AIBU - or is my fellow student? What is 'normal' behaviour on an MA course?

[nonnomnom]

I've nearly finished a taught MA at a British university. There are many students from around the world and generally it tends to be the British students (including me) who put their hands up and volunteer answers to the course tutors during our weekly taught sessions (about 25-40 people in a room).

I'd assumed those who didn't contribute did so partly because of lack of confidence at speaking in a foreign language or in some cases I know (because they've admitted it!) that some Far Eastern students believe that student interaction is a bit pointless and they just want the teachers to tell them the 'right' answers.

But I was really shocked when I inadvertently stumbled across a bitching session by a couple of students on the course about those who participate actively in the course. I'd assumed that all native speakers would view interaction as positive and indeed, what we were there for! But here this was an American and Brit, really laying into those who put their hand up too much, saying that others want to speak too but think more slowly so they (the quick ones) should wait and give them a chance to speak. She was really vehement and I was a bit horrified to think that fellow students were thinking I was really rude because I hadn't 'waited' for them (obviously I had no way of knowing if they had great ideas brewing, were just shy, hadn't done the reading etc).

So what is normal/expected on an MA course? Were I and my 'chatty' fellow students being unspeakably insensitive and spotlight-hogging? Or was I being reasonable, and actually, active interaction and participation is what MA tutors wish to see and students ought to expect to do?

Advice please - bit late for me as I've nearly finished my course now and have been blithely chatty to date. But hoping all my fellow students haven't hated me as a result...

I'm with lady. And I'm not quite clear why you're surprised?

Surely you have met people not from the UK before?

If I were your tutor, I'd be a bit irritated by your constant stereotyping of people by their nationality.

'Interaction' involves you listening, and helping other people speak up - not just talking. My first year undergrads learn that. You could too.

OP you sound just like me, a mature student keen to participate and understand others perspectives. Please don't take those snippy comments to heart, such a shame when women feel the need to cut other women down to size

Thanks, suchafuss. :)

Some odd assumptions about me or my beliefs - hardly a 'stereotyping of people by their nationality' to assume that non-native speakers might be less confident about speaking in English? And many others on this thread have made the point that Asian students often interact less - it's also well-proven by huge amounts of research. So hardly just me!

Odd strawman from theycallme - I've never suggested that holding back at all is bad, on the contrary if you look at my previous post at 16:35, I list a range of types of ways a student can talk too much. But also pointed out I don't do any of them. So I think we actually agree there.

The original viewpoint that so shocked me was the idea that contributing regularly was 'rude'. That a helpful fellow student who posted useful stuff on the course facegroup group was bigging herself up in some way. I still think that's an immature and self-limiting perspective. And not one I share or wish to encourage! But it's good to get an insight into why someone might feel that way.

non, it was the comments about American students that I meant. You were stereotyping according to nationality.

By the way, no such stereotype is 'proven by research'. You mean, research indicates that there's a correlation. You fundamentally misunderstand how research in social sciences functions.

I do think it is clear that the problem here isn't the fact you speak up - it's the way you debate, which is not really suitable for HE.

And there we go, slapped down again!

We didn't put our hands up to answer questions on my undergraduate degree or on my MA. The course tutor led the sessions and everyone was expected to contribute.

I did later do a professional qualification where it was taught much more like school - homework, hands up, attendance register, permission to go to the loo (seriously) and I found it engendered school-like attitudes with people bitching about each other in corridors, finding excuses not to do their homework and so on. So maybe your American is just reacting to the rather school-ish teaching style?

You're the one paying to be there so why should you sit back and wait for the shy ones to speak up? You get out of an MA what you put in and they are not like undergrad courses - a lot more is expected! We were very active in my MA course.

I'm with lady, too. So very transparently self-serving!

The suggestion by your husband that HE in the US is like your education from ages 13-17 is absurd. In fact, in the USA, class participation and open discussion is considered vital, starting from a very young age, and this was even true nearly 50 years ago, when I started school.

However, we do also see this phenomenon wherein certain class members may (sometimes unintentionally) dominate discussions. Sometimes if one allows a bit of silent time (and it is never as long as one thinks, that is the nature of time perception) it creates a space for introverted or otherwise quiet people to develop an in-class voice..

The snobbery on Mumsnet about the US educational system is astounding.

When I was doing an intensive language program at a Japanese university, I found there were cultural issues.

At the level I was at, most of the students were Korean or Chinese, with a fair few from other parts of Asia, and only about 20% of the students coming from Western backgrounds. Much of the verbal contribution came from the Western students, followed by those from places like Thailand, with Korean and Chinese students speaking up the least.

It wasn't language barriers--we all had language barriers because we were all speaking a non-native language!

It was cultural differences--probably, different feelings about the value of speaking up, different attitudes towards speaking publically or risking making a mistake in front of people, different levels of comfort with silence in the classroom.

