In addition, students who reported after the course that they gained a deeper

understanding of the course material through ACP, achieved higher ACP marks (β = .15**

to .17**) and thus provided support for hypothesis 3. Students’ shyness perceived after the

module showed to be highly significant and most predictive with regression weights of .21

and -.22, supporting hypothesis 4. Adding students’ confidence in their ability to speak

English expressed before the module had further significant impact (β = .12) and supported

hypothesis 5. Based on the inconclusive results and a potential moderation effect discussed in

the literature on gender and age, we also tested for, but found no, moderation effect. After

removal of the insignificant moderators, the following regression model results with R2=.166;

R2

ad=.153; F=12.9 (based on B values):

ACP Score = 41.7 + 1.76 GPA + .187 Non-ACP + 1.31 Understanding – 1.57 Shyness +

1.20 Language

DISCUSSION

The results reveal some interesting connections in Chinese students’ perceptions of and

attitudes towards ACP. In this section, we first discuss three aspects that seem worth noting

when scrutinizing the descriptive results and the differences of student answers before and

after the module. Thereafter, we discuss the findings from the regression analysis.

Moosmayer et al. 13

How ACP changes students’ perceptions and attitudes

Students‘ general attitude towards active class participation increases. After the module with

active class participation, i.e. applying teaching methods that explicitly allow to evaluate

ACP, students reported increased confidence in their abilities to contribute to a discussion

(µpost=3.41; t=2.74), they felt more comfortable (µpost=3.38; t=4.90), felt less shy (µpost=3.87;

t=-1.93), and generally better liked class discussions (µpost=3.48; t=4.61).

A similar aspect, which still may deserve distinct recognition is that students felt more

confident about their ability to speak English (µpost=3.33; t=4.08). I.e. the experience of class

discussions together with an increased awareness of these as part of students‘ marks make

them more confident to applying their English skills.

Students’ perceptions of their performance increase. Besides their general attitudes, students

also reported increased performance perceptions regarding their class participation: They

perceived that they participated more frequently in class in general (µpost=3.25; t=2.80) and in

class discussions in particular (µpost=3.23; t=2.46). They were more satisfied with their

participation (µpost=3.32; t=2.26), and thus expectation regarding a good grade increased

(µpost=3.31; t=2.63).

Students gain a greater awareness of the discipline’s complexity. Interestingly, in contrast to

their increased confidence in their communication skills, students’ confidence in their ability

to master course content decreased. After having been taught modules with active class

participation, students are less confident that they would develop a deeper understanding of

the course material (µpost=3.48; t=2.74) than before their class. This is true for basic concepts

(µpost=3.66; t=3.03) and, although insignificantly, for most complex material (µpost=3.21;

t=1.77). While one could read this as a disappointment about the taught course content and

Moosmayer et al. 14

the depth of understanding that was delivered, we suggest a different interpretation: By

discussing issues in class, students get a greater awareness of the complexity of business

decisions. In other words, when students are requested to master course content provided in a

text book, they feel confident that they can master this book. However in discussions of real

decision situations they are confronted with dilemma situations and have to suggest suitable

action. Through this process, they get an increased understanding of the decision complexity

and feel thus less confident that they can master this complexity.

What impacts students’ ACP scores

Low connection between traditional knowledge transfer and ACP scores. Students’ self-

reported performance in prior semesters, their performance in traditional assessments in the

same module and their perceptions that ACP helps developing a deeper understanding all

have significant impacts. However, it may be considered surprising that these traditional

aspects do not have a much higher association with ACP scores. This might indicate that the

impact of the assessment method on an individual student’s performance is much stronger

than expected.

High predictive power of perceived shyness and language competence. Students’ confidence

to speak up in class and to express one’s ideas in English, i.e. a foreign language, has

significant predictive power for students’ ACP scores. This is in line with the above

discussed streams of research. However, the extent to which these two aspects are relevant,

are particularly noteworthy. Although delivering a course on some specific subject area, the

strongest predictor for the ACP score is not the students’ intelligence or mastering of subject

knowledge, but seems to be if he or she is shy or not. In our case, ACP accounted for only

20 % of the course marks. And it is further worth noting that for some job profiles in the

business world, shyness might be a knock-out criterion. However there are also jobs where

Moosmayer et al. 15

shyness and modesty contribute to business performance. Against this background it might be

interesting to ask what kinds of profiles are successful in those schools that focus almost

exclusively on case teaching with in-class assessments. Moreover, it would be worth to

explore the diverse roots of the shyness measured in this study. Literature refers to the value

of harmony pronounced in Confucian philosophy and sees any question in class as an

interruption of harmony. Either students might fear to lose their face (e.g. Irwin, 1996;

Watson, 1999), or they might see any question as a sign for a lack of understanding which

again could be seen as a sign of disrespect in itself (Ballard & Clanchy, 1997; Liu, 2002) or

as an implicit accuse to the teacher that the explanation failed (e.g. Gilhotra & Callender,

1985).

