Introduction
Students’ silence in learning English has become a paramount issue addressed in an ESL/EFL classroom. From the year 1985s’ (Tannen, 1985) until today research upon silence has never come to an end. At the beginning, studies on silence investigated silence phenomenon based on the person country origin such as New Yorkers or Californian. Tannen (1985) argued that New Yorkers silence Canadians because New Yorkers talk a lot more than Canadians. In 1990s the research developed to ESL and EFL classroom in which silence appeared because of geographic positions such as Asian students. For example, Chinese were considered reticence because of the Confusian belief. However, in early 2000, Cheng argued against the allegation saying that even though Confusian exist, the belief never taught them to remain silent.
Five years after that, the students’ silence research was developed in ESL / EFL classroom, for example in a speaking class (Liu, 2005). A few years later, research upon students’ silence is conducted by combining anxiety and reticence (Lu, Zhang, & Lu, 2011). The previous studies showed that factors affecting silence were complex. Unfortunately, there is a few research concern in content courses class. Thus, there is lack of finding about silence appears in content course. That is why I conduct research on students’ silence.
As an EDS member, Dia was an outstanding member because she had better critical thinking and greater knowledge than me. She knew current issues very well. As an Inlit student, she was great too. In all of Dia’s active participations, she could support her ideas with reliable supporting details such as giving the background of the writers, connecting to the current conditions and etc.
Many times I found myself silent when I knew she had given a comment before I had opportunity to comment. I realized that my comment was worse than her. Instead of speaking and being ashamed by providing trivial ideas, I remained silent. Because I did not want to be judged as a low competence student by Dia. Therefore, my silence appeared because of my smarter peer’s presence and my fear of being judged as a low competence student. As Morita (2004) said, smart students’ presence make other students silent. Furthermore, the fear of being negatively judged as a low competence student, creates a student silence (Ohata, 2005). Because of my past experience as a silent student in Inlit class, I conduct research on factors affecting students’ silence in Inlit class. My study aimed to answer my research question about factors affecting students’ silence in Inlit class. The research question is what factors affecting students’ silence in Inlit class.
I think it is important to know about the differences especially in Indonesia because nearly all population in Indonesian learns English in Indonesia. Also, nearly all Indonesian teachers teach Indonesian students. Thus, this research will help both teachers and learner to picture factors affecting students’ silence in content course.
Theoretical framework
In the past few years, there are growing attentions to examine students’ silent in the field of education. Based on Inlit handbook academic year 2011/ 2012 students are demanded to be active in various occasions. They are classroom discussions, group discussions, individual or group presentations, commenting to topics, reacting to other peers’ utterances, nominating by the lecturer, and etc. Students’ silences appear when students did not join active participations. Thus, I use Nakane (2007)’s definition that meet classroom participations in Inlit classes. She defines students’ silence as “… silent response, not participating in specific participant structures, or not participating in interaction on specific topics, or not taking certain speakers roles, or not performing certain speech acts...” (p.198).
The first factor affecting students’ silence is psychology factors. The socio-psychology factors consist of students interaction with classmates (e.g: friendship), and students’ attitude toward their classmates (eg: smart peers, silence peers, and etc.). Reflecting on my past silence experience in Inlit class, I believed that Dia was smarter than me. Also, she was more knowledgeable and fluent than me. Jaworski and Sachdev (1998) stated that people who have greater power in class silence people who have lower power. Thus, Morita (2004) said that students who underestimated their selves as unintelligent and not smart could become silent.
London Metropolitan University said differently. He admitted that the “Mianzi culture” hindered him to actively contribute. Moreover, Nakane (2007) figured out the meaning of silence was different from one culture to another. She explained that silence can show power in one culture whereas in another culture it means rejection to a proposal.
In community context, the silent attitude is an expression of copying others. It can be a form of looking for recognition from the majorities (Cabin, 2000) or it is a form of maintaining solidarities (Nakane, 2007). Next, students became silent because of the anxiety of getting a bad impression from classmates such as looking for lecturer’s attention or having low proficiency. Weedon (1987), as cited in Peirce (1995), stated that social identities are a form of action to adjust behavior to meet with the social condition. Ohata (2005) added that students remain silent because they fear being judged as low competence students. Besides that, fear of not fulfilling the lecturer’s expectation (Tsui, 1996) and fear to produce misunderstands utterances (Ping, 2010) triggered students’ silence. In contrast, Liu, Zhang, & Lu (2011) found that active students turn into silent ones because they do not want to show off.