Mostly, when the teacher invited someone to speak, there would be a pause. The Western students would wait a bit, and look around, but the silence would feel oppressive. So one of us would speak up.

I know it's easy to say "OMG EVIL WESTERN STUDENTS ARE DOMINATING THE DISCUSSION AND NOT LETTING OTHERS GET A WORD IN"... honestly, though, I did get the distinct impression that if we hadn't done this, nobody would have said bloody anything half the time.

Apart from anything else, you feel bad for the teacher; I think Westerners are more likely to feel that letting a silence hang in the air for too long is rude. And that refusing to talk when you have been asked to reflects a lack of maturity.

Plus, we were all paying for our course. If nobody is going to speak up, then damn it, I will.

So I have a lot of sympathy for the OP here. How about a bit more criticism for those students in the room who are not contributing to the class?

As for the criticisms of "stereotyping people based on nationality"--sorry to bust your bubble, but stereotypes often exist because they have a grain of truth. I absolutely found that there were on-average national differences among the students on my own course.

One final point I would make is that I think it's pretty irresponsible to enroll in a university course if your language barriers are so great that it is going to stop you from contributing.

When large numbers of contribution-shy students enroll onto courses en masse, it can really have a negative impact on the culture of the course and create uncomfortable situations for the instructor and for other students (who wind up having to choose between either oppressive silence OR feeling bad because they are hogging the conversation).

To be fair, universities themselves have sometimes made this problem worse, by being over-eager to pile foreign students onto courses and thereby making the decision to lower the language requirements, or overlooking the fact that some of their students may have very poor English.

40 students is a completely unmanageable number for a seminar where students are supposed to engage in discussion. 25 is about the largest number manageable but 12-15 is much more reasonable. So a lot of this is down to the university mismanagement.

Having said that, tutors must take some responsibility for managing discussion even in adult courses. Small group work, presentations, written feedback, etc. are all ways in which shy or quiet students can be encouraged to contribute more. There are also ways in which forthcoming students can be gently asked to pipe down so that others can speak up (this requires tact and a sense of timing, so that the enthusiastic students are not disheartened or put down, but understand the pedagogical point).

To be fair, universities themselves have sometimes made this problem worse, by being over-eager to pile foreign students onto courses and thereby making the decision to lower the language requirements, or overlooking the fact that some of their students may have very poor English.*

This is an important and increasing problem. Our dept. has complained to central administration about it several times but all they see is the fees/raised international profile. It isn't fair to teaching staff, and it isn't fair to the students, some of whom will leave with 3rds (useless in our oversubscribed field).

TheNew - but the stereotype she had didn't have a grain of truth. That was the point.

The OP assumed American students would enjoy her style of speaking in class and participate in a similar way. They didn't.

The mention of students whose first language isn't English was given as a comparison by her - because she expected students such as that to struggle to contribute.

I'm sure if I hadn't responded at all (as happened on the other thread, where the poster was berated for it), you would have complained I was not interested in others' views. Here, where I respond to others views, and ask them for their point of view, you still object.

Again, you seem unable to strike a balance. You act like the only options here are not to respond at all, or to keep posting with Terminator-like tenacity: addressing every single detail, elaborating, explaining, defending, attacking, giving numbered lists, asking further questions. You perceive this as engaging. Others see it as overbearing.

I can imagine it has the potential to be extremely irritating in class, and yet you're either completely unaware of how you come across, or dismissive of anyone's opinion. The fact that you've managed, in the course of the thread, to actually alienate people who might initially have agreed with you (or at least with your very carefully-put AIBU), should be a clue.

Just because you're not shouting over other students doesn't mean you're not being rude or difficult.

I prefer the shouty students: you can tell them, straight up, to stop. It's the ones who're constantly 'can I just add-', 'can I just ask-', 'have you not considered-' and I mean constantly; this isn't about participation being wrong, but about one person's incessant contributions taking up a disproportionate amount of class time who are more difficult to manage, because they're rarely able to admit that their behaviour is problematic. They're either just being 'helpful', or they have a belligerent, I've-paid-my-fees-and-I'll-ask-as-many-damn-questions-as-I-like attitude. And I don't think nationality has much to do with this, although it's often offered as an excuse. It's a character type.

Having one person always piping up is only 'helpful' if it encourages others to participate I appreciate having a student who can be relied upon to break the ice but, if it gets too entrenched, it becomes very difficult. Any teacher who gets into the habit of letting one person dominate discussion is being quite lazy; it's tempting, when you have a slower, quieter class, to keep things moving by letting the same more chatty students answer again and again, but it's not fair and it's not good practice. But if the students are adults, then they should also take some responsibility for their own behaviour, instead of finding endless justifications (I've paid a lot, I've got more professional experience, I'm more committed to this course, it's a cultural misunderstanding) and ultimately dismissing any criticism.