Similarly, students’ confidence to speak English is an important predictor for students’ ACP

score. While one might argue that this should be the case, particularly in a British institution

delivering education in China in English language, one might still discuss if students should

not be evaluated on a much more comprehensive set of language skills.

Conducting two distinct regression analyses, one with shyness and language as independent

variables, and one with all the other variables from model 3, both had a R2ad

of .09, indicating

that the impact of the social, communicative variables are as strong as the ‘hard’ content-

related variables.

Influences of gender and comfort found in existing studies are not supported in China. The

non-significant independent variables in our study provide some interesting insights.

Students’ gender and age, which have been used as controls, have no significant impact on

ACP results. This is noteworthy, because existing research found substantial gender

differences in students’ ACP perceptions and performances. Furthermore, students’ comfort

Moosmayer et al. 16

in engaging in ACP received substantial consideration. The extensive body of work by

Dallimore et al. (2006, 2008, 2010a, 2010b) basically considers students’ comfort as the key

mediator between a diverse set of attitudes and perceptions and students learning, measured

by assessment score. However, when we add comfort to our suggested model 3, regression

weights remain weak and insignificant (β = .030, p =.58 when comfort was assessed in pre-

study; β = .015; p = .80 when comfort was assessed in post-study), and resulted in a

decreased R2

ad of .149. Hence our results suggest not only that students comfort is not a

mediator of perceptions and attitudes for explaining ACP in an English institution in China.

Even more, it shows that comfort is not a relevant category in this specific context at all.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we have not addressed the issue of learning in a traditional way. We looked into

students’ perceptions of ACP assessment and the impact on their attitudes and perceptions

when introducing ACP in a British (and English language) business school in China. We

further explored determinants of their ACP marks. However, in contrast to existing

publications, we do not share the assumption that marks are necessarily a measure for student

learning. Our analyses show low associations of ACP scores and students’ traditional scores.

They thus suggest to initiate a much broader discussion on some questions: What do we

consider learning? What learning aims do we actually pursue through interactive learning

styles that include ACP assessment? – and more broadly: How can we assure that our

assessment is in line with what we want our students to learn and more important, that our

assessment supports our students’ learning? Promising steps in this direction have been taken

by the U.K. Higher Education Academy announcing ‘assessment and feedback’ as one of its

key themes for 2012/13 and by the Journal of Management Education with its forthcoming

special issue on assessment.

Moosmayer et al. 17

REFERENCES

Aitken, J. E., and M. R. Neer. 1993. College student question-asking: The relationship of

classroom communication apprehension and motivation. The Southern Communication

Journal 59 _1_: 43–81.

Albrecht, W. S., and R. J. Sack. 2000. Accounting Education: Charting the Course through a

Perilous Future. Vol. 16. Sarasota: FL: American Accounting Association.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1997). Teaching international students: A brief guide for lecturers

and supervisors. Deakin, ACT: Education Australia.

Barr, R. B., and J. Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate

education. Change 27 _6_: 13–25.

Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian

Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong:

Some comparative studies. In M. Krantzig (Ed.), Eighth Australian Learning and

Language Conference (pp. 1–51). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology

Counselling Services.

Biggs, J. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D.

Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual

influences (pp. 45–68). Hong Kong and Melbourne: CERC and ACER.

Bok, D. 1988. Higher Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bonwell, C., and J. Eisen. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom.

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Association for the

Study of Higher Education.

Boohar, R.K., & Seiler, W.J. (1984). Speech communication anxiety: An impediment to

academic achievement in the university classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction,

18(1), 23–27.

Brick, J., & Louie, G. (1984). Language and culture – Vietnam: Background notes for

teachers in the adult migrant education program. Sydney: Adult Migrant Education

Service.

