Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

Expectations and Questions

In Intercultural Classrooms

Lixian Jin Martin Cortazzi

De Montfort University University of Leicester

Introduction
This paper will examine the expectations of Chinese students about
teaching and learning, compared with those of British students and teachers, as
well as make some comparisons with Japanese students. The focus is on
expectations of learning and on concepts about what should happen in the
classroom, especially regarding expectations of ‘good’ teachers, of ‘good’
students, and about asking questions in the classroom. Such expectations are
key elements in cultures of learning. We suggest that the teaching of both
foreign languages and intercultural communication in classrooms (especially
where participants themselves come from different cultural backgrounds) can be
hindered unless participants are aware of differing underlying conceptualizations
of learning and are prepared to question their own assumptions.
Foreign language classrooms are important sites for researching intercultural
communication for it is here that many students first learn about other cultures. It
is here that many of the ground rules for intercultural communication are
established. In such classrooms students encounter elements of a target culture
(C2) directly in the topics selected for study and indirectly through ways in which
this other culture is encoded and symbolised in the target language (L2). If the
teacher is a native speaker of L2 then the medium of classroom communication is
also intercultural, since the teacher will most likely use the learners’ L2 as the
classroom medium and, less consciously perhaps, to draw on his or her own
culture of learning (the learners’ C2) when teaching. Thus when the teacher and
students come from different language and cultural backgrounds the situation is,
by definition an intercultural one, both as content and medium. This is, of course,
37
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

also the case when students come from varying cultural backgrounds, as often
happens in classes for English as a Second Language. Participants will, naturally
enough, bring all their cultural expectations about teaching and learning to the
classroom and this is likely to be an important factor in classroom interaction. The
intercultural classroom is the classic situation where different cultures of learning
meet.

Theoretical Context
It seems well-established now that the study of target cultures is an integral
part of foreign or second language teaching (Valdes 1986; Byram 1989; Harrison
1990; Kramsch 1993). This is normally culture as content, in which textbooks or
teachers inform learners’ perceptions and attitudes towards the target culture
(Byram & Esarte-Sarries 1991); or culture as background, so that teachers may be
in a better position to meet learners’ needs through understanding the culture
which the latter bring to the classroom (McKay & Wong 1988; Battle 1993); or as
intercultural awareness, in which learners gain awareness and specific skills
relating to communication between cultural groups (Damon 1987; Robinson 1988;
Clyne 1994; Bremer et al. 1996). Studies of culture in classroom discourse, both
in multicultural and foreign or second language classrooms, have also clarified
the key role that cultural uses of language can play in teacher-student interaction
and, consequently, in student learning (Cazden 1988; Johnson 1995). Recently,
too, the burgeoning literature on language learning strategies (e.g. Oxford 1990;
O’Malley & Chamot 1990) has begun to stress the influence of cross-cultural
views of learning styles in foreign and second language classrooms (Reid 1995;
McDonough 1995; Oxford & Anderson 1995).
Such developments are crucial to understanding intercultural classrooms, but
they need to take account of learners’ and teachers’ own perspectives on learning,
not only the interpretations of researchers. Such perspectives influence
expectations about what should happen (whether it happens or not), which, in turn,
is the framework for participants’ interpretations and evaluations of what does
happen and of each other (Cortazzi 1990).

Cultures of Learning
A good example of differing interpretations of learning is the contrast
between Chinese and British cultures of learning. A ‘culture of learning’ might be
defined as socially transmitted expectations, beliefs and values about what good
learning is, what constitutes a good teacher and a good student and what their
38
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

roles and relationships should be; about learning and teaching styles, approaches
and methods; about classroom interaction and activities; about the use of
textbooks; about what constitutes good work (Jin & Cortazzi 1993, 1995;
Cortazzi & Jin 1996a, 1996b).
Between 1992 and 1995 we made video recordings of kindergartens, primary
schools and middle schools in 5 cities in China. We also interviewed teachers and
students to ask them about learning and about the classroom methods we had seen
and recorded.
The Chinese teachers stressed that knowledge is central to learning; through
knowing, skills for learning will be developed. Memory is crucial, for learning in
general and for developing Chinese literacy skills in particular. The teachers
emphasized the role of models, that students should pay close attention to
demonstrations and should imitate, recite and learn models by heart. When the
foundation of this knowledge is established through understanding and
memorization, critical thinking and creativity will come later. The teacher, as a
model, should be a worthy example of morality and of mastery, i.e. is one who
has mastered the subject taught. Practice is also stressed - given large classes, this
is often done as homework or repetition in class. Students are encouraged to
prepare work at home and recite, or otherwise display what they know, in class.
This develops confidence. Confidence is also seen in a collective approach to
classroom life: there is much group support for those who find learning difficult;
social and moral learning are closely linked to academic learning. In class, much
of the teaching is seen as performance, a carefully prepared event with close
attention paid to pace, variety, presentation and virtuosity. Students also perform
individually in front of the class, after preparation, usually with skill and
confidence.
The video recordings were shown to groups of British teachers who then
gave their reactions and interpretations. Their responses showed a marked
contrast to the Chinese teachers’ comments, though both groups were discussing
the same events.
The British teachers stressed skills. Skills, they said, should be developed
first; this would lead to knowledge later. When they saw the Chinese students
reciting from memory this was largely dismissed as ‘rote-learning’ and
‘uncreative’. Similarly, they thought there were too many models: such imitation
did not allow learners to develop their own ideas and independence. Many
objected to what they labelled a ‘transmission’ model; they preferred a more
‘constructivist’ or ‘interpretative’ approach in which there was more interaction,
39
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

