Introduction

This paper will consider the problem of non interactive Asian students (Korean) in the higher education Australian classroom where the course requirements demand verbal, active participation, and a comprehensive understanding and application of terms and concepts common to the social sciences. It will consider the necessary processes of action research in developing and implementing a solution to the problem, the apparent sociocultural issues at work, my teaching perspectives (Pratt and Collins, Year unknown: a) within the context of the solution sought, and the research that considers the Asian student in the Western higher education context.

It will emphasise, through the literature cited, that the Asian student finds it 'normal to engage in modes of learning which are teacher-centered. They look to receive knowledge rather than interpret it' (Zhenhui, 2001: 2) and the teacher, as the transmitter of knowledge, is viewed with great respect.

Throughout the planning and implementation stages of this action research project, I was conscious of a Chinese girl's response to her Western teacher when he asked her why she did not participate in class and why she was apparently unhappy. Her response was, 'I am an introverted, analytic, and reflective student. I don't know how to cope with your extroverted, global, and impulsive teaching style' (Zhenhui, 2001: 1).

What is Action Research?

Action research is a practical research method used to better understand pragmatic and persistent classroom or institutional problems. These problems are 'real-life' requiring 'real-life' solutions. According to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (Painter and Rigsby, 2003: 1), action research is,

'…inquiry or research into the context of focused efforts to improve the quality of an organization and its performance. It typically is designed and conducted by practitioners who analyze the data to improve their own practice. Action research can be done by individuals or by teams of colleagues.'

'Kemmis developed a simple model demonstrating the cyclical nature of the action research process. Each cycle has four steps: plan, act, observe, and reflect' (O'Brien, 1998:3). During the action research process the researcher maintains a vigilant eye on the actual problem and approaches it from a practical point of view but ensures that the planned intervention is 'informed by theoretical considerations [and a review of the literature]' (O'Brien, 1998:3). The action research process for this paper will be structured as follows:

1.	Problem Identification
2.	Investigation: What the Research Revealed: Asian Learners in the Western (ESL) Higher Education Context
3.	Intervention Strategies: What scaffolding can be implemented to support the Korean Students?
4.	Outcomes: Was the Intervention Successful?
5.	Reflecting: Is there a need to advance the action research process further?

The action research will also consider the teaching perspectives dominance that I generally practice. Refer Pratt, D. D. and Collins, J. (Year unknown: a) Teaching Perspectives Inventory for an explanation of teaching perspectives dominance.

Each component of the process above roughly equates to Kemmis' four step cycle as follows:

Components 1 and 2 = Plan Component 3 = Act Component 4 = Outcomes Component 5 = Reflect

The degree to which Kemmis cycle of action research will occur for this project is determined by results in Components 4 and 5.
The tools used in the implementation of this action research project were confined to field notes, interviews and discussion.

Problem Identification

The action research around which this paper revolves, involves a tutorial class with a cohort of 27 students where two are of Korean heritage and are English as a Second Language (ESL) learners. The degree course is a bachelor's in education leading to teaching qualifications for the primary school sector. These students are undertaking a social science curriculum subject requiring constant engagement with the materials, extensive group work, comprehensive knowledge and understanding of social science and curriculum terminology, and constant interaction with peers and the tutor in order that the major assessment component (a teaching module of 15 hours) can be successfully negotiated and developed.

The two Korean students consistently participate to a minimal extent in tutorials, despite the allocation of marks to participation in this course and did not commit to the class presentation based on readings which constituted the first assessment piece. . They are generally non responsive. They prefer to take copious notes (the assumption I have made here is that the notes can be read later and attempts made to understand the content at that time) resulting in an inability to verbally participate even if the questions and activities should have been understood, they do not respond to my questions voluntarily, and do not take part in group activities to the degree required.