Brookfield, S. D., and S. Preskill. 1999. Discussion As a Way of Teaching: Tools and

Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Burk, J. 2001. Communication apprehension among masters of business administration

students: Investigating a gap in communication education. Communication Education 50

_1_: 51–58.

Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28, 435–446.

Christensen, C. R. 1991. Every student teaches and every teacher learns: The reciprocal gift

of discussion teaching. In Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership,

edited by Christensen C. R., D. A. Garvin, and A. Sweet, 99–122. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Christensen, C. R., and A. J. Hansen, eds. 1987. Teaching and the Case Method: Text, Cases,

and Readings. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Chu, S. and Kim, J.H. (1999), “Comparison of the perceptions of classroom participation

among Asian and non-Asian design students”, Multicultural Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp.

21-24.

Chu, S., & Kim, J.H. (1999). Comparison of the perceptions of classroom participation

among Asian and non-Asian design students. Multicultural Education, 7(2), 21–24.

Moosmayer et al. 18

Crombie, G., Pyke, S., Silverthorn, N., Jones, A., and Piccinin, S. (2003), “Students'

perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and

context”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 51-76.

Dallimore, E. J., J. H. Hertenstein, and M. B. Platt 2006. Nonvoluntary class participation in

graduate discussion courses: Effects of grading and cold calling. Journal of Management

Education 30 _2_: 354–377.

Dallimore, E. J., J. H. Hertenstein, and M. B. Platt 2008. Using discussion pedagogy to

enhance students’ oral and written communication skills. College Teaching 55 _2_: 1–12.

Dallimore, E. J., J. H. Hertenstein, and M. B. Platt 2010a. Class Participation in Accounting

Courses: Factors ThatAffect Student Comfort and Learning. Issues in Accounting

Education 25(4): 613–629

Dallimore, E. J., J. H. Hertenstein, and M. B. Platt 2010b. Cold-calling in accounting courses:

Impact on participation, volunteering and comfort. Working paper, Northeastern

University.

Davis, B. G. 1993. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Elmore, R. F. 1991. Foreword. In Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion

Leadership, edited by Christensen, C. R., D. A. Garvin, and A. Sweet, ix–xx. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

Ewens, W. 2000. Teaching using discussion. In Classroom Communication: Collected

Readings for Effective Discussion and Questioning, edited by Neff, R., and M. Weimer,

21–26. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Fazackerley, Anna (Ed.) 2007.British Universities in China - The Reality Beyond the

Rhetoric : An Agora Discussion Paper. London: Agora.

Finn, J., Pannozzo, G., and Achilles, C. (2003), “The why's of class size: Student behavior in

small classes”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 321-368.

Fritschner L.M. (2000), “Inside the undergraduate college classroom: Faculty and students

differ on the meaning of student participation”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 71

No. 3, pp. 342-362.

Gilhotra, M.S., & Callender, G. (1985). The role of individual factors in second-language

learning by adult migrants. TESOL News, 8(1), 9–16.

Gilliam, J.H. (2002), The Impact of Cooperative Learning and Course Learning Environment

Factors on Learning Outcomes and Overall Excellence in the Community College

Classroom. Thesis (Ed.D.), North Carolina State University.

Gilmore, T. N., and E. Schall. 1996. Staying alive to learning: Integrating enactments with

case teaching to develop leaders. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15 _3_:

444–457.

Hodne, B. (1997). Please speak up: Asian immigrant students in American college

classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 85–92.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations, (2nd ed). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Horwitz, E.K., & Young, D.J. (Eds.). (1991). Language anxiety. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Howard, J.R. and Baird, R. (2000), “The consolidation of responsibility and students'

definitions of situation in the mixed-age college classroom”, The Journal of Higher

Education, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 700-721.

Irwin, H. (1996). Communicating with Asia: Understanding people and customs. Kuala

Lumpur: Allen and Unwin.

Jones, R. (2008), “The „why‟ of class participation: A question worth asking”, College

Teaching, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 59-63.

Moosmayer et al. 19

Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation, and study

practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40, 99–121.

Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a

factor in adjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 205–

221.

Kroll, B.M., & Vann, R.J. (Eds.). (1981). Exploring speaking–writing relationships. Urbana,

IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Leonard, H. B. 1991. With open ears: Listening and the art of discussion leading. In

Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership, edited by Christensen C.

R., D. A. Garvin, and A. Sweet, 137–152. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Liu, J. (2000). Understanding Asian students’ oral participation modes in American

classrooms. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 10(1), 155–189.