We'll there is a fine line between contributing to the class and what in the US is called 'gunning'. Gunners are just attention-seekers who do not care whether they are wasting everybody else's time as long as they get to monopolize the Prof's attention. Their contribution mostly has zero value to the rest of the class. They will also hold their hand up for as long as needed until they are given the floor. Gunners typically bring to class what they can also discuss with the Prof during office hours. Like, you know the topic of their masters thesis..

I have no idea in which category you fall but if you recognize yourself as a gunner honestly just stop it is extremely obnoxious.

jolly, that reminds me of a student I had a while ago. Someone else had written in his previous report that he needed to learn to interact better in class, because he wasn't really engaging with everyone else. He came to me and spoke up all the time, but usually completely off-point and refusing to pick up anyone else's points or ask other students a single question. He got a negative report from me on class interaction ... and complained, saying he'd 'made sure I spoke more this time'.

As far as I know people were still trying to explain the difference between 'interaction' and 'talking a lot' by the time he graduated.

Most tutors want questions. I give a lot of day courses and the days when on one contributes are very very dull.

If one person asks too many questions then I deal with it. Very very occasionally you get someone speaking too much it is disruptive or they have some kind of problem or issue but most of the time I welcome the questions. When someone puts up their hand who hasn't spoken all day I always always go to them to speak and ignore someone who has asked before. Also if the people who are good at talking get in first then I remember the quieter one at the back who put up her hand and didn't get a chance and say - yes we had a question there at the back. In other words a good tutor will actively involve anyone who wants to speak.

That said you get some silent types who are very happy to be so and some looking at phones who don't want to be there.

I never heard the word gunner before but I've always been lucky enough not to have gunners in my groups.

I quite like the term 'gunning' and have certainly come across 'gunners'.

As an undergraduate, i was mostly taught in small group supervisions rather than seminars and I found gunners really intimidating as I was shy and felt out of my depth academically and socially. As a callow youth i confused academic brilliance with a willingness to talk forcibly and in a posh accent.

However the scales were lifted one day when I'd got stuck in a supervision with a gunner extrodinaire and after one too many strident, but pointless contributions too many, the supervisor just sighed, looked the student up and down and issued forth the expression 'well whoppee fucking do' in a bored monotone.

After my jaw had hit the ground I cottoned on to the fact that my co-supervisee was absolutely full of shite and that talking is not the same thing as having something to say. Truly one of the pivotal moments of my academic life.

A friend of mine taught EFL in China for a couple of years - she found it quite difficult to adjust to start with - she was used to fairly interactive UK secondary school classes, and found the Chinese students expected her to speak her words of wisdom and they just sit, take notes and absorb it. The classes and she both adjusted over time, so they met somewhere not quite in the middle, but near it. There is a different educationAl philosophy, and it's not just about confidence in language.

OP, upthread you mentioned that it would be useful to include conduct in these sessions alongside guidance on essays and referencing and so on. I think that would be useful feedback to give the course organisers.

"TheNew - but the stereotype she had didn't have a grain of truth. That was the point.

The OP assumed American students would enjoy her style of speaking in class and participate in a similar way. They didn't.

The mention of students whose first language isn't English was given as a comparison by her - because she expected students such as that to struggle to contribute."

Oh, okay. I see what you mean, in that case.

No worries.

I don't think there's that much difference between a seminar and any other kind of group conversation - in a group conversation you can't all talk over one another either, so you have to pause before speaking and watch for whether others might want to speak. There's no central power in a group conversation deciding who gets to speak next, but it's not the case that all normal rules of social interaction are suspended when there is a chairperson there

I know the conversation here has moved on, but it's this that I was talking about in my earlier post. At MA level, I would expect that most - if not all - students are there for very clear reasons, and very driven & enthusiastic. One of the skills learnt through a seminar is the skill of participating in a structured discussion - learning about focus within a free-flowing conversation; learning turn taking; learning on-your-feet analysis of your own & others' ideas; and really importantly - learning not to take it personally.

These are often misnamed as "soft skills." As the discussion here shows, they are amongst the hardest skills to learn, and also include awareness of others' cultural practices as well as one's own.

Of course, a "seminar" of 40 is not really a seminar, as the OP has explained.

As for shy people ... Having been a student in a country where the language was not my first language, I understand the hesitancy of non-native speakers. And I never assume they are not following, as I know from my own experience that my "passive comprehension" (that's the term I was taught by linguists) is better than my speaking ability. But I would expect native speakers to be able to participate & speak for themselves.

Frankly, I think that "shyness" in a professional context (which it sounds as though this MA is) is something that students need to find ways to get over. They're adults, and part of being an adult is facing up to your fears and finding strategies to get through or over them.

I have ways of ensuring that everyone speaks at least once in each seminar, but I also say to students that they really can't take debates & disagreements personally. Tough love