The facilitation of successful interaction with English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, which in turn supports learning in this higher education context, is problematic when these students characteristically present with;

*	A diversity of world experiences
*	A variety of learning/educative experiences in their first and second languages
*	A range of acquired knowledge bases with differing capacities and opportunities to apply that knowledge; and
*	A well entrenched learning style/s with its foundations in culture

The course content and expectations were unable to change, or be modified to any great extent, in order to fully accommodate these two students, such is the higher education setting. Unfortunately, 'institutional arrangements …enslave learners with what [they have] to cover and impose what it thinks they need, ignoring their values, their needs…and their ways of knowing' (Fu, 1995: 208). Importantly, too, 'the student-centered and critical-thinking oriented classroom' characteristic of higher education tutorial sessions (Fu, 1995: 197) was not about to disappear and it is also the prevailing praxis of the Western classrooms into which these two students intended working.

However, there were strategies which could be employed to allow the students to engage with the materials, and the cultural expectations, and these interfaced with my teaching perspectives dominance with only some modification necessary. Given the length of a semester, I had to develop and implement solutions quickly.

To better understand the context in which the Asian students are required to operate, and those behaviours which have been manifested in this context, it was necessary to consider the sociocultural aspects of the student's background, and their articulation with the tutor's teaching perspectives and the course content. This allowed me to gauge the best intervention response to then facilitate better participation by the students,

Investigation:
What the Research Revealed - Asian Learners in the Western (ESL) Higher Education Context

'Expressing and interpreting meanings in a given language involves two types of knowledge. Systemic knowledge refers to the formal properties of language… [the] syntactic and semantic aspects. Schematic knowledge…is socially acquired. It is an important part of the "fit" which exists between people's culture-specific cognition and their native language.' (Alptekin, 1993: 136)

This has repercussions for the Asian student in the ESL, higher education classroom. Not only they are attempting to understand the actual content of the social science course (terminology, knowledge, skills, processes) but to also understand and engage with it through a second language and the expected behavioural context of the Western higher education classroom. These contexts also constitute the student's future work environment (the primary school classroom).

Fu (1995: 197) claims that many researchers find that 'quietness and withdrawal are typical of Asian students. Their silence is attributed to their ethnic culture.' She goes on to say that, generally, Asian cultures do not encourage young people to speak freely in front of authority figures (in this I am seen to be the authority figure) and Asian cultures emphasise the need to listen rather than speak. Immediately, this is problematic in my tutorials where free thought, comprehensive discussion, and an openness to challenge the status quo are seen to be generic capabilities required of undergraduates. This is further complicated when the Asian student is used to a cultural context where the authority figure is immediately (and unequivocally) given the utmost respect, where obedience is stressed, content is taught in a passive way where the expectation is that it will be learned and examined, and the classroom emphasis is on the group and not the individual (Fu 1995, Cutler 1999, and Bempechat et al 1990). 'Speaking out and asking questions in class is not valued as much as working hard to master the material presented' (CTL, 2001: 2). The cultural expectations brought to the classroom by Asian students are not, therefore, the expectations I will necessarily bring to the classroom. Whilst it is difficult for Asian students to engage in the student-centred, sometimes discursive approach to learning that is practised in higher education classroom, Asian students are 'fascinated by the notion of equality between teacher and student, and appreciate the freedom of expression and choice this approach gives them' (Fu, 1995: 199).

To practise something that is incongruent to the student's cultural and lived experiences is not unreasonable nor is it intrinsically 'bad'; devoid of positive results (Fu, 1995: 199). As long as the student understands the expectation and is aware that the teacher is also cognisant of the constraints under which the student would normally operate, there should be few problems.

Scholars such as Bruner (1986), Vygotsky (1978), and Gardner (1985) have all noted that,

'human beings are culturally and historically constructed, but that their personal experience as individuals within the larger culture also shapes their way of doing and seeing things' (in Fu, 1995: 205).

All in all, the emphasis is on attending to the needs of the individual in order that they achieve within the hegemonic, Western culture of which they were now a part. It is from this point that the action research intervention needs to commence. Firstly, I looked for a theory that would contribute to my understanding of how the Korean students were operating cognitively. This was important in the determination of intervention strategies.