Liu, J. (2002). Negotiating silence in American classrooms: Three Chinese cases. Language

and Intercultural Communication, 2(1), 37–54.

MacIntyre, P.D., & Gardner, R.C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and

language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41(1), 85–117.

Majid, S.; Yeow, C.W.; Ying Audrey, C.S.; Shyong, L.R. (2010) Enriching Learning

Experience through Class Participation: A Students’ Perspective.

Man-Fat, M.W. (2005), “A critical evaluation of Singapore's language policy and its

implications for English teaching”, available at:

http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/singapore.html

McCroskey, J.C. (1977). Oral communication and apprehension: A summary of recent theory

and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96.

Megan, G. (2001), Increasing Participation of Female Students in Physical Science Class.

Published master‟s thesis, St. Xavier University. Washington, DC.

Meijas, H., Applbaum, R.L., Applbaum, S.J., & Trotter, R.T. (1991). Oral communication

apprehension and Hispanics: An exploration of oral communication apprehension among

Mexican American students in Texas. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.), Language

anxiety (pp. 87–98). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Myers, S. A., and K. A. Rocca. 2001. Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal

aggression in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of climate,

apprehension, and state motivation. Communication Education 65 _2_: 113–137.

Price, M.L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with

anxious students. In E.K. Horwitz & D.J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety (pp. 101–108).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story.

Higher Education Research & Development, 6, 121–134.

Scollon, S., and K. Bau. 1981. Professional development seminar: A model for making

higher education more culturally sensitive. Paper presented at the Conference of the

National Association for Asian and Pacific American Education, Honolulu, HI.

Sinclair, A., & Britton Wilson, V. (1999). The culture inclusive classroom. Parkville:

University of Melbourne.

Sivan, A., Leung, R.W., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active

learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and

Training International, 37(4), 381–389.

Sixsmith, A., Dyson, L.E. and Nataatmadja, I. (2006), “Improving class participation in IT

tutorials and small lectures”, paper presented at 17th Australasian Conference on

Information Systems, 6-8 December, Adelaide, available at: http://www-

staff.it.uts.edu.au/~laurel/Publications/ ImprovingClassParticipation.pdf

Moosmayer et al. 20

Souza, T. J., E. J. Dallimore, E. Aoki, and B. C. Pilling. 2010. Communication climate,

comfort and coldcalling: An analysis of discussion-based courses at multiple universities.

To Improve the Academy 28 _1_: 227–249_.

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.

Tani, M. (2008), “Raising the in-class participation of Asian students through a writing tool”,

Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 345-356.

Volet, S., & Tan-Quigley, A. (1999). Interactions of Southeast Asian students and

administrative staff at university in Australia: The significance of reciprocal

understanding. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(1), 95–115.

Watkins, D. (1996). Learning theories and approaches to research: A cross-cultural

perspective. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural,

psychological and contextual influences (pp. 3–24). Hong Kong and Melbourne: CERC

and ACER.

Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and

contextual influences. Hong Kong and Melbourne: CERC and ACER.

Watson, D. (1999). ‘Loss of face’ in Australian classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education,

4(3), 355–363.

Weaver, R. R., and J. Qi. 2005. Classroom organization and participation: College students’

perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education 76 _5_: 570–600.

Weaver, R.R. and Qi, J. (2005), “Classroom organization and participation: College students'

perceptions”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 570-601.

Whiteman, M.F. (1981). Dialect influence in writing. In M.F. Whiteman (Ed.), Variation and

writing (pp. 153–166). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Wilson, B.M., Pollock, P.H. and Hamann, K. (2007), “Does active learning enhance learner

outcomes? Evidence from discussion participation in online classes”, Journal of Political

Science Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 131-142.

Woodrow, D., & Sham, S. (2001). Chinese pupils and their learning preferences. Race

Ethnicity and Education, 4(4), 377–394.