The second factor affecting students’ silence is cognition. What I mean by cognitive factors are the inability of students to interact, analyze, and criticize the Inlit materials. To be able to interact, analyze, and criticize the Inlit materials, students need to understand and familiarize themselveswith the topic. Thus, students who are not familiar with the topic being discussed can become silent. Thornbury (2005) stated that students who are unfamiliar with the topic are likely to be silent.
more analysis to figure out the literature work. According to McRae, 1991 as cited in Sivasubramaniam, 2006, stated that students who are not interested in materials can resist from actively engages with the materials. Thus, some students are reluctant to participate, so that they will not be judged as foolish.
The third factor affecting students’ silence is fluency. Fluency factors include ability to master vocabularies and an ability to produce utterances. Liu (2005) said that one of the reasons for students silence is caused by the lack of mastering vocabularies. Silences happen because of students’ failure to arrange ideas. The low competence students are afraid of presenting insufficient utterances (Kurihara, 2006). All in all students who worried over grammars, vocabularies, phonology structures, and how to arrange ideas will have a tendency to remain silent (Ali, 2007).
[image:5.612.87.512.255.667.2]The presentation of the theoretical framework of factors affecting students’ silence is made in the form of a table. The following table is the summary of factors affecting students’ Table 1: Factors affecting students’ silence.
Categories Students reason of being silent
Socio-psychology factor
1. Smarter students silence less smart students. 2. Students underestimate their own ability. 3. Culture affects students’ silence.
4. Students look for recognition of others by silence. 5. Students maintain solidarity by silence.
6. Students fear being judged as low competence students when they speak.
7. Students fear of not fulfilling the teacher expectations when they speak.
8. Students fear of showing off when they speak. Cognitive factor
1. Students are unfamiliar with the topic. 2. Students do not have schema.
3. Students are not interested in the topic.
Fluency factor
1. Students lack vocabularies.
2. Students are afraid of not presenting sufficient utterances.
The study
In this section, I will discuss the context of the study, the participants, the procedure of data collections and the data analysis.
Context of the study
My research took place in Satya Wacana Christian University (SWCU) Salatiga. To be specific, the study is done in the Introduction to Literature class English Department faculty of language and literature. Inlit class is the prerequisite class for the next literature classes, prose, poetry, and drama class. Here, Inlit consists of various kinds of literature material such as prose, poems and drama.
This class is dominated with 2009ers students. Even so, there are no restricted classes of students to join this class. The youngest students come from 2010ers, and the oldest were 2006ers. This class is offered every year in the even semester.
In Inlit class, students are expected to actively participate both orally and through written participations. Every meeting, students are obliged to submit journals according to the material that will be discussed in class. Students need to report the journal they have written orally. Students have the opportunity to speak in whole class discussion, group discussion, individual, and presentations.
In Inlit class students’ oral responses are done willingly. The lecturer rarely nominates their students to answer. Lecturer nominates students to speak if the class is being silent and no one is willing to give the oral contribution.
Participants
silences are gathered. There are silent students, rather silent students, rather active students or active students.
Instrument of data collection
For the instrument of data collection, I use semi-structure interviews (McKay, 2006). The semi-structured interview is an interview that consists of the same questions but the structured of the questions being asked is flexible according to the participants’ responses. The interview is conducted in the middle or nearly the end of Inlit class period. Precisely, the interviews are hold from April to June 2011. The time of the interview is based on the participants’ free time. The length of interview is around 10 to 15 minutes. See appendix A for the complete interview questions.
Procedure of data collection
The data collections started by giving questionnaires to Inlit students. Using the random sampling, I interview 15 students who willingly joined interview. The interview use Bahasa Indonesia. Bahasa Indonesia is used in order to make participants easier to express their opinion and feeling. The three main questions given to participants are: explain your characteristic in Inlit class, whether you are an active student or a silent student? Have you ever been silent in Inlit class? What are your reasons for being silent in Inlit class?
Data Analysis
Findings and Discussion
This chapter talks about the analysis of factors affecting students’ silence in Inlit class. In this study, there are three emerging themes arranged according to the number of comments given. The emerging themes are socio-psychology factors, cognitive factors, and fluency factors.
