Understanding Silence and Reticence: Ways of Participating in Second Language Acquisition 9781441102706, 9781472593542, 9781441136220

Table of contents :
Cover
Half-title
Title
Copyright
Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgements
1 Repositioning Silence
Rationale of the book
Focus of the book
Research contexts
Research perspective
Connecting with current social theories
Interpreting silence discourse
The spectrum of silence
Major distinctions between silence and reticence
Silence and the silent period
Silence in relation to communicative competence
The place of silence in second language acquisition (SLA)
Silence and L2 input
Silence and L2 output
Non-verbal influences on speech production
Conclusion
2 Australian Perspectives on Silence
Language learning needs in Australia
Australian perspectives on silence
Background of participants
Research design
The researcher’s position
Data collection method
Data analysis
Data discussion and findings
Conclusion
3 Chinese Perspectives on Silence
Silence discourse in China
The context of Chinese silence
The gaps in silence research
The present study
Research findings
Towards an ideology in verbal contribution
Conclusions
4 Japanese Perspectives on Silence
Background: the Japanese educational context
Recent discourse on Japanese silence
Research focus and participants’ profiles
Research methodology
Findings and discussions
Conclusion
5 Korean Perspectives on Silence
Second language education in Korea
Korean perceptions of silence
Research aims and participants
Findings and implications of silence in education
Rethinking classroom harmony
Factors influence the desire to be silent or talkative
Types of silence
Conclusion
6 Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence
Silence in pedagogy
Research focus and participants
Research instruments and data analysis method
Data analysis and key findings
Interpreting students’ reaction
Unpacking challenging lesson content
Conclusion
7 Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence
Vietnamese discourse on silence
The study
Data discussion and main findings
Conclusion
8 Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy
Different and common views on silence
Perceptions of silent peers
Characteristics of silence
Potential transfer from inner speech to verbal output
Silence in peer relationship
Rethinking silence in East Asian and Anglo-Western cultures
Evidence of a proactive silent period
The flexible dynamics of silence
Silence as autonomy
The need for silence literacy acquisition
Educational implications: silent engagement pedagogy (SEP)
A proposed learning model
Suggested activity – experiencing the senses
Implications of silence for learner and teacher development programmes
Silence as political struggle
A look to the future
References
Index

Citation preview

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 10

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 1

10/12/2013 09:04

Also available from Bloomsbury The Grammar Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning, edited by Alessandro Benati, Cécile Laval and Marίa J. Arche The Metalinguistic Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning, edited by Karen Roehr and Gabriela Adela Ganem-Gutierrez Language Acquisition and Development, by Brian Tomlinson Developing Materials for Language Teaching, second edition, edited by Brian Tomlinson Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition, by Bill VanPatten and Alessandro Benati

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 2

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence Ways of Participating in Second Language Acquisition Dat Bao

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2014 Paperback edition first published 2015 © Dat Bao 2014 Dat Bao has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-1-4411-0270-6 PB: 978-1-4742-5306-2 ePDF: 978-1-4411-3622-0 ePUB: 978-1-4411-2853-9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bao, Dat, author. Understanding silence and reticence: ways of participating in second language acquisition/Dat Bao. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4411-0270-6 (hardback) -- ISBN 978-1-4411-2853-9 (epub) -ISBN 978-1-4411-3622-0 (epdf) 1. Language and languages--Study and teaching. 2. Silence. 3. Second language acquisition. 4. Language and culture. I. Title. P51.B354 2014 418.0071--dc23 2013039850

Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN Printed and bound in Great Britain

Contents Foreword Acknowledgements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Repositioning Silence Australian Perspectives on Silence Chinese Perspectives on Silence Japanese Perspectives on Silence Korean Perspectives on Silence Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

References Index

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 5

vi viii 1 27 45 71 89 115 133 149 191 225

10/12/2013 09:04

Foreword This is a book which has been needed for a long time. Silence has been neglected in the mainstream literature on second language acquisition and on the methodology of teaching a second or foreign language. If you look for silence in the index of a book on second language acquisition you might find reference to ‘the silent period’ but you are highly unlikely to find reference to ‘silence’. If you search an index for a book on methodology you might find reference to ‘the silent way’ but not to ‘silence’. As a result of this neglect teachers in training have not been educated to understand and appreciate the role of silence in language learning and teachers in the classroom have misinterpreted learner silence as a signal of laziness, or face saving or ignorance, or of reticence to participate. In other words they have treated silence as a negative phenomenon and have been unaware of how it can contribute positively to language acquisition. What Bao Dat has done is to correct the misunderstandings about silence in language learning by reporting literature which does explain it and suggest ways of making use of it, as well as by conducting research in a number of countries which investigates the reasons and objectives for learner silence. What he has found is that, although silence can indicate reticence and can result from such negative factors as lack of self-esteem and lack of understanding, it is more often a positive indicator of a deliberate role being played in classroom communication, of inner speech being used in response to and preparation for language use and of mental processing of language taken in. This book makes a valuable contribution to the field by stimulating informed reflection and discussion about the reasons for and the roles played by learner silence, as well as by proposing a pedagogy which makes use of the potential of silence to facilitate language acquisition. I can only hope that after reading this book researchers will do further research on the value of learner silence, that teacher trainers will educate their trainees on what silence can do for learners and that materials developers and teachers will stop pushing premature and forced production of language. What I hope most of all is that opportunities will be built into activities for learners to make use of silence for interaction, for