Witkin's Theory of Field Dependence and Field Independence (FD/I) (Bean 1990: 10) considers the manner in which people attempt to make sense of their environment. Bean (1990: 11) used Witkin's theory in her consideration of how Korean and Japanese students learnt English in the United States. She found that field independent students are those who 'can give structure to unstructured material and can rely on themselves to select and organise items from the complex world around them.' Conversely, Bean (1990: 11) found that field independent students 'perceive their environment globally or holistically.' When this occurs they have 'difficulty differentiating the important parts of their environment from the unimportant'. In this situation, students will rely on other means, or people, to help them find structure. I would suggest that this accounts for the Korean students taking copious notes in what are, ostensibly, interactive tutorials where it is assumed the materials have been read and assimilated to a degree that makes participation worthwhile and necessary.

Given the cognitive assumptions that have been made through the actual course materials, Witkin's theory goes some way, then, to explaining the difficulty the Korean students have encountered in tutorial participation. What is also apparent is that my dominant teaching perspectives (developmental and apprenticeship - Pratt and Collins, Year Unknown: a) capitalise on discussion, problem solving, authentic tasks, and an expectation that the group will contribute to the tutorials. Whilst this approach parallels the generic objectives of the course it is somewhat troubling for the Koreans.

Ritchie (1988: 52) makes links between the students' culture and FD/I. Her assertions are critical in the problems I have observed. She maintains that FD/I have a cogent relationship to 'cultural factors such as socialisation practices, degree of social "tightness", ecological adaptation, and biological effects.' Ritchie, expands on this assertion and claims that,

'field independence [is a product of] less harsh socialization practices with encouragement of autonomous functioning and fewer ties to the group, while field dependence results from stronger ties to the group, an emphasis on conformity, and strict or harsh socialization practices.' (1988: 52)

Field independence is assumed in the tutorials I teach and in engagement with the materials that form the content of the course.

Intervention Strategies:
What Scaffolding can be Implemented to Support the Korean Students?

The literature reviewed brought with it an understanding of the Koreans' cultural "place" within my classroom and enabled me to have empathy for their situation as ESL learners. My ultimate goal for these students (as with all students) was to have them actively participate with understanding in the tutorials, to ask and answer questions, to work collaboratively with their peers, to enhance comprehension of the material, and to increase achievement in assessment submissions.

In light of the investigation, the strategies to be implemented included the following:

1.	Observation: I invited a colleague, who is an experienced English as a Foreign Language and English as a Second Language teacher, working with Korean students in Seoul and in Australia, to observe the Asian students at work in a tutorial and to take notes on their;
2.	participation their interaction with each other as opposed to the group their acknowledgement of me as the teacher and; the frequency with which they took notes during the tutorial.

I also asked my colleague, to consider these observations with respect to the non Asian students as well. I made it clear to the tutorial group, in the week preceding the tutorial, that a colleague would be assisting me in my research which involved the consideration of my teaching perspectives dominance and observing the degree to which the students engaged with the course materials. I indicated that the observations may assist me in modifying my teaching methods, over time, to better meet the needs of the students. I noted that this colleague would be observing all students at work during the tutorial and would take notes but would not participate in the actual instructional or participatory process. No student was opposed to the observation.

 

2.	Consideration of the Observer's Notes: When my colleague collated her observation notes several useful things were noted.

• The questioning and prompting by me was virtually ignored by the Korean students who were blatantly using body language such as turning to one side, head down taking notes, and so on to avoid having to answer any questions or being singled out. When I did ask them questions, directly, they appeared quite distressed and the rest of the group was uncomfortable.
• The Korean students spent a lot of time taking notes and even noted the anecdotal points when students were in group work situations. This not taking was undertaken with a great sense of urgency.
• When I attempted explanations in diagrammatic forms, all students appeared actively engaged and keen to use the graphic organisers to aid in comprehension of the subject matter.
• During the times when terminology and concepts were being explored or used the Korean students took notes and discussed points between each other, in Korean.
• A section of the tutorial was devoted to discussion and experimentation with teaching strategies and content for a teaching module to be developed by students as a major assessment item. The Korean students were unwilling/unable to participate in the discussions with their peers where methods and content were being considered. This 'sharing' of ideas and knowledge was integral to the initial planning for the module's development and preparation for the session had involved knowledge of terms and concepts. This aspect of the course was also causing some difficulty for the non Asian students.