Socio-psychology factors
The first factor affecting students’ silence is socio-psychology factors. Socio- psychology factors are factors that come from students’ self perceptions and students’ perceptions of peers. The students’ self perceptions include a feeling of having low competence and fear of making mistakes. The students’ perceptions of others include the fear of negative opinion from peers such as showing off, does not comfortable, and differ.
To begin analyzing the socio-psychology factors, I found Ninuk and Dana (pseudonyms) were silent because of smarter peers’ intelligence. The smarter peers’ intelligence is proven by having better grades and greater analysis skills. Ninuk and Dana thought that smarter peers had more capacity to actively participate instead of them. Here are Ninuk’s and Dana’s comments:
Sometimes, there are students who are more proficient in the class. They are good at answering questions. I am a little bit inferior. So, I am silent. His or her Inlit grade is A. All his/ her journals are perfect
(Ninuk, 5th interview, May 12th 2011 my translation) Some friends can do in depth- analysis on poems and short stories. They could analyze deeply….If I answer, my analysis is very different.
and are more fluent than her. Dana described smart peers were those who could make deep analysis of poems or short stories. Ninuk and Dana considered smarter peers were more powerful to control their active contributions instead of them.
According to Ninuk’s and Dana’s data stated that smart’s peers are able to make in-depth analysis and have better grades, so according to them smart students deserve to speak instead of “unintelligent” students. Morita (2004) explained that smart students present silences students who thought themselves as not smart students. Morita continues, non-smart students judged themselves as not intelligent and competent as smarter students. Ohata (2005) stated that students become silent if they fear being valued as low competence students.
On the other occasion, Dana is silent because she feared making peers and the lecturer difficult in understanding her utterances:
If I explained in long sentences that lecturer and peers do not understand, I make mistakes. It is better for me to keep silent.
(Dana, May 12th 2011, my translation) The above excerpt implies that Dana’s silence is much affected by fear of making mistakes. Dana’s also fears making the lecturer or peers do not understand her utterances. Furthermore, she was afraid if she could not satisfy the lecturer’s and friends’ expectations to provide comprehensible utterances, so she became silent. Tsui (1996) comments that students are afraid and became silent if they cannot answer as expected by the lecturer. Ping (2010) noticed that students became silent because they fear making misunderstood utterances. Morita (2004) added that students who realize they have a low competence would remain silent because they fear that the teacher judges them as incompetent.
I am in the same class with my close friends….They pay attention to the lesson. They could not be disturbed. They speak only once or twice if needed. However, it rarely happened. It is weird [to speak alone] like a crazy person ….It influences me to be silent.
(Nana, 11th interview May 31st, 2011 my translation) The above excerpt implies that silence resulted from the close relationship of Nana and her friends. In that relation, Nana is the one who wants to be active, whereas her close friends are silent. She thought that being silent was more “normal” than joining the active participation. That condition triggered Nana to imitate her close friends by being silent. The silence is an action to maintain harmony with her close friends.
For Nana, it is important to keep the harmony with her close friends by being silent. Because it shows that she belongs to the close friends’ relationship. Cabin (2000) stated that people adjust their behavior to community behavior in order to be recognized as the member of the community.
Apart from the above analysis, some researchers neglect the role of culture that make students silent. Through Dina’s explanation, I notice that culture also takes part in students’ silence. The following is Dina’s comment about her silence that is affected by culture.
I feel bored. Because students who speak always the same. So, If I want to speak more I am uncomfortable….If I am always active, in Javanese we call it “rikuh”.
her frequent active participations were considered wrong. To overcome the ‘rikuh’ feeling, she tried to adapt with the classroom situation by being silent.
In terms of culture, Nakane (2007) explained that the meaning of silence is different from one culture to another. She explained that a silence in social context means avoiding conflicts and imposition. Another culture values silence to show power. Dina upheld the ‘rikuh’ from Javanese culture. The ‘rikuh’ belief’s force her to adjust her active contributions into passive contributions which is silence. In connection to previous statements, Nana’s and Dina’s silence was a form of maintaining solidarity with peers (Nakane, 2007).
The next participant, Gama (a pseudonym) is silent because he was afraid of being negatively judged as looking for the lecturer’s attention.