discussion and more emphasis on learners building up their own understanding

through activity and personal experience. For this reason, they emphasized group
activities or tasks. While they stressed groupwork, fundamentally they believed
teachers should meet individual students’ needs, and that learning was a matter of
developing each unique individual’s talents. Rather than performance, the British
teachers stressed that teaching was largely a matter of organization, of setting up a
positive learning environment and providing appropriate resources for activities
and tasks for pairwork or group learning.
Our purpose is not, of course, to judge which of these sets of cultural
expectations is ‘better’: no doubt there are both positive and negative features to
each, and each culture of learning presumably has an appropriate role in its
original context. Rather, the point is to examine possible consequences of
different cultures of learning in intercultural classrooms. Thus when ‘Western
teachers’, as Chinese students label them (e.g. teachers from North America or
Britain), teach English in China there are asymmetrical perceptions about what
happens and differing evaluations. This emerged when 135 Chinese university
students wrote essays on the topic of ‘Western teachers in Chinese classrooms’
(see Cortazzi & Jin 1996b).
An analysis of these essays showed that the Chinese students believed that
they benefited from the opportunity to learn ‘different thinking’ from Western
teachers. However, the students were puzzled when these teachers apparently did
not understand students’ writing (which had few grammatical mistakes): essays
that students believed were good received low grades, while others considered
poor by students were graded highly. Students thought that Chinese teachers of
English were more effective for teaching grammar and vocabulary since they had
good knowledge, used a systematic approach and always corrected errors. In
contrast, Western teachers were seen as simplifying vocabulary and
underestimating students’ knowledge. However, the Western teachers were more
friendly and encouraging and helped students to practise oral English.

Research Methods
Several steps were taken to investigate more fully these cultural concepts of
learning. First, 135 Chinese students at Nankai (Tianjin) and Renmin (Beijing)
universities were asked to write essays in English on ‘What makes a good
teacher?’, ‘What makes a good student?’ and ‘Why students do not ask questions’.
These essays were analysed for the frequency of mention of common ideas. The
analysis was supported by comments from interviews with a further 30 Chinese
40
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

postgraduate students and teachers. Secondly, 60 experienced Chinese teachers of

English and 88 experienced British teachers wrote answers to the open question
‘Why do teachers ask questions?’ Thirdly, the analysis of Chinese students’
essays formed the basis for a questionnaire about good teachers and students and
why students do not ask questions. This questionnaire consisted mainly of the
most common items from the original Chinese students’ essays, interview
comments from Chinese students and teachers, supplemented by a couple of
points made by British students and teachers. The questionnaire is thus basically
Chinese in origin. This questionnaire was given to a further 104 Chinese students
and 21 teachers at Nankai, Renmin and Hubei (Wuhan) universities; to 160
British students at Leicester and De Montfort universities and to 45 British
teachers; and to 93 Japanese students at Toyama University. Respondents rated
items on a Likert scale, and completed open statements such as ‘To me, a good
teacher is ............’. The latter kind of item was used to explore metaphors.
The Likert scale asked respondents to rate their agreement with the
statements on a five point scale (Hatch & Lazaraton 1991 p.57; Scholfield 1995
p.144), e.g. ‘How far do you agree with the following statement? A good
teacher explains clearly : strongly disagree/ disagree/ I am not sure/ agree/
strongly agree’. The five point scale allows the researcher to calculate
respondents’ strength of agreement with the original essay statements to be
computed by calculating mean scores (strong agreement is 5; agreement is 4 , and
so on ; 1 is strong disagreement). Hence, the higher the mean for a statement, the
stronger the collective agreement of a group with that statement. Significant
differences between the Chinese, Japanese and British means were then calculated
using a Mann-Whitney test and these differences are reported below using the
following levels: p< 0.05 as significant, p< 0.01 as highly significant, and p<
0.001 as very highly significant.
The questionnaires were in English. This is potentially a difficulty for the
Chinese and Japanese groups. However, the subjects were all university students
or teachers of English who had had at least six years study of English.
Translations were available if required.
The results are summarized below, first looking at expectations of good
teachers, then at expectations of good students, and then at the use of questions.
Finally, conclusions are drawn about cultures of learning and intercultural
classrooms.