After collaboration with my colleague, and further consideration of the literature, it was decided to implement a number of strategies. Firstly, I decided to have a discussion with the Korean students at which time I would note my observations of their non participation and ask them what they saw as issues with my teaching, how we could overcome this together, and how the content could be better explained if language was a concern. During this discussion the students conceded that;

• They were having considerable difficulty in understanding the readings, especially the terminology which was mainly due, they felt, to their lack of English and the unfamiliar cultural content (e.g. the development of modules requires a good knowledge of Australian history and conceptual understandings of such things as 'environmental sustainability').
• The requirement to participate with peers, and the teacher, in tutorials was stressful when they were used to only having to listen, learn, and recall data for exams.
• Any attempt by me to explain terms and concepts diagrammatically was considered a 'bonus' in tutorials because they were better able to understand the content when visual aids were employed.

The Asian student requires time to 'arrive at a correct answer and is uncomfortable when making a guess' (Nelson in Zhenhui, 2001: 3) but more importantly, Koreans are visual learners and 'for them, lectures, [tutorials or] conversations…without any visual backup are very confusing and can be anxiety-producing' (Zhenhui, 2001: 6).

§ They did not feel they could participate orally, even when they understood what was happening, because to do so may cause them to stand out or be seen to disagree with me. In Korean culture, 'students insist that the teacher be the authority and are disturbed if this does not happen' (Zhenhui, 2001: 1). This stems form the need for the teacher to be the authority and the transmitter of knowledge so frequent invitations by me to offer a challenge to what I was saying, or referring to, placed considerable stress on the Korean students.

I used this opportunity, too, to explain the machinations of the Australian higher education, and school, classrooms and emphasised the need for the students to articulate their area of need to me in order that they could fulfil course requirements and develop as confident and skilled teaching professionals.

Further consultation with my colleague and two Korean academics, who have lived and worked in Australia for some time, assisted me in determining the following steps which I presented to the Korean students. The Korean students agreed to the plan being implemented. Interestingly, they were keen to commence the intervention immediately.

Outcomes: Was the Intervention Successful?

Initially, the Korean students maintained their reluctance to participate but attended consultation sessions unfailingly. After the fourth week of implementation, I began to notice an appreciable difference in the responsiveness of the Korean students and in the sixth week it was obvious to me that the plan was taking effect in some significant ways. During the consultation period in the ninth week I mentioned this to the Korean students who agreed that they felt that the discussions prior to tutorials, combined with their own initiative and 'cultural risk taking', together with my modifications to teaching method, were of value to them in their understanding of, and engagement with, the materials. Importantly, they noted that they were participating with their non Asian peers more readily and that they had commenced a study group with other non Asians to work on the module development.

During the second last week of semester, I asked my colleague who had taken part in the initial observations to, again, observe using the same guidelines as before. Her observations confirmed those of mine and the Koreans themselves. The outcomes were very encouraging. There had been a marked improvement in responsiveness, interaction, and participation by the Korean students. Unlike the first observation session, they were using English and social science terminology with greater ease and contributed to group tasks, although they still preferred to work together if given the opportunity. An unexpected, yet positive outcome, was that the non Asian students appeared to have a better grasp of the materials and contributed in a more substantive way, too. This could probably be attributed to the consultation sessions held each week and the use of graphic organizers and visual stimulus that I was incorporating into tutorials on a more regular basis.

Reflecting: Is there a need to 'recycle' the action research process?

The end of semester precluded me from embarking on another cycle of action research. If I were able to work with these students again, though, I would look at gradually minimising the consultation sessions to gauge if their knowledge and understandings, combined with an improvement in their English was sufficient to permit them to eventually operate independently of these sessions (field independence). My belief is that, over time, the social interactions with non-Asians in their courses would be of more benefit than the sessions with me. Social interaction gives rise to a clarification of content, a building of supportive relationships, and enables the students' English to be improved through usage.