Once or twice, I will try to be active. But if it is done too frequent, it leaves impression that only I want to speak. Not all my friends like me. I am afraid if they might think my active participation as a form of grabbing teacher attention. That perception could influence my active participation.
Cognitive factors
The second factor affecting students’ silence is cognition. The cognitive factors include the ability to analyze Inlit materials such as poems. By using the literature text, Halasz (1987) expected readers to be able to comprehend literature work and correlate the text with cognitive and social psychology. To be able to analyze properly, Gama, Ani and Dana (pseudonyms) are expected to have enough schemas toward materials they read. Participants have a high possibility of being silent if they do not have any schema or background knowledge of the poems being discussed.
According to the participants, the visual dimension poetry and haiku poem influence their silence. Visual dimension poetry is poetry that focuses on the shapes and signs to convey its meaning (Bohn, 2001). According to Thunman (1991), haiku is a Japanese poem that consists of seventeen syllables that usually talks about nature.
One participant, Gama admitted that he meets an obstacle understanding a visual dimension poetry entitled “A leaf falls on loneliness”. The following is Gama’s comment on difficulties to analyze visual dimension poems that silence him.
[To interpret a poem] Sometimes one word does not only have dictionary meaning. Sometimes one word can be interpreted in different ways. Especially, poems from foreign country, the poets’ way of thinking are different from the poets here. I do not know the foreign culture of foreign poets. [For example] A particular word would have a different meaning. That is the difficult part….A leaf falls on loneliness [title of a poem], I do not even know how to read that.
The following poem is the example of a poem that Gama found a problem interpreting the poem.
Poetry – Visual Dimension 1(a… (a leaf falls on loneliness) E.E Cummnings
1(a le af fa ll s) one l iness
(Bradford, 2011 p.32)
The above displayed data explained that Gama’s inability to read ‘A leaf falls on loneliness’ is not because he was illiterate. According to the display of the poem, the word is arranged to a certain extent that it could not be understood easily. Since Gama did not have any schema related to visual dimension poetry, he just read accordingly. Gama was silent because he lack the schema on how to read the poem. As a result he could not analyze the poem or give oral participation. From Gama’s data excerpt, Laszlo (1987) supported that literature works bring unordinary ideas, so it should be analyzed carefully. When Gama could not find out visual dimension poem ideas, he became silent.
Moreover, Ani became silent not only in visual dimension poems but also in discussing haiku. She could not participate orally because she had low cognitive competence to relate poems or short stories with real life. Her lack of knowledge toward visual dimension and haiku are expressed as follows:
everything, I can not give comments. Rather than speaking, making mistakes and the meaning is too far, It is better for me to listen to the other students’ opinion…. [In a poem entitled book] What if my imagination is low? What should I do? How a butterfly can be a book? Confusing isn’t it! This one [1(a… (a leaf falls on loneliness)] and signs like this [Justice]. I do not understand.
(Ani, June 9th 2011 my translation) Besides “A leaf falls on loneliness”, Ani had difficulties analyzing poem entitled “Justice” and “Book”. I present poems as follow:
Justice It’s understandable; what with those
awful murders in lpswich and that poor girl just yards from her home. The stabbings
the shooting the rapes,
yeah,it’s understandable. But should this really be the b(#) line ?
o(#) t (#) t (#) o (#) m(#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#)
Book Tatsuji Miyoshi
A butterfly, a white book A butterfly, a light book
It dances up a dune Stiching the horizon.
(Inlit material p. 39) Ani’s silence was started by not understanding the visual dimension poetry and haiku. Furthermore, she could not relate the poem with real life. Those happened because she lacked the schema related to the visual dimension poetry and haiku. Ani feared producing insufficient errors and mistakes when she was interpreting poems or delivering comments. Ping (2010) states that students prefer silence because they do not want to appear foolish.
Dana has the similar opinion with Ani. Dana found difficulty to relate real life with the visual dimension poetry and haiku.
…I do not really understand what the poet means in his/ her poem. Because poem is abstract….for example this poem [poems entitled The Deer, Book by Tatsuji miyoji]. They are unclear and haiku. Still, I have to be creative [to analyze the poem]. I can not do that.
(Dana, may 12th 2011) Dana faces obstacles in analyzing poems entitled “Book” and “The Deer” written by Tatsuji Miyoshi. I will attach the poem entitled “The deer” because “Book” has been attached in page 15 and 16. Here is the poem:
The Deer Tatsuji Miyoshi
In the morning in a forest a deer is crouching. Upon his shoulders, the shadow of his horns.