A Good Teacher
41
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

The analysis of the Chinese students’ essays revealed that having deep
knowledge, or a synonymous phrase, was mentioned by 67% of the students and
this might be considered a dominant expectation. Other characteristics and
aspects of classroom behaviour were mentioned with frequencies shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Chinese Students’ Expectations of a Good Teacher

A GOOD % OF RESPONDENTS
TEACHER
has deep knowledge 67.0%
is patient 25.0%
is humorous 23.7%
is a good moral example 21.5%
shows friendliness 21.5%
teaches students about life 17.5%
arouses students’ interest 17.0%
is warm-hearted and 16.2%
understanding
uses effective teaching methods 16.2%
is caring and helpful 14.8%
explains clearly 6.7%

The open items in the questionnaires yielded metaphors for a teacher from the
Chinese which were dominated by friendship and parenthood. A good teacher
was ‘a good friend’, a ‘kind friend’, ‘a respected friend’, or ‘a strict father and a
kind mother’, ‘both a father and a friend’ (58 respondents gave similar phrases).
Other common metaphors were a guide, a model, and phrases stressing patience,
humour, responsibility, and especially knowledge.
The Japanese students gave fewer metaphor responses overall, but 14
mentioned a friend, 10 mentioned a source of knowledge and a further 10 an
arouser of interest. Other common characteristics included humour, clarity of
explanations, kindness, but only two mentioned a parent.
The British gave an extraordinary range of metaphors and numerous
descriptive phrases, dominated by enthusiasm, interest, organization, discipline,

42
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

and nurturing. Examples are that a teacher is ‘a source of enthusiasm’, ‘the

sunshine giving light’, one who ‘fuels students’ interests’, ‘sparks interests’, is
‘an efficient manager’, ‘a good organizer’, ‘a carer’, ‘a juggler’, ‘a sergeant
major’, even ‘a coconut - tough on the outside, nice on the inside, nutritious and
tasty’. 14 mentioned a parent, 6 mentioned a friend. While 17 stressed that a
teacher is a source of knowledge, 6 others specifically stated that teachers were
not expected to know all the answers and that teachers were learners themselves.
While the teacher as parent metaphor appears in all three groups, it is likely
to have different cultural values in each group. An obvious contrast is between
Chinese and British ideas about parents. For many Chinese, there are strong
resonances of filial piety in the application of the metaphor, with ethical
dimensions of striving for moral excellence and the humanity of the Confucian
quality of ren, and its understanding and warm-heartedness (Tu 1990 p.117-8).
For the British, the metaphor may signal a caring attitude but it is unlikely to
carry with it the echoes of two millenia of such core Confucian attitudes.
As can be seen in Fig. 2 on the next page, or from examples in the bar
chart in Fig. 3, Chinese and Japanese subjects both valued deep knowledge in
teachers as very highly significant more than the British. The Japanese placed as
very highly significant more emphasis on teachers being able to answer students’
questions than the Chinese. The latter similarly emphasized this more than the
British. Together with this stress on knowledge, both the Chinese and especially
the Japanese valued warm-heartedness and understanding in teachers as highly
significant more than the British. These responses from the Chinese and Japanese
accord well with Confucian values. In contrast to the emphasis on knowledge, the
British gave as very highly significant more emphasis to various personal
qualities and skills with which teachers relate to learners. Thus the British valued
teachers being patient, sympathetic, caring and helpful, and the ability to arouse
students’ interests far more than either the Chinese and the Japanese.
The Chinese put as very highly significant more emphasis on the teacher
as a moral example and as one who teaches students about life compared to the
British and, interestingly, also compared to the Japanese.
Surprisingly, the British (4.196) emphasized the teacher as one who controls
students’ discipline as very highly significant more than the Chinese and the
Japanese. Perhaps discipline is more obviously a problem in the British social
context. The Japanese very low mean score (2.902) remains intriguing. This much
lower score than that of the Chinese (3.258) is highly significant. Some Japanese
students commented that after the ‘examination hell’ and the enormous pressure
43
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

and competition to enter university in Japan students felt that they could relax
more at university.
Fig. 2. A Good Teacher In Students’ Minds