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 6

10/12/2013 09:04

Foreword

vii

reflection, for self-monitoring, for retrieval, for preparation, for rehearsal and for processing of language. As Bao Dat demonstrates, there is a very important role for positive learner silence to play in the learning of a language. Brian Tomlinson TESOL Professor Anaheim University, Visiting Professor Leeds Metropolitan University, Founder and President of MATSDA

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 7

10/12/2013 09:04

Acknowledgements My foremost thank you goes to Pham Thuy Quynh for supporting my research in Vietnam, for attending to the logistic aspect of the project, and for practising help in patient and generous ways. I am deeply grateful to Wang Qian for assisting with in-depth interviews in Wuhan, China. Great thanks to Jin Zhaohui for reading part of the literature in Chinese and for presenting with me at a seminar which generated feedback for the Chinese chapter. I am thankful to Ayako Yoshimoto, Masae Uekusa, Satoru Morikawa and Yusuke Sasaki for assisting with the process of selecting participants in both Japan and Australia, for visiting libraries with me, and for assisting me in conducting a number of interviews in Japanese. I deeply appreciate the support from Lee Yoon-ji and Jay Im in selecting participants in Korea, reading part of the literature in Korean, and assisting with a number of interviews in Korean. My special thanks goes to Ester Jimena for organizing my visit to Central Philippines, for assisting with a number of interviews, and for encouraging me to write the chapter on silence from a teacher perspective. My great appreciation goes to Brian Tomlinson and Martin Cortazzi from whom for many years I have gained great inspiration and enthusiasm through sharing academic work. The project on silence conducted with Brian Tomlinson at Leeds Metropolitan University in the UK a decade ago has greatly inspired my decision to write this book. My deep gratitude is expressed towards Edoardo Nucci, Iqbal Muhammad, Nguyen Thi Thu Hien, Robyn Christiansz, and Vicky Singleton for kindly piloting an activity of mine in their everyday classrooms in Australia, Korea, Pakistan, and Vietnam, resulting in valuable feedback which contributed to a discussion in the last chapter of this book. Finally, I feel indebted to Ilia Leikin who proofread part of my typing; a special thanks goes to Bloomsbury staff for untiring responses to numerous email correspondences and for putting up with all my questions. In the competitive, challenging publication world where corporation names may change, your warmth and patience remain the same.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 8

10/12/2013 09:04

Acknowledgements

ix

My gratitude goes to all your humanitarian support, without which the book would not make the kind of impact that it, by any luck, is making. All these words of thanks for your awesomeness come from my real heart and none of them were sent from my iPhone. Dat Bao Melbourne, August 2013

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 9

10/12/2013 09:04

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 10

10/12/2013 09:04

1

Repositioning Silence

Imagine classrooms in a country where the most common method of learning and participation is the silent mode. Students speak concisely, pay attention to quietly processing thoughts, take notes, and share ideas through organized presentations. One day, a batch of students from across the sea comes to join these classes and they happen to be highly talkative individuals. This phenomenon raises major concerns in the educational system as it clashes with the teacher’s expectation of not only what in-depth learning means but also what is deemed to be appropriate behaviour. No matter how hard teachers try to keep these students behaving quietly, they refuse to do so. In addition, their talk seems to be of a lengthy, untimely, repetitive and disorganized nature. As learning becomes disrupted with unusual behaviour, scholars initiate research into what makes the students resist attentive learning and dominate classroom events. Seminars and conferences are organized to discuss ways to engage students in more thoughtful classroom processes. Academic articles and books are published on factors that lead to excessive, uncontrolled talk; teachers and curriculum developers feel frustrated and wonder what prevents students from behaving in accordance with mainstream mannerism. Strategies are proposed to support the students who, scholars believe, need help. Theorists even resort to Socratic traditions inherited by these students in order to explain the issue. This picture might confuse many of us who come from social and academic contexts where spontaneous classroom talk is the norm, based on the understanding that talk assists learning and promotes the sharing of experiences. By the same token, in countries where talk is employed sparingly and silent attentiveness is valued, making silence and reticence a big deal might confuse members of that culture as much. Although these students feel that they are misunderstood, they may not have the opportunity to explain the situation in the way I am explaining it to you here. As a matter of fact, members of cultures