A single deerfly cuts across the space of the breeze and hovers
her creativity to analyze the poem. The inability to analyze the visual dimension poetry and haiku happened because she did not have any schema.
Generally speaking, Ani’s and Dana’s silence happen because they are unfamiliar with the visual dimension poetry and haiku. Thornbury (2005) said that speaking can be difficult when the speaker is not familiar with the topic. To analyze the poems participants need to be involved and interact with the poem.
In cognitive theme, schema is the basic requirements to be able to read, understand, and analyze literature works such as poem and prose. According to Nakane (2007) participants tend to be silent if they do not have enough schemas. The schema is needed because it connects students’ previous knowledge with new information that students will receive (Bartler, 1932).
Fluency
The third emerging theme related to factors affecting students silence is fluency. What I mean by fluency is the ability to process information and participants’ ability to maintain oral participation.
Nita (a pseudonym) found that the difficulty to express her thoughts hindered her active contribution in class discussion. When Nita did not have the exact English vocabulary to replace her ideas, thus Nita becomes reluctant to participate.
Sometimes, I want [to speak] like this but there is no appropriate answer. What is the word? How I should say it? What is the correct [vocabularies]? I want to say “A” but it comes out different. How about the vocabularies and words arrangement?
Once, she tried to speak, but she failed to convey her ideas into English. Reflecting on her previous experience, she refrained from speaking when she realized that she did not have the exact words to express her ideas. Kurihara (2006) said that students are being silent because of fear of failure to convey ideas. Ali (2007) said that students remain reticent when students worry about how to use grammars, vocabularies, phonology, and how to arrange ideas.
Another participant, Ririn commented on her silence when she had difficulties to arrange ideas. The excerpt below is Ririn’s comment on her silence that happened because of difficulties to utter ideas.
Sometimes I got stuck on English vocabularies. I have not really mastered vocabularies. In my mind, there are ideas but the ideas are difficult to come out. The effect is I get confused myself to explain in sentence.
(Ririn, April 11th, 2011 my translation) The above excerpt revealed Ririn’s silence that resulted from her confusion to express her thoughts. It was not simply because she did not have ideas, but because she had limited vocabularies. Because of her lack of English vocabularies, she could not appropriately transfer the mother tongue idea into English.
Conclusion and pedagogical Implication
In this study I investigated factors affecting students’ silence in Intro to literature class (Inlit). Through this study, I have learnt that some students have more than one factor affecting their silence in Inlit class. The study found three factors affecting students’ silence. The factors are socio-psychology factors, cognitive factors, and fluency factors.
The first finding shows that socio-psychology factors affect students’ silence in Inlit class. The socio-psychology factors closely relate to situations of classroom and peers’ ability that affect students’ silence in Inlit class. The socio-psychology factors include smarter peers’ presence, fear of making mistakes, fear of not fulfilling lecturer expectations, acts of maintaining solidarity and fear of showing off.
Second, cognitive factors affect students’ silence in Inlit class. The cognitive factors analyze participants’ ability to respond Inlit material such as poems. In cognitive factors, lack of schema becomes the core problem of students’ inabilities to analyze poems. Schema consists of knowledge that participants have already known that help them understand new informations (Bartlet, 1932). As a result, students are silent because they do not have any ideas.
The third, fluency factors affect students silence in Inlit class. Students’ silence appears because of two reasons. The first reason is students’ lack of vocabularies. Second, participants have ideas but they do not know how to transfer the ideas orally.
which students’ ideas are important, which students’ ideas are not important or what students’ ideas should come first, second, last, etc. See appendix B for the examples of pedagogical implication.