I would also modify my tutorial sessions, for this particular course, to explicitly teach the terminology and concepts to all students, prior to using the materials that incorporate them. I believe this is necessary because the extra consultation sessions I offered the non Asian students were usually focused on the terminology and conceptual understandings. When the students were familiar with the terminology and concepts, prior to the tutorial, there were fewer interruptions to teaching and greater participation. This type of systematic, surface level teaching is more aligned with the transmission teaching perspective (Pratt and Collins, Year unknown: a) rather than the teaching perspectives dominance I possess.

The Teaching Perspectives Inventory: What Can Be Learned from the Action Research Process with Respect to My Teaching Perspectives?

My dominant and active teaching perspectives, as determined through the Teaching Perspectives Inventory (Pratt and Collins, Year unknown: a), are known as apprenticeship and developmental. When an instructor works through the apprenticeship perspective they believe that 'learning is facilitated when people work on authentic tasks in real settings of application or practice' (Pratt 2002b: 5). Grasha's teaching typologies and learning styles (in Montgomery and Groat, 2002: 8) interface with the apprenticeship perspective through his second cluster teaching style of Personal Model/Expert/Formal Authority. Learners in this sphere will find that the teacher's expectation is that students will contribute their knowledge to the group; that the teacher is keen to know how learners will utilise the skills and content they are taught (Grasha, 1996). Clearly, this teaching perspective is operating counter to the behaviours being manifested in a classroom where Asian students are non responsive and non interactive. With planning, and a full appreciation of the Korean students' cultural constraints, the attributes of the apprenticeship perspective were able to be realised after persistence and encouragement. As Fu (1995) emphasises, it is the individual and their way of seeing and doing things within the dominant culture that can be shaped to allow a different cultural construct to be embraced and acted upon. 'We are different entities as we conceive ourselves enlightened by these various views' (Rorty in Fu, 1995: 211).

The writer's second area of dominance, the developmental perspective, complements the apprenticeship perspective in so much as it has its basis in Bruner's Theory of Constructivism (in TIP, Year unknown: 1). Constructivist theory perceives learning to be an active process whereby instructors utilise the learner's known knowledge and skills as a stepping off point to acquiring new knowledge and skills; to expand upon those already known, and to transform information, cognitively, to be applicable in other situations. The need to nurture the Korean students to a stage where they were more field independent than field dependent was critical in the action research implementation. Until these students were able to fully appreciate and initiate field independent strategies where they could 'rely on themselves to select and organize items from the complex world around them' (Bean, 1990: 11), they would have difficulty operating successfully in the English speaking, Westernised classrooms, typical of Australian higher education social science faculties.

The developmental perspective involves a 'repertoire of techniques for engaging learners in problems and discussion' (Pratt 2002b: 5) and utilises problem based learning, incorporating activities such as case studies, group inquiry, discussion, and role simulations (in Montgomery and Groat, 2002: pp. 8-9). This repertoire of skills is desirable in the critical-thinking oriented, student-centred classroom I am expected to develop but as has been seen through the literature, can be stressful for the Asian student who is used to the teacher being the transmitter of knowledge and where the role of student is submissive and passive.

However, the developmental perspective skill of engaging students in discussion was able to be used to advantage when it was planned as a consultation (discussion) time with the Korean students, outside of the classroom. This was demonstrated through the action research and the students, as predicted by Fu, 'appreciate[d] the freedom of expression and choice this [student centered] approach [gave] them' (Fu, 1995: 199). This ensured a relationship was built with the students where I could take them from where they were currently situated, at both intellectual and skill levels, to more complex and sophisticated levels of thinking and acting, despite their English competence.

The basic 'constructivist tenet that learners use what they already know to filter and interpret new information' is central to this perspective (Pratt, 2002a: 4) . However, it is, again, problematic when that which is 'known' has its foundations in the schematic, socially acquired knowledge of the Asian, not Western, culture and language systems (Alptekin, 1993: 136). This fact made it necessary to systematically teach the Korean students terms and concepts central to the social sciences and the course I was teaching.

Conclusion

This action research and the review of literature has reinforced that,

'the teacher-centered classroom teaching in East Asia also leads to a closure-oriented style for most East Asian students. These closure-oriented students dislike ambiguity, uncertainty, or fuzziness.' (Zhenhui, 2001: 2).