Moosmayer et al. 21

TABLE 1: PRE- AND POST-SURVEY RESULTS WITH PAIRED T-TEST

Pre-test Post-test

T p mean std mean std

I can master more of the course content in this module through class participation and assessment 3,49 0,945 3,54 1,017 0,81 0,420

I can develop a deeper understanding of the course material through class participation and assessment 3,65 0,882 3,48 0,990 -2,74 0,007

I can experience a greater enjoyment of learning (i.e., have more fun) in this module through class participation and assessment 3,33 1,009 3,41 1,046 1,21 0,227

I am very confident in my ability to contribute to a discussion in a participative classroom environment where class participation is

assessed

3,25 0,914 3,41 0,937 2,74 0,006

I expect that I will earn higher marks in this module because participation is required and assessed 3,25 0,989 3,35 1,053 1,49 0,138

I can develop and improve my communication skills because participation is required and assessed 3,79 0,908 3,64 1,821 -1,47 0,143

I am very nervous about my ability to contribute to a discussion in a participative classroom environment where class participation is

assessed

3,22 1,157 3,18 2,837 -0,22 0,828

I am very shy about contributing to a discussion in a participative classroom environment where class participation is assessed 3,00 1,069 2,87 1,097 -1,93 0,055

I am very confident about my ability to speak English during a participative classroom environment when class participation is

assessed

3,10 0,865 3,33 0,876 4,08 0,000

In general, I feel comfortable during a participative classroom environment when class participation is assessed 3,09 0,916 3,38 0,962 4,90 0,000

Assessing class participation will encourage me to prepare for classes 3,97 0,854 4,05 0,903 1,34 0,181

Assessing class participation will encourage me to collaborate with and learn from other students 3,74 0,942 3,83 0,871 1,52 0,130

Assessing class participation will improve my overall student learning by encouraging me to assimilate material throughout the

module rather than just in preparation for a formal final examination

3,72 0,850 3,64 0,882 -1,34 0,182

Assessing class participation will help to develop my transferable skills (such as confidence, coherence, the ability to present an

argument, demonstrable understanding)

3,69 0,858 3,61 0,824 -1,40 0,164

I am familiarised with class discussion 3,50 0,847 3,52 0,948 0,35 0,727

I like class discussion 3,21 0,889 3,48 0,977 4,61 0,000

In general, I am currently satisfied with my participation in class 3,17 0,918 3,32 0,952 2,26 0,025

In general, I participate in class discussion frequently 3,09 0,863 3,25 1,009 2,80 0,005

In most business modules, I participate in class discussion frequently 3,09 0,874 3,18 0,963 1,58 0,116

I participate in class discussion frequently in most modules that I have taken or am currently taking 3,10 0,834 3,23 0,948 2,46 0,014

I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class 3,17 0,887 3,31 0,912 2,63 0,009

I’m certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings for this module 3,11 0,867 3,14 0,869 0,52 0,603

I’m confident I can understand the basic concepts taught in this course 3,84 0,811 3,66 0,921 -3,03 0,003

I’m confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the instructor in this course 3,31 0,826 3,21 0,890 -1,77 0,078

I’m confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and tests in this course 3,28 0,774 3,29 0,819 0,11 0,911

I expect to do well in this class 3,95 0,887 3,88 0,835 -1,21 0,227

I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in this class 3,52 0,735 3,53 1,785 0,15 0,883

Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I think I will do well in this class 3,54 0,793 3,47 0,795 -1,32 0,188

Moosmayer et al. 22

TABLE 2: STEPWISE REGRESSION MODEL

Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B s.e. β

B s.e. β

B s.e. β

B s.e. β

46.5 6.31 *** 40.2 6.50

*** 46,4 6,54 *** 44,8 6,53 ***

Gender -1.68 1.03 -.088 n.s. -

1.56 1.02

-

.082 n.s.

-

1,12

,998 -

,058

n.s. -

1,00

,992 -

,052

n.s.

Age -.030 .130 -.013 n.s. -

.052 .129

-

.021 n.s.

-

,015

,126 -

,006

n.s. -

,051

,126 -

,021

n.s.

Pre-test performance 2.26 .645 .203 ** 2.37 .637 .213 ** 2,00 ,627 ,180 ** 1,86 ,626 ,167 **

Non-ACP module performance .199 .093 .123 * .218 .092 .135 * ,193 ,090 ,119 *. ,181 ,090 ,112 *

I was able to develop a deeper

understanding of the course material

through class participation and

assessment. (post-course evaluation)

1.44 .440 .174 ** 1,44 ,431 ,173 *** 1,28 ,434 ,154 **

I was very shy about contributing to a

discussion in a participative classroom

environment where class participation

was assessed. (post-course evaluation)

-

1,67

,395 -

,224

*** -

1,56

,395 -

,209

***

I am very confident about my ability to

speak English during a participative

classroom environment when class

participation is assessed (pre-course

evaluation)

1,16 ,504 ,122 *

R2 .078 .108 .156 .170

R2

ad .066 .094 .140 .151

F 6.78 7.74 9.79 9.26

Moosmayer et al. 23

Appendix 1: The Marking Template

Assessment of Class Performance

Mark Criteria

0 Absent

0 Either: No class contribution;

Or: Contribution was completely incorrect or irrelevant, with no evidence of understanding or knowledge

35 A weak contribution. Poor knowledge &/or understanding of source material, and with possibly major errors.

55 A middle-of-the-range contribution. Demonstrated basic understanding &/or knowledge of source material. A relevant but not

particularly focussed contribution to the class discussion, and with possibly minor &/or major errors.