Acknowledgements
I owe my deepest gratitude to my beloved parents, Pak Sakinun and Ibu Suparmi for their faith on my successful life in the future. I am so thankful to my patient and wise supervisor, Mrs. Nugrahenny T. Zacharias, PhD who gives me rich assistance, enlightenment, supports and guidance. I would also thankful of Allah SWT for the spirit given to me. I am so thankful to my examiner, Ms Danielle Donelson Sims, M.A. because of her assistance in her busy days, my thesis have completed. Special thanks to my today boyfriend, Zaenal Abidin. Let’s God decide our destiny. Besides that I have to thank to all my juniors, Roni, Bima, Nanda, Agam, Feby, Fiona, Raras, Dian, Anita, Luci, Krisma, Arinta, Jo, Fitriana, and Ninit. I would also like to show my appreciation to all my friends who support me spiritually, mentally and academically, Kiki, Tyas, Nining, Sari (아주마), Dahlia (FPsi), Kar-kar,
Umalila, Vinsensa, Hanung, Puput, Retno (FTI), Puput (FPsi) and all EDS members. Last but not least I want to thank to all Japanese and Korean artists who ease the stressful of thesis. They are YGEntertainment, SMEntertainment, CUBE, Miss A, 2AM, Starship, Shinhwa, T-ara, BEG, Pledis, 비, YamaPi, Shota shimizu, AKB 48, 2AM, and many more. Lastly, I have
References
Ali, Z. (2007). Willing students yet unwilling speakers in ESL classroom. Asian Journal of University Education, 3(2), 57-73.
Bartlet, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bohn, W. (2001). Modern Visual Poetry. Newark and London: University of Delaware Press Associated.
Bradford, R. (2011). Graphics poetics: Poetry as a visual art. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Cabin, P. (2004). Identitas dan tindakan kolektif: pembahasan bersama AllesandronPizarro [Identity and collective behavior: A discussion with Allesandro Pizarro]. In P. Cabin & J. F. Dortier (Eds.). Sosiologi, sejarah dan berbagai pemikirannya [Sociology, history, and its thinking] (pp. 171 - 185 ). Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana Yogyakarta. Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System,28, 435-446.
Halasz, L. (Ed.). (1987). Literary discourse: Aspect of cognitive and psychological approach. Newyork: Walter de Gruyter.
Jaffar, S. (2005). Teaching critical thinking through literature. Journal of Research, 5, 15-26. Jarowski, A., & Sachdev, I. (1998). Beliefs about silence in the classroom. Language and
Education, 12(4), 273-292.
Laszlo, J. (1987). Understanding and enjoying: An information-processing approach to reception. In L. Halasz (Ed.). Literary discourse. (pp.113 - 124). Newyork: Walter
de Gruyter.
Liu, M. (2005). Reticence in oral English language classroom: A case study in China. TESL Report, 38 (1), 1-16.
Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2009). Reticence in Chinese EFL students at varied proficiency levels. TESL Canada Journal, 26 (2), 65-79.
Liu, M., Zhang, W., & Lu, Z. (2011). Reticence and anxiety in Chinese University ESP poetry class: A case study. Journal of Language and Culture, 2(2),20-33.
Marlina, R. (2009). “I don’t talk or I decided not to talk? Is it my culture?” International Journal of Education Research, 48, 235-244.
McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classroom. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Elbraum Associated Inc.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participations and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 57-73.
Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in intercultural communication: Perception and performance. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ohata, K.(2005). Language anxiety from teacher’s perspective: Interviews with seven experienced ESL/EFL teachers. Journal of language and learning, 3(1), 133-155 Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly,
29 (1), 9-32.
Sivasubramaniam, S. (2006). Promoting the prevalence of literature in the practice of foreign and second language education: issue and insight. Asian EFL Journal Quarteryly, 8(4), 254-272.
Tannen, D. (1985). Silence: Anything but. In D. Tannen & M. S. Troike (Eds.), Perspective on silence (pp. 93-111). Norwood, Nj: Ablex.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Pierson Education Limited.
Thunman, N. (1991). Miyoshi Tatsuji (1900-1964): A Japanese nationa; poet. In Brunn & K. Anne (Eds.). Perspective on Japanese and Korea (pp. 17-35). Retrieved April 15, 2012 from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=nTtC-pyVg9sC&pg=PA24&dq=In+the+morning+in+a+forest+a+deer+is+crouching&
hl=id&sa=X&ei=xUy7T5XsBMzhrAe48MCACA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepag
e&q=In%20the%20morning%20in%20a%20forest%20a%20deer%20is%20crouch
ing&f=false
Tong, J. (2010). Some observations of students’ reticent and participatory behavior in Hongkong English classrooms. Electronic Journal of foreign Language teaching, 7(2), 239-254.
Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). “Reticence and anxiety in second language learning.” In K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom (pp. 145–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