This was certainly true of the Koreans I was teaching and counter to the style of tutorials I was used to conducting. This paper has shown how the literature assisted in developing basic modifications to my teaching perspectives dominance and successful intervention planning and implementation. Some of the strategies implemented were able to capitalise on the usual learning style (rote) of the Koreans through systematic teaching of terms and concepts after explanation in consultation and tutorial sessions. Encouragingly, the action research intervention also found that, as noted by Fu (1995: 200), the Asian student, when approached as an individual coming to terms with their Western, English language environs, will respond as required if given the assistance and cultural consideration necessary.

REFERENCES

Alptekin, C. (1993) 'Target-language culture in EFL materials', ELT Journal Vol 47/2 April, pp.136-143.

Bean, R.E. (1990) Cognitive Styles of Korean and Japanese Adults Learning English in the U.S. Thesis. Alaska Pacific University. ERIC ED 321 530

Bempechat, J. and Omori, M (1990) Meeting the Educational Needs of Southeast Asian Children ERIC/CUE Digest No. 68. [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed328644.html

Carson, T., Connors, B., Smits, H., and Riplay, D. (1989) Creating Possibilities-An Action Research Handbook [Online]. Available: http://www.epsb.ca/pd/pegasus/creating1.htm [Accessed 24 April 2003] Part of the Pegasus Project, Edmonton Public Schools, Canada.

Cutler, M.S. (1999) Does Culture Affect Learning Style? [Online]. Available: http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol3Word/M.Cutler.doc

Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), University of North Carolina. Teaching for Inclusion: Asian American Students [Online]. Available: http://clt.unc.edu/tfi7.html

Fu, D. (1995) "My Trouble is My English" Asian Students and the American Dream Boynton/Cook Publishers: Portsmouth.

Grasha, A. (1996) Teaching with Style Alliance Publishers: Pittsburgh.

Graduate School of Education, George Mason University (2003) Action Research Template [Online]. Available: http://gse.gmu.edu/research/tr/TRaction.shtml [Accessed 12 May 2003]

Healey, M. (year unknown) Developing the scholarship of teaching geography in higher education [Online]. Available: http://www.glos.ac.uk/gdn/confpubl/boston.htm

Kame'enui, E., Carnine, D., Dixon, R., Simmons, D., and Coyne, M. (2001) Second Edition. Effective Teaching Strategies That Accommodate Diverse Learners: Merrill Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Montgomery, S. M. and Groat, L. N. (2002) Student Learning Styles and their Implications for Teaching [Online]. Available: http://www.crly.umich.edu/occ10.html [Accessed 17 April 2003].

O'Brien, R. (1998) An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research [Online]. Available:
http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/ar%/20final2.html [Accessed 26 May 2003]

Painter, D., and Rigsby, L. (2003) Action Research [Online]. Available: http://gse.gmu.edu/research/tr/TRaction.shtml [Accessed 23 May 2003].

Pratt, D. D. and Collins, J. (Year unknown: a) Teaching Perspectives Inventory [Online]. Available: http://www.teachingperspectives.com Accessed 6 March 2003].

Pratt, D. D. (2002b) Good Teaching: one size fits all? In An Up-date on Teaching Theory, Jovita Ross-Gordon (Ed.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Publishers.

Pratt, D. D. (1993c ). Androgogy after twenty-five years. In Sharan Merriam (Ed.), Adult Learning Theory: An Update, San Francisco: Josey Bass Publishers, pp. 15 - 25.

Ritchie, D.C. (1988) The Effects of Socialization on Cognitive Style and Second Language Learning Among Southeast Asian Refugees. Issues & Developments in English & Applied Linguistics, 3, 51-65 ERIC ED 345530

TIP: The Theories (Year Unknown) [Online]. Available:
http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html [Accessed 7 April 2003]

Zhenhui, R. (2001) Matching Teaching Styles with Learning Styles in East Asian Contexts. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VII, No. 7 July 2001. [Online]. Available: http://itelj.org/ [Accessed 17 April 2003].