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 1

10/12/2013 09:04

2

Understanding Silence and Reticence

in which pauses within speech often indicate thoughtfulness and wisdom may view members from voluble cultures as domineering, oppressive and obtrusive (Knapp, 2000). This awareness is raised to demonstrate the fact that one may need to be intellectually cautious when concluding which mode of learning, talk or silence, is superior. There has recently been a strong need to revisit these constructs and investigate the connection which has often been neglected: the relationship between silence and talk. Although this book focuses on silence, in the course of gathering empirical data it was discovered that silence cannot be understood without some connection with talk. The association between words and silence has historically divided Eastern and Western social, educational and academic attitudes over the past century towards regarding which is the more cherished mode of communication (Oliver, 1971; Okabe, 1983; Barnlund, 1989; Gudykunst and Nishida, 1994; Zembylas, 2008; Belanoff, 2001). While in some Oriental cultures silence may be required to express a role or voice, in many Western contexts the obsession with words sometimes causes one to be intolerant towards silence and view the wordless person as subordinate, or, in Karmen’s (2001, p. 4) words, as being ‘inadequately educated’. The divide between silence and talk in intercultural encounters also marks the separation between ‘we’ and ‘the other’ in which a group of people could be ‘we’ or not depending on the context they come from. In educational settings where students are encouraged to be verbally expressive, silence becomes a distant behaviour that characterizes the other, not ‘us’; whereas in educational cultures where students are quietly cultivated, silence reflects ‘us’ while talk symbolizes the other. In other words, silence may be viewed as either positive or disruptive behaviour depending on its place in the value catalogue of a culture. The debate over whether silence and talk should take more priority will never be settled with reconciliation across all contexts. Since the hierarchy of silence and talk is not the same across different cultural systems, one thoughtful way to understand silence is to locate it within its sociocultural, educational and historical context, and in relation to the people who exercise it. Silence is profoundly connected to social norms, which dictate when to remain silent and when best to speak. Unfortunately, social norms differ vastly across different societies, so that the time deemed for silence in one culture may happen to demand talk in another. One example of such a vast difference is class time. In Japan, much of class time requires students’ attentive, cultivated silence (Kenny, 2011), while Australian classrooms encourage students’ dynamic verbal debate (Dufficy, 2005). Silent students would be as disturbing to lecturers in Australia as talkative students would be disturbing to lecturers in Japan, because

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 2

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

3

it is irregular behaviour that upsets the norm, troubles desirable communication and damages relationships. Such behaviour does not only serve learning preferences but it is also important to be aware that the major task of classrooms and educational institutions is to facilitate the acquisition of relevant, essential skills for students to get along with and build their society. If, as in Japanese culture, talk is sometimes considered inferior to action (which is better performed in silence), then in Australian culture silence, in many cases, is treated as inferior to talk, which lays the foundation for action. Because of such complexities in how silence is organized in relation to broader social elements, it is difficult to interpret silence in a vacuum but it needs to be studied in conjunction with other contextual foundations to be understood. For the above reasons, instead of asking what silence means in a situation it is more helpful to find out whether silence functions in that situation. If a student stays quiet during a classroom debate, instead of asking what this student really wants, it may be better to see whether the student’s silence plays a role in the debate. If the answer is yes (such as leaving room for others to talk, not wanting to share ideas, taking care not to openly disagree with everybody), silence in that case has performed a social function clearly known to the silent person. The fact that those learning functions are not known to outsiders, in this case the teacher and other students, does not necessarily mean that the silent student has a problem and needs help. Although today silence is no longer a neglected area of discourse and research as mentioned, three decades ago (see, for example, Tannen and Saville-Troike, 1985; Kenny 2011), the present discourse on silence contains a number of theoretical and practical gaps. First, silence has not been adequately connected to second language acquisition research, apart from the discourse which recognizes the roles of the silent period and inner speech in relation to learning. Second, there is hardly any principle that guides the incorporation of silence into school curriculum and classroom methodology as a learning mode. Third, silence has hardly been made part of teachers’ professional training and development programmes. Fourth, silence remains a question of respecting a classroom behaviour which hopefully will be useful by itself without further proposals to maximize its learning effect. In fact, silence should not be equated with learning, on the assumption that when learners do not talk, internalization processes will happen automatically to boost learning. Instead, silence needs to be guided through as a pedagogically informed and well-designed task for it to become productive.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 3

10/12/2013 09:04

4

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Rationale of the book The motive for writing this book comes from my aspiration to develop silent engagement pedagogy based on empirical research data. Having worked for many years with Australian and international students, listening to their talk and examining their writings, I realized that not every individual who talks fluently demonstrates better academic skills than those who talk less freely. For this reason, relying solely on students’ verbal participation to judge their ability and learning enthusiasm would seem to be an inadequate approach to educational practice. Having said this, the book does not represent one type of culture to celebrate silence nor does it represent another culture to problematize silence. Instead, it hopes to place silence on its deserved footing by critiquing silence in its own right and, more pragmatically, reclaiming a justifiable place for productive silence in pedagogy. The students who produced data for this book admitted that they had never thought about analysing their inner speech until the interview took place, which organized for them to self-scrutinize their learning inclinations and become aware of available learning resources and skills. Some feel that to become successful L2 learners, they cannot wait for the teacher to understand their silence but need to use their favourite resources in autonomous ways, whether the teacher likes this or not. This view suggests that scholarly theorization based on scientific experimental research in laboratories is insufficient but, for real classroom process to be supportive, one needs to be aware of learners’ emotions, attitudes, experiences and the monologues that run through their minds when pedagogical actions are going on. The book develops with the learner in mind and views learners as legitimate negotiators for further pedagogical directions. The main substance for the work, therefore, is the participants’ experience as they look inwardly, reflect and elaborate on how they employ silent moments in learning and developing second language abilities, as well as when they resist silence as the wrong choice. One distinctive feature of the book is its interaction with a substantial body of silence discourse in academic publications which exist outside of the English speaking world. Six of the chapters in this book discuss the silent behaviour of six communities, with connections to the literature constructed by scholars from their respective countries. These resources have three characteristics. First, they are articles and books published in languages other than English, namely in Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese. Second, many of them have not been translated into English, have not interacted much with academic discourse

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 4

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

5

in English, and remain uncommon in Western academic circles. Third, they address silence from a local perspective as they position silence within and beyond its immediate sociocultural and educational context. The reason for not including much of the Western literature on silence when discussing Japanese, Chinese and other groups of students is because English language readers who are familiar with the current debate commonly known in the West may be more interested in silence as explored from another angle.

Focus of the book This is a book which addresses the role of silence in language learning and raises the awareness of how silence can contribute positively to language acquisition. Based on my own research conducted into the nature of learner silence across various contexts, my key argument is that silence does not represent the absence of talk but can be a way of talking and learning. Another key feature of the book is that it makes use of resources beyond the inner circle of English to discuss second language learning, acquisition, and pedagogy. I am hoping to make a contribution to the field by stimulating informed reflection on the roles played by learner silence, as well as by proposing a pedagogy which utilizes the potential of silence to facilitate language acquisition, especially in the use of silence for reflection, self-monitoring, and rehearsal of language use. Although this work draws upon ideas and reflections from research participants of Asian backgrounds such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino and Vietnamese, it is not simply about Asia. Part of it is about the interaction between the silent mode of learning within the background above and the educational context of Australia which requires these students to be more cognizant of how their learning mode functions in a new environment. In today’s educational context, where talk is overrated by many teachers as the noticeable evidence of communication, silence deserves more scholarly attention and interest. This work is founded on the reality that students differ in the way they develop: some learn well through sound while others absorb resources best in stillness and it is not whether one type of surrounding is superior to the other but which setting is best for which group and when. Being able to monitor talk and silence respectively for good purposes would be an exercise in self-regulated learning. Towards the end of the book, an approach termed as silent engagement pedagogy will be proposed, which requires language educators to understand

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 5

10/12/2013 09:04

6

Understanding Silence and Reticence

the nature and function of silence in order to apply it with impact. According to Hymes (1972a, p. 41), ‘in order to develop models, or theories, of the interaction of language and social life, there must be adequate descriptions of that interaction’. Likewise, to decide on an instructional model that employs silence, one needs to investigate an in-depth understanding of silence and how it really works. As clarified by Knapp (2000), someone is considered ‘silent’ when the person tends to speak less than other interlocutors or who during communication uses long pauses. The label ‘silent’, therefore, is relatively employed and does not mean that someone stays completely quiet. In the classroom, when a teacher perceives students as reticent, this might simply suggest that these students do not talk as much as the teacher would like them to. In many cases, students do talk in a measure they assume they should, which happens to mismatch the dosage preferred by the teacher.

Research contexts The decision to conduct research into the minds of participants from Chinese, Japanese and Korean cultures first of all comes from the fact that these cultures are known to have a high degree of tolerance towards silence. When members of a community feel tolerant towards an aspect of life and behaviour, they are likely to have reasons to support their view, and such justifications are worth investigating. This choice makes the task of exploring the connotation, value, and practice of silence more multidimensional and fascinating than conducting research in contexts where silence is frowned upon, because discomfort towards silence in educational settings might involve prejudice and prevent a neutral understanding of this construct. The second reason for this choice is that members of the above cultures have exercised diverse ways of being silent, making their experience potentially rich, thoughtful and, from a researcher’s standpoint, worth sharing. The third reason is a response to the fact that some of the existