Abstract
Class reticence is a stereotype about the characteristics of Chinese college students’ classroom participation. This study explores the current situation of Chinese college students’ active expression behavior in class and whether it could facilitate their learning under the background of social modernization and China's higher education reforming. This paper examines the problem with descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis methods based on the China College Student Survey (CCSS) dataset 2016–2017. The results show that, first, most Chinese college students express their views in class to a certain extent, and such explicit expression is always based on implicit deep-thinking engagement. Second, students who are more active in in-class expression have better learning gains, particularly those with a relatively lower level of deep-thinking engagement. The findings suggest that both traditional and modern culture should be considered when exploring Chinese college student learning features. It is also worth changing teachers’ and students’ traditional ideas about active expression to encourage students to express more in class.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
John Biggs proposed the Paradox of the Chinese Learner at an international conference in the 1990s. It refers to the phenomenon that Chinese students’ passive and root learning unexpectedly obtained excellent academic achievement in various international tests, which is much better than that of Western learners.
- 2.
The questionnaire has set the same questions with the same content in two locations; both are 4-point Likert scales. If the difference between the answers in two locations is greater than or equal to 2, we believe the respondent does not answer the question seriously; thus, it will be deleted.
- 3.
China started its world-class university construction projects in the mid-1990s. The most influential and well-known projects are “Project 211” and “Project 985” (more selective). The 110 universities in these projects were widely considered elite universities by Chinese society.
References
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers (pp. 119–137). Cambridge University Press.
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262–268.
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process. Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569–590.
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism (p. 33). Rouledge.
Cortazzi,M., &Jin, L.X. (2001). Large-class in learning: Good teachers and interaction. In: D. A. Watkins., & J.B. Biggs. (Eds.), Teaching chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 115–134). Hong Kong & Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC) and the Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER).
Day, R. R. (2006). Student participation in the ESL classroom or some imperfections in practice. Language Learning, 34(3), 69–98.
Guo,F., Zhao, L., &Lian, Z.-X. (2018). Reliability of self-reported data in college student engagement surveys: social desirability bias in self-reported survey. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 36(4), 53–61+163. (In Chinese)
Hao, Y.-S. (2007). Analysis on undergraduates’ participation behavior in classroom. Research in Higher Education of Engineering, 6, 131–134. (In Chinese).
Inagaki, K., Hatano, G., & Morita, E. (1998). Construction of mathematical knowledge though whole-class discussion. Learning Instruction, 8(6), 503–526.
Kong, Q.-P.(2003). Student participation in mathematics teaching. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press, 21. (In Chinese)
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, National Center for Education Statistics, 45–48(13–14), 59–65.
Kuh, G. (2008). High-Impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), 14–17.
Lei, H.-D., Yu, Q., & Yang, C.-R. (2017). Barriers to speaking in class: An investigation by interview of undergraduates’ reticence. Higher Education Research, 38(12), 81–89.
Liu, H., & Jin, & L. -M. (2012). Developing critical thinking through debate in English: An empirical study. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Education, 5, 24–28. (In Chinese).
Lv, L.-H. (2018). Chinese college students’ silence in classroom and its evolutive mechanism: Growing up and adapting of hesitating speaker. China Higher Education Study, 12, 23–30. (In Chinese).
Lv, L.-H. (2016). Turning to the back of conservative behavior: Chinese college students’ conservative learning propensity and its influential system: Based on the empirical research on the undergraduate students majored physics in Nanjing University. Journal of Distance Education, 34(6), 28–38. (In Chinese).
Lv, L.-H., & Zhang, H.-X. (2015). The characteristics of undergraduates’ learning engagement of Chinese research-oriented university—Based on the comparison of 12 research-oriented universities in the world. Educational Research, 36(9), 5163. (In Chinese).
Millis, B. J. (2002). Enhancing learning—And more!—Through cooperative learning. Kansas State University, IDEA Center.
Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 121–133.
Seliger, H. W. (1977). Does practice make perfect: A study of interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27(2), 263–278.
Vygotsky, L. (2010). Thought and language (pp. 142–184). Peking University Press.
Weidman, J. C. (1987). Undergraduate Socialization. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper, 57.
