HANOI UNIVERSITY
DISTANCE EDUCATION CENTER
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF ... (add Author's surname and the title of
the research paper that you wish to write a critical review for)
YOUR NAME: ...– ID No.: ...
Course: Introduction to Research
Instructor: Pham Thanh Binh, MA.
Hanoi, May, 2024
Abdullah, M. Y., Bakar, N. R. A., & Mahbob, M. H. (2012). “Student's participation in
classroom: What motivates them to speak up?” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
51, 516-522.
Students’ in-class active participation has been shown to play a crucial role in optimizing
students’ learning ability and academic achievement (Reddington & Cañada, 2006; Ko et al.,
2016). Given a profound interest in this aspect, Abdullah and colleagues (2012) conducted the
study Student’s participation in classroom: What motivates them to speak up? which awakens
curiosity among researchers, myself included. I have done research on students’ participation in
an ESL class and discovered that participation is part of a larger picture, i.e., engagement, as
opposed to being a separate concept. However, the researchers failed to acknowledge the
complex nature of their key recruitment definition. This, alongside limitations including
questionable aspects of the research design, lack of logic, and limited evidence, prompts this
review.
In brief, the study examined what motivates students to participate in classroom discourse
and activities. The qualitative study combines observation and focus group discussion (FGD)
with 99 university students from three classes. Upon observation, active and passive students
were identified and grouped for FGD. Using thematic analysis, the authors presented four
contributing factors: student’s personalities, ecological aspects, instructor’s personality and
skills, and peer perception. They also suggest teaching techniques to create a conducive
classroom atmosphere.
“Participate” is the paper’s key term, so an accurate explanation of it is expected.
Unfortunately, the researchers failed to do so as evidenced by them using “participate” and
“engage” interchangeably. In theory, engagement consists of behavioral, cognitive and
emotional engagement (Fredericks et al., 2004). Among these, behavioral engagement includes
observable actions and is investigated through students’ participation (Fredricks et al., 2004).
This implies a subtle difference between “participate” and “engage” that needs to be
acknowledged. Another key point is that while participation is important, the authors should
mention how these physical behaviors may not reveal the true depth and breadth of students’
understanding (Fredricks et al., 2004) as many appear participative but their contributions are
irrelevant. However, I acknowledge the lack of method to measure quality participation which
might be why the authors chose to count the participation frequency.
Another questionable aspect lies in the research design. The authors employed
observation to identify active and passive students, yet did not claim whether the observation is
unobstructed. If the students were aware of being watched, they might behave differently from
usual. Furthermore, the researchers did not describe the criteria to identify active and passive
students, which affects the paper’s replicability. In my view, a more systematic framework is
needed here. Moving on, there is insufficient justification for the use of FGD and the questions
for students in discussion sessions. Ideally, the authors could employ FGD and in-depth
interviews for data triangulation and present justification for the questions used.
Also problematic is the lack of logic in the Literature Review section. It provides
evidence on traits that typify active and passive participants, the four types of student behaviors,
and the impact of student’s personality, instructor’s traits and skills, peer perception, ecological
factors on active participation. However, the authors wrapped up the section stating that “being
active in class” (active participation) “will make the students to learn more” (enhance
motivation to learn) (p. 518). This is an irrelevant conclusion drawn from the previous analysis.
The final shortcoming is the lack of evidence. The authors plainly recommended teachers
to provide notes before the class start, invite the students to speak up, etc. without mentioning
whether these methods are grounded in previous research. The lack of evidence is also apparent
as the authors equated extroversion/introversion with activeness/passiveness: “Passive students
said they are more comfortable with smaller class. This could be related to their introvert
personality” (p. 520). If the link between extroversion/introversion and activeness/passiveness
exists, further evidence is needed.
Despite these criticisms, the article has added interesting pedagogical implications to the
limited research body on factors motivating active participation. For example, the study found
that “classroom size and seating position are important to encourage passive students to be
active” (p. 520). This suggests activeness can be enhanced by ecological factors.
In conclusion, future research on motivating factors for student participation with a better
justified design and more evidence is needed to examine more closely what (de)motivates
students to actively participate. (Word count:
692)
References
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Ko, J.W., Park, S., Yu, H.S. et al. The Structural Relationship Between Student Engagement and
Learning Outcomes in Korea. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 25, 147–157 (2016).
[Link]
Reddington, C., & Cañada, R. (2006). How does student participation influence student
achievement?. Language and Literacy, 27, 2275-003.