A GOOD TEACHER means means means

CHINA BRITAI JAPAN
N
has deep knowledge 4.535 3.548 4.484
is patient 4.307 4.571 3.696
is humorous 4.180 4.141 4.296
is lively 4.141 4.234 4.272
is a good moral example 4.141 3.803 3.806
is friendly 4.372 4.177 4.333
teaches students about life 4.109 3.803 3.457
arouses students’ interest 4.398 4.766 4.391
is caring and helpful 4.141 4.392 3.978
controls students’ discipline 3.258 4.196 2.902
explains clearly 4.271 4.730 4.516
is a responsible person 4.398 4.304 4.129
is sympathetic to students 3.729 4.279 3.565
has an answer to 3.984 3.327 4.333
students’ questions
organizes a variety of 3.884 4.200 3.946
classroom activities
uses effective teaching 4.457 4.654 4.204
methods
helps students to study 4.341 4.407 3.925
independently
is warm-hearted and 4.341 4.088 4.441
understanding

Fig. 3. Examples of contrasting expectations of a

good teacher by means.

44
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

[Image not available online. Contact ICS editor for image use]

The British also emphasized organizing a variety of activities as very highly

significant more than the Chinese and as highly significant more than the
Japanese. This might be explained by an East Asian emphasis on knowledge
which may leave a less perceived need for organizational skills. This is supported
by the British highly significant emphasis on effective teaching methods
compared to the Chinese and a very highly significant lower mean for the
Japanese. The British also valued clear explanations as very highly significant
more than the Japanese. This would accord with Hinds’ proposal (1990) that
Japanese and Chinese cultures emphasize ‘listener/reader responsibility’, while
English speakers emphasize ‘speaker/writer responsibility’. It is also interesting
that the British, on some key items, actually give significantly more emphasis
than the Chinese respondents, since the questionnaire is, in a sense, Chinese in
origin. Generally, the Chinese and Japanese students’ cultures of learning seem
more knowledge-centred, while the British culture of learning centres more on
skills, methods and organization.

A Good Student
The analysis of the Chinese students’ essays revealed that 43% of them
mentioned being hard working as an outstanding characteristic of being a good
student. Other frequently mentioned aspects are given in Fig. 4. In their
questionnaire responses (see Fig. 5 and the examples if Fig. 6) the Chinese,
45
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

Japanese and British all gave high means to students being hard working,
although the Chinese mean was significantly higher than that of the Japanese.
In conformity with Confucian values, the Chinese gave as very highly
significant more emphasis to showing respect to the teacher, compared to the
British but the reverse was true of obedience. However, the British, surprisingly,
gave correspondingly more emphasis to both of these aspects than the Japanese,
and they gave very highly significant emphasis to paying attention to the teacher
compared to both the Chinese and the Japanese, from which it appears that care
needs to be exercised before firm conclusions about Confucian values are drawn.
On the other hand, and also very highly significant, both the Chinese and British
put more emphasis on developing independent thinking than the Japanese,
although the Chinese had correspondingly more significant emphasis on this than
the British. Similarly, both the Chinese and the British emphasized as very highly
significant both developing critical thinking and studying independently compared
to the Japanese. Again, both of the former put a similar degree of emphasis on
applying knowledge learned in class compared to the Japanese.
Many Western teachers in China and Japan have been heard to comment
that East Asian students are ‘passive’ and that as teachers they find it difficult to
stimulate ‘active participation’. This is at variance with the Chinese, Japanese and
British perceptions elicited here (see Fig. 5). The results show that both the
Chinese and Japanese give as very highly significant more emphasis to answering
teachers’ questions and to asking questions after class, as well as significantly
more emphasis on asking questions in class and volunteering comments in class
than the British (The difference between the Japanese and the British in the latter
two items is very highly significant). This would suggest that Western teachers in
intercultural classrooms might improve classroom interaction (or their perception
of it) by more effective use of questions.

Fig. 4. Chinese Students’ Expectations of a Good Student

A GOOD STUDENT % OF RESPONDENTS

is hard working 43.0%
is sociable, learns from/with 18.5%
others
pays attention to the teacher 15.5%
respects and obeys the teacher 15.5%

46
Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

is active in class 14.8%

co-operates with the teacher 11.8%
studies independently 11.1%
applies knowledge 7.4%
is well-motivated to study 6.6%
develops a good character 6.6%
asks questions 6.6%

Fig. 5. A Good Student In Your Opinion

A GOOD STUDENT means means means

CHINA BRITAI JAPAN
N
is hard working 4.094 4.035 3.878
is sociable 3.850 3.765 3.857
learns from/with others 4.126 4.287 3.934
pays attention to the teacher 3.750 4.179 3.736
respects the teacher 4.220 3.910 3.330
obeys the teacher 2.836 3.388 2.780
volunteers comments in class 3.738 3.498 3.890
co-operates with the teacher 4.008 4.000 3.596
studies independently 4.359 4.149 3.725
is well-motivated to study 4.291 4.294 4.167
develops a good character 4.307 3.660 4.132
answers teacher’s questions 3.797 3.211 3.857
asks questions in class 3.622 3.383 4.000
asks questions after class 3.703 3.149 3.582
helps fellow students 3.976 3.871 4.033
develops critical thinking 4.244 4.279 3.484
applies knowledge learned in class 4.323 4.365 3.989
prepares for the class in advance 4.102 3.355 3.934
develops independent thinking 4.630 4.450 3.978

Fig. 6. Examples of contrasting expectations of

47
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

a good student by means.

