Page 78 - Silence in Intercultural Communication

Chapter 3. The sociocultural context 65

attend to other students’ talk nor to that of the teacher, and thus fail to achieve
cohesion; the stretch of interaction is fragmented into brief exchanges without
strong logical connection.

3.4.3.2 Critical views and disagreement
As mentioned before, although a recent phenomenon, emphasis is on the develop-
ment of critical thinking skills in Australian education (Matsuda 2000). One of the
web pages of the University of Sydney’s Institute of Teaching and Learning says:
‘the university places a high priority on critical thinking, problem-solving and au-
tonomy by the students.’ It is assumed in Australian classrooms that knowledge
presented through materials or by teachers can be challenged, explored and recon-
structed through interaction (Ballard & Clanchy 1991; Milner & Quilty 1996).
In Japanese classrooms, critical or contradictory comments or disagreements
are rarely found. In my observations, students did not raise any issues regarding
content, and the lessons were also structured so that critical attitudes were not
required or expected. As discussed earlier, ‘why’ questions were scarce, compared
with factual questions, including ones such as ‘where is it written in the textbook/
handout’ (cf. Matsuda 2000).
There was one class in Tokyo High School in which the teacher often asked
questions which encouraged students to explain what they thought and why (as
found in Excerpt (6) in Section 3.2.3). Students’ talk, however, was mostly unen-
thusiastic and far from articulate, and they produced no more than one short sen-
tence. The emphasis on objective knowledge, required for academic success, can
be an explanation for this absence of critical views and disagreement. In Kato’s
(2001) study, Japanese students found a difference between Australian and Japa-
nese schools in what is acceptable from students in the classroom:

The Japanese students found that Australian students raised any questions they
had, however small or sometimes irrelevant they seemed. They thought teachers
did not mind such questions, whereas they would be too embarrassed to raise
any questions in a Japanese school, because ‘my teacher may say “Don’t you know
such a basic thing?” or “You should know the answer”’. (p. 63)

In fact, in Kato’s study, Australian students were regarded as immature by Japa-
nese students because of their constant need to express themselves, whereas Japa-
nese students were regarded as immature by Australian students because they do
not “think for themselves” or “express their opinions” (p. 63).
However, the absence of critical comments and disagreements in classroom
interaction may also be explained in relation to face-threat, and therefore can be
considered as a socio-psychological factor. Not only are these acts irrelevant for
the knowledge to be acquired, but they also entail great threat to face: both the