65 A good contribution. Demonstrated good understanding &/or knowledge of source material. A perceptive contribution to the class

discussion, with evidence of analysis rather than just the expression of opinion or facts. Only minor errors.

75 An excellent contribution. Demonstrated excellent understanding and knowledge of source material. Added significant value to the

discussion, with evidence of analysis and critical thinking. No errors.

85 An outstanding contribution. Demonstrated excellent understanding and knowledge, beyond the source material. Evidence of

critical thinking, analysis and originality. No errors.

Moosmayer et al. 24

APPENDIX 2: MODEL RESULTING FROM MANNUALLY SEEKING R2

ad INCREASES

By further exploratory work, additional variables can be identified that all slightly contribute to R2

ad; finally

resulting in a model with R2 = .336; R

2ad = .264.

I would be glad about advice about how to deal with the rather concise model presented above and this one,

which is less concise, includes more insignificant variables but has increased R2

ad.

B s.e. β T P

(Constant) 37.732 7.771 4.856 .000

Gender -2.070 1.060 -.104 -1.953 .052

Performance 1.825 .648 .164 2.815 .005

Rest .205 .093 .124 2.202 .029

Pre-survey variables

I can develop a deeper understanding of the course material through class

participation and assessment.

1.658 .584 .173 2.839 .005

I can develop and improve my communication skills because participation is

required and assessed.

.902 .611 .095 1.477 .141

I am very shy about contributing to a discussion in a participative classroom

environment where class participation is assessed.

.828 .521 .106 1.589 .113

I am very confident about my ability to speak English during a participative

classroom environment when class participation is assessed.

1.171 .600 .122 1.951 .052

I am familiarised with class discussion. -1.366 .617 -.135 -2.215 .028

In general, I am currently satisfied with my participation in class. -1.284 .589 -.138 -2.180 .030

In general, I participate in class discussion frequently. 2.021 .907 .207 2.229 .027

In most business modules, I participate in class discussion frequently. -1.118 .803 -.120 -1.393 .165

I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class. -.925 .568 -.099 -1.628 .105

I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in this class. 1.799 .771 .157 2.332 .020

Prior to this module, in how many modules have you been in, in which class

participation was marked or assessed?

.527 .359 .077 1.471 .142

Post-survey variables

I can develop a deeper understanding of the course material through class

participation and assessment.

1.054 .563 .125 1.873 .062

I am very confident in my ability to contribute to a discussion in a participative

classroom environment where class participation is assessed.

.657 .663 .074 .992 .322

I am very shy about contributing to a discussion in a participative classroom

environment where class participation is assessed.

-1.829 .457 -.238 -4.005 .000

I am very confident about my ability to speak English during a participative

classroom environment when class participation is assessed.

-1.098 .646 -.114 -1.698 .091

In general, I feel comfortable during a participative classroom environment

when class participation is assessed.

.992 .622 .112 1.595 .112

Assessing class participation will encourage me to collaborate with and learn

from other students.

-1.167 .634 -.121 -1.841 .067

I like class discussion. -.973 .586 -.114 -1.662 .098

In general, I am currently satisfied with my participation in class. .903 .646 .102 1.399 .163

In most business modules, I participate in class discussion frequently. .553 .725 .064 .763 .446

I participate in class discussion frequently in most modules that I have taken or

am currently taking.

-1.569 .733 -.178 -2.141 .033

I expect to do well in this class. 1.017 .619 .100 1.642 .102

I have sufficient opportunity to interact with other students in this module. -1.120 .594 -.124 -1.886 .060

I felt free to ask questions throughout this module. 1.478 .666 .154 2.219 .027

The instructor responded to my questions in a timely manner. -1.827 .794 -.190 -2.300 .022

The instructor was easily accessible to me. 1.638 .823 .166 1.989 .048