[Image not available online. Contact ICS editor for image use.]

The high rating of asking questions after class accords with the oft-heard
comment by Western teachers that they wish East Asian students would put their
questions during the class, rather than waiting until after the class before they ask,
so that all students might hear or discuss the answers. As discussed below, there
are almost certainly further cultural aspects of learning which prevent this. Other
Western teachers’ comments regarding difficulty with developing pairwork in
Japan is supported here by the very highly significant emphasis of the British on
students learning from/ with other students compared with the Japanese, although
there is no significant difference with the Chinese. However, the Chinese show a
significantly higher response on this item than the Japanese. The British may find
pair or groupwork easier when it is spontaneous, compared with East Asians.
However, Japanese students can learn from each other effectively within group
activities, providing there is a sempai-kohai relation between students in a group
(i.e. a senior-junior hierarchical relation), so that older students are responsible to
teach more junior ones. This is effective practice in extra-curricular activities,
including English clubs (Erich Berendt, personal communication). This is also
48
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

true in China, if the superior relation in the hierarchy is based on experience and
knowledge, rather than, say, having higher grades. Generally, Western teachers
might develop more interactive practices (in their terms) by allowing Chinese and
Japanese students time to prepare, since both the latter give very highly
significantly more emphasis on preparing for the class in advance than the British.

Why Students do not Ask Questions

Asking questions is part of some Chinese students’ conceptualization of
learning and of what it means to be a good student (see Fig. 4). It can be argued
that this is a strong part of the Confucian tradition but one which may
overridden by other Confucian maxims which stress respect for the teacher and
being obedient 1. Thus, while British students may ask as a way of learning (and
this heuristic questioning is expected by British teachers), Chinese students may
ask after learning (and this reflective questioning is expected by Chinese
teachers). For the Chinese students one has to learn something and know
something about a topic before one can ask, otherwise a question will look foolish.
What Westerners are prone to call ‘rote learning’ may be seen by Chinese as part
of a longer educational progression in which memory comes first, to be followed
later by understanding and questioning 2 , either questioning to oneself or to
teachers and fellow learners. In Chinese terms, a learner needs to know before
asking. In British terms, students come to know by asking.
As seen in Fig. 7, the Chinese students give shyness as the major reason for
not asking questions in class. If the question is thought to be foolish, others may
laugh or they are afraid of making language mistakes when speaking out.
Comments in interviews revealed a cultural reasoning

Fig. 7. Why Chinese Students do not Ask Questions in Class

REASONS FOR NO QUESTIONS % OF

RESPONDENTS
students are too shy 40.7%
other students may laugh 23.7%
prevented by Chinese tradition/habits 19.3%
they do not want to interrupt 17.0%
they ask after the lesson 17.0%
they are afraid of making mistakes 14.1%

49
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

they do not know enough to ask 12.6%

they are too lazy/bored 9.6%
nobody else asks 8.9%
the teacher does not encourage it 8.2%
students can solve the problem 8.2%
themselves later
they have no questions 7.4%

behind the lack of questions which is unlikely to be found among British students.
Chinese students say they do not want to lose face by asking questions because
this may disturb the class and it shows a lack of respect for the teacher. They do
not want to cause problems for the teacher, who may not be able to answer and
would therefore lose face by not knowing. This is understandable, given the
knowledge-centred aspect of being a good teacher for the Chinese groups. Not to
know, when one is supposed to know as a teacher, is shameful. However, for
British teachers, with whom these results have been shared, this is difficult to
accept. British teachers cannot see that it is a problem for a teacher to say, ‘I don’t
know’. This is also understandable, in view of the skills-centred and method focus
of being a good teacher for the British. In fact, many British teachers say, ‘I don’t
know’ but immediately add ‘but I’ll find out’ or ‘let’s find out together’, thus
turning ignorance (‘nobody knows everything’) into the teaching of skills (‘I’ll
show you how to use the reference book and how to find the answer’). The
Chinese student who causes the teacher to lose face by revealing lack of
knowledge also loses face by showing a lack of respect and by publicly shaming
the teacher. Students should prepare mentally before asking in order to avoid
foolish or superficial questions. It takes more thinking time to prepare good
questions and so the asking may be postponed till later. Further, many Chinese
students believe that a good teacher should predict students’ questions, so they do
not ask before the teacher has finished explaining. If the teacher does not, in fact,
answer the as-yet-unasked question then the question cannot be important, since a
good teacher would have predicted good questions (a poor teacher would not be
able to answer and so it is not worth asking a teacher who is evaluated as poor).
The result may well be that the students wait until after the class before they ask,
or they try to find the answer for themselves through self-study.
Two common results of all this in intercultural classrooms are: first,
Chinese students wait until the class is finished before they ask questions, which