Zhao, S. (2018). China is urgent to cultivate indocile talents. China Science Newspaper Office. http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1208826-1139717.html. (In Chinese)
Zhou, Z. H. (2019). Where is our curiosity. China Science Press. http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-528739-1133156.html. (In Chinese)
Zhu, Z. B. (2017). Analysis of factors influencing student classroom silence from the perspective of implicit theories. University Education Science, (6), 50–56+122. (In Chinese)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Definition, measurement and descriptive statistics of other control variables
Variable name | Definition and measurement | M(SD/percentage (weighted) |
|---|---|---|
Receptive engagement | To what extent students listen carefully and take notes in class, including 2 items | 2.96 (0.65) |
Overall motivation | To what extent the student is motivated to learn, containing 1 item. Continuous variable | 4.95(1.32) |
Extracurricular academic engagement | ||
Peer learning | To what extent students learn with their peers (e.g., ask questions each other), containing 4 items. Continuous variable. Cronbach's α = 0.77 | 2.77(0.58) |
Student-faculty academic interaction | To discuss homework and course content with teachers out of class, containing 2 items. Continuous variable. Cronbach's α = 0.76 | 2.23 (0.74) |
High-impact educational activity participation | ||
Extended activity | Whether students participate in any activities beyond the curriculum requirement such as language learning, study abroad, and take a second degree, dummy variable, 1 = participated,0 = not participate(comparison group) | 1 = 20.04%, 0 = 79.90% |
Research-related activity | Whether students participate in research-related activities such as academic competitions, academic research, and contributed to conferences/journals, dummy variable, 1 = participated,0 = not participate(comparison group) | 1 = 35.16%, 0 = 64.78% |
Social practice | Whether students participate in social practice such as an internship, social practice investigations, or volunteer activities, dummy variable, 1 = participated,0 = notparticipate(comparison group) | 1 = 72.75%, 0 = 22.22% |
The missing rate of the NCEE score was the highest, 6.61%. In comparison, the missing rate of other variables is less than 3% | ||
Campus support | ||
Relational support | The overall relationship between students and various types of teachers and peers, containing 4 items. Continuous variable. Cronbach's α = 080 | 5.13(1.15) |
Developmental support | Student perceived academic, vocational, psychological, entertaining and economic support, containing 5 items. Continuous variable. Cronbach's α = 0.86 | 3.22(0.50) |
Student background characteristics | ||
Female | Whether or not the student is female. Dummy variable, 1 = yes, 0 = no (comparison group) | 1 = 47.98% 0 = 52.02% |
Minority | Whether or not the student is minority student or not. Dummy variable, 1 = yes, 0 = no (comparison group) | 1 = 8.28%, 0 = 91.72% |
Single child | Whether or not the student is the only child in his/her family. Dummy variable, 1 = yes, 0 = no(comparison group) | 1 = 46.06%, 0 = 52.41% |
Parental occupation | Integrated parental occupation status (higher occupation status between student’s father and mother). 1 = farmer(comparison group), 2 = non-technical worker, 3 = skilled technician/self-employer/police, 4 = professionals, 5 = middle- or high-level company manager/government officials, 6 = others | 1 = 11.18%, 2 = 15.68%, 3 = 32.37%, 4 = 13.30%, 5 = 18.05%,6 = 7.92% |
Family first-generational students | Whether student is a first-generation college student in their families. Dummy variable, 1 = yes(parental education level is high school and below),0 = no (parental education level is junior college and above)(comparison group) | 1 = 69.75%, 0 = 30.25% |
Rural | Whether or not the student lives in rural areas before college. Dummy variable, 1 = yes, 0 = no (comparison group) | 1 = 28.61%, 0 = 71.39% |
NCEE score | Student National College Entrance Exam score. Continuous variable. It is standardized according to live areas, entry year, and major | 481.22(116.93) |
Key high school | Student once studied in the key high school in their cities. Dummy variable,1 = yes, 0 = no (comparison group) | 1=47.67%, 0=52.33% |
University and college type student study in. categorical variables. 1 = 985 project university type universities (comparison group), 2 = 211 project universities, 3 = local universities, 4 = local colleges | 1 = 3.07%,2 = 7.99%, 3 = 36.89%, 4 = 52.044% | |
Humanity and social science | Whether or not the student majors in humanities and social sciences. Dummy variable, 1 = yes, 0 = no (comparison group) | 1 = 43.02%, 0 = 56.98% |
Higher grade | Whether student study in higher grade (the third and fourth grade);Dummy variable, 1 = yes,0 = no (comparison group) | 1 = 50.90%, 0 = 49.10% |
Social desirability level | Individual proposition and tendency to give a better response when filling in self-reported questions, containing 8 items | 53.30(21.65) |
Year 2017 | Whether student participate in the survey in 2017;Dummy variable, 1 = 2017, 0 = 2016(comparison group) | 1 = 53.54%, 0 = 46.46% |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zhang, H., Guo, F., Shi, J. (2023). The Current Status of Active Expression Behavior in Class of Chinese College Students and Its Impact on Learning Gains. In: Guo, D. (eds) The Frontier of Education Reform and Development in China. Educational Research in China. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6355-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6355-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-6354-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-6355-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)