50
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

puzzles British teachers; second, that Chinese students are puzzled by what they
call ‘simple’ questions asked by British students and they are very surprised at
how British students ‘interrupt’ and ‘challenge’ the teacher with questions,
showing a lack of respect.
Further consequences for intercultural contexts are exemplified in two
incidents observed in Britain. In the first, a Chinese candidate was in a group
interview for a teaching position for which he was well qualified. He was sitting
with other Chinese candidates. The whole group was asked, by the British
interviewers, ‘Do you have any questions?’ to which he replied ‘I’m ready to
answer any questions but the most fearful thing is to ask questions’. While the
reply may be true for the speaker, the British interviewers probably expected
questions and would think that candidates’ questions are an important indicator of
their thinking and interest in the job. The second situation reveals British
teachers’ perceptions that students’ questions not only have a heuristic function
for the learner but also a diagnostic function for the teacher. The teacher was
reporting a Chinese student’s progress to her parents at a parents’ evening in a
secondary school. He said, ‘She is quiet, she listens, she does all the homework
well, her marks are good, but I don’t really know her level. Because she doesn’t
ask any questions, I’m not really sure what she is thinking or what her level of
understanding is.’
Teachers’ reasons for asking questions varies across cultures. In this research,
a major reason given was to check understanding and review learning (84.1% of
the British teachers and 95% of the Chinese teachers said this). However, while
50% of the British teachers used questions to develop thinking, creativity and
imagination, only 16.7% of the Chinese teachers mentioned this. Again, 12.5% of
the British teachers explicitly asked questions to encourage active participation,
but only 1.7% of the Chinese teachers did so. Such differences have serious
implications for teaching across cultures or in multicultural classes.
The foregoing discussion is based on interview comments and observations
which seem valid. The results of the questionnaire (see Fig. 8) certainly
confirmed that there were major differences in the perceptions of the Chinese,
British and Japanese concerning why students do not ask questions. However,
these differences were not at all in the expected direction: in all cases (except one)
where there were significant differences, the mean scores of the British, or of the
Japanese, or of both of these groups, exceeded the means of the Chinese (although
the original items were mostly derived from frequent mentions in Chinese

51
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

students’ essays). Not only is the direction of these differences a surprise, the
large number of very highly significant differences indicates cultural distances
concerning the roles of questions in classrooms. The extent of this distance can
also be gauged from a Discriminant Analysis of the Chinese and British responses:
88.8% of the Chinese predicted group membership was Chinese; 95.7% of the
British predicted group membership was British, and 92.8% of ‘grouped’ cases
were correctly classified, i.e. this percentage reflects a very high difference
between the two groups’ responses. As seen in Fig. 6, both the British and
Japanese means for students not asking questions are greater to a very highly
significant degree than the Chinese means concerning

Fig. 8 Reasons why Students do not Ask Questions

REASONS WHY STUDENTS means means means

DON’T ASK QUESTIONS CHINA BRITAIN JAPAN
they are too shy 3.124 4.250 4.253
they are afraid others may laugh 3.194 4.188 3.582
prevented by culture / tradition 3.031 3.289 3.333
they do not want to interrupt 2.969 3.158 2.977
they ask after the lesson 3.411 3.286 3.176
they’re afraid of making mistakes 3.333 4.134 4.297
very highly significant degree than 3.395 3.272 3.758
the Chinese means concerning
shyness, being afraid of making
they do not know enough to ask
they are too lazy / bored 2.449 2.906 2.692
nobody else asks 2.953 3.465 3.703
teachers don’t encourage questions 2.651 3.079 2.549
students find answers themselves 3.574 3.196 2.978
they have no questions 2.225 2.935 2.516

shyness, being afraid of making mistakes and not asking because nobody else asks.
The British are more aware to a very highly significant degree that other students
may laugh than both the Chinese and the Japanese, although the Japanese are
significantly more aware of this than the Chinese. Further, the British mean score
for having no questions is greater to a very highly significant degree than that of
52
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

the Chinese and showed a highly significant difference from the Japanese, whose
mean is in turn also significantly higher than that of the Chinese. The British are
too lazy to ask questions to a very highly significant degree compared to the
Chinese. The Japanese mean score for not knowing enough to ask is also greater
to a very highly significant degree than the British mean and highly significantly
greater than that of the Chinese. As another surprise, it appears that the Chinese
and Japanese teachers encourage questions more than British teachers, since the
British mean for teachers don’t encourage questions is greater to a very highly
significant degree than the other two. The exception to the general trend of
Chinese means being lower than either or both British and Japanese means is that
the Chinese students find answers themselves more to a very highly significant
degree than the British or Japanese ( the mean differences for asking after the
lesson are not significant).

Questions Raised and Conclusions

These questionnaire results do not necessarily contradict the interview
comments, video and essay data; above all they confirm the general proposition
that there are different underlying cultural concepts of learning. Perhaps a variety
of research methods is needed to explore this. The apparent contradiction -
certainly the surprising results - between Chinese students’ comments about
Chinese reasons for not asking questions and the British and Japanese
emphasizing the ‘Chinese’ responses very significantly more than the Chinese
themselves remains unresolved. However, British undergraduate students are seen
to have problems of asking questions in seminars, as noted by themselves and
their tutors. There may be a different set of cultural, psychological and cognitive
reasons for the phenomenon. The questionnaire items did not ask for reasons for
responses. The interviews and video discussion, however, did explore reasons in
some depth. Also the fact that one of the authors is Chinese and the other British
may have helped us to interpret data from these two groups, though not the
Japanese data.
This research actually raises more questions: about the balance between
methods and their validity, and possibly about whether there are, in fact, different
cultural styles of responding in interviews and to questionnaires. Since the
questionnaires were in English and the interviews with Chinese students were in
Chinese, the language medium of the research is open to question (Japanese
subjects were not interviewed). Perhaps responses in subjects’ first languages are

53
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

more valid than those in their second languages, even after allowance is made for
their relatively good knowledge of the second language (English). Also, there
may be culture-specific modes of response to certain types of questions. In the
case of the open-ended metaphor questions (‘To me, a good teacher is...’), the
British students seemed to take this as a challenge to be creative, giving an
extremely wide range of responses, many of which were highly original across the
three cultural groups. In contrast, the Chinese and Japanese groups seemed to give
more obviously common metaphors from a common stock; their range of replies
is more limited and they gave very few responses that were original 3. Although
the subjects’ responses to the open questions and Likert scale items have been
interpreted here as reflecting cultures of learning, it is also possible that there are
differing cultural perceptions from subjects about how to respond to such research
tasks. Both researchers and respondents may have cultural ideas about research
behaviour and norms, and what a particular research project or research task is
about. Such ideas can differ within a single cultural group. It is quite possible that
they would differ in intercultural research settings. Configurations of such
differences within and across cultures might be termed cultures of research.
The cultural concept of questioning may have led to variations in responses,
e.g. the British concept of questioning, as revealed in discussions, seems
exclusively verbal, whereas the Chinese concept, as it emerged in interviews,
seems to include internal reflection as well as verbalization. This cognitive
dimension is missed by Western teachers who report that Chinese students do not
ask questions in class; the students say they ‘have many questions in their heads’,
they ‘think a lot in order to answer these questions’ and are ‘active in their
minds’. The British teachers may over emphasize verbal replies and overlook
cognitive responses.
The cultural expectations of teachers and students, of their roles,
relationships, and ways of interacting, can clearly affect learning in intercultural
classrooms. If British teachers believe students should express themselves when
they have a problem and that students should request help, while Chinese students
believe teachers (as parents and friends) should be sensitive to learners’ problems
and offer help but that to ask for it is to impose a burden, then there is a cultural
gap. In such a case, the need for help is unexpressed by the Chinese and
unnoticed by the British; and the students do not get support.
Learning is part of culture, but there are cultures of learning. Culture is both
medium and content, so too is learning: students have to learn how to learn and
learn about learning while learning. Cultures of learning define the ways in which
54
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

learning takes place, they define how teachers and students deal with the
curriculum and with each other, they define how classroom participants learn
intercultural communication.
A key element in a culture of learning is that it provides the framework of
expectations, interpretations and evaluations of learning. Hence, for an effective
intercultural classroom both teachers and students, of all cultural groups
represented, need to learn about each others’ cultures of learning, otherwise they
may not fulfil expectations. They need to know, on both teachers’ and students’
sides, how to interpret the other’s culture, and the others’ culture of learning.
They need to interpret others’ interpretations. A first step is to question their own
interpretations. We would call such a process of mutual learning about other
cultures of learning Cultural Synergy: in this process all representatives of all
cultures in the classroom have something to contribute of equal value, and all
participants will learn about how others learn.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express thanks to those who helped distribute the
questionnaires, especially to Karen Fedderholdt at Toyama University, Japan and
Tina Jarvis and colleagues at Leicester University, UK.

Notes

Hu 1967 p.108, p.117; Chen 1990 p.387-8

1
Hartzell 1988 p.464
2
Tu et al. 1992 p.53
3
Tannen 1980 reports an experiment in cross-cultural discourse in which
Greeks and Americans were shown a film, after which they were asked to
narrate what they had seen. Tannen found that the Greek subjects focused on
personal involvement, showing concern with characters’ motives and offering
judgements. The Americans, in contrast, focused on context, giving detailed
objective reports. Tannen interprets these results as demonstrating cultural styles
of narration. Additionally, however, there is the likelihood that subjects saw the
55
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

task differently; the Greeks may have thought of the task in terms of personal
response, while the American may have believed it was a memory task. As in
the research reported here, it is possible that several layers of cultural responses
are involved simultaneously.

References
Battle, D.E. (ed.) 1993. Communication Disorders in Multicultural Populations
Boston: Andover Medical Publications
Bremer, K.; Roberts, C.; Vasseur, M.T.; Simonot, M. & Broeder, P. 1996.
Achieving Understanding; discourse in intercultural encounters
London: Longman
Byram, M. 1989. Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Byram, M. & Esarte-Sarries, V. 1991. Investigating Cultural Studies in Foreign
Language Teaching Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Cazden, C.B. 1988. Classroom Discourse: the language of teaching and learning
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Chen, J. 1990. Confucius as a Teacher, Beijing: Foreign Language Press
Cortazzi, M. 1990. Cultural and Educational Expectations in the Language
Classroom. In B.Harrison
(ed.) Culture and the Language Classroom London: Modern English
Publications/ the British Council pp.5 4-65
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. 1996a. English Teaching and Learning in China, Language
Teaching, vol 29, no2, pp.61-80
Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. 1996b. Cultures of Learning: language classroom in China.
In H. Coleman (ed.) Society and the Language Classroom, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press pp.169-206
Clyne, M. 1994. Intercultural Communication at Work Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Damon, L. 1987. Culture Learning: the fifth dimension in the language classroom
Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley
Harrison, B. (ed.) 1990. Culture and the Language Classroom London: Modern
English Publications/ the British Council
Hartzell, R. W. 1988. Harmony in Conflict, active adaptation to life in present-
day Chinese society Taipei: Caves Books
56
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. 1991. The Research Manual, design and statistics for
applied linguistics New York: Newbury House
Hinds, J. 1990. Inductive, Deductive, Quasi-inductive: expository writing in
Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. In U. Connor & AM Johns (eds.)
Coherence in Writing: research and pedagogical perspectives,
Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp.87-110
Hu, S. 1967. The Scientific Spirit and Method in Chinese Philosophy. In C.A.
Moore (ed.) The Chinese Mind, essentials of Chinese Philosophy and
Culture, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press
Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. 1993. Cultural Orientation and Academic Language Use.
In D. Graddol, L. Thompson & M. Byram (eds.) Language and Culture,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp.84-97
Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. 1995. A Cultural Synergy Model for Academic Language
Use. In P. Bruthiaux; T. Boswood & B. Du-Babcock (eds.) Exploration in
English for Professional Communication, Hong Kong: City University of
Hong Kong, pp.41-56
Johnson, K. 1995. Understanding Communication in Second Language
Classrooms Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford
University Press
McDonough, S.H. 1995. Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language
London: Arnold
McKay, S.L. & Wong, S.C. (eds.) 1988. Language Diversity, problem or
resource? Cambridge: Newbury House
O’Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Oxford, R.L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies, what every teacher should
know New York: Newbury House
Oxford, R.L. & Anderson, N.J. 1995. A Cross-cultural view of learning styles
Language Teaching 28, 201-215
Reid, J.M. (ed.) 1995. Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom New York:
Heinle & Heinle
Robinson, G.L.N. 1988. Cross-Cultural Understanding New York: Prentice Hall
Schofield, P. 1995. Quantifying Language, a researcher’s and teacher’s guide to
gathering language data and reducing it to figures Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
57
 Intercultural Communication Studies VII-2 1997-8 Jin & Cortazzi-Expectations

Tannen, D. 1980. A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies: Athenian

Greek and American English. In W. L. Chafe (ed.) The Pear Stories:
cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of oral narrative production
Norwood, NJ: Ablex pp.51-87
Tu, W. 1990. The Confucian tradition in Chinese history. In P. S. Ropp (ed.)
Heritage of China: contemporary perspectives on Chinese civilization
Berkeley: University of California Press pp.112-137
Tu, W.; Hejtmanek, M. & Wachman, A. 1992. The Confucian World Observed,
Honolulu: Institute of Culture & Communication, The East-West Centre
Valdes, J.M. (ed.) 1986. Culture Bound, bridging the cultural gap in language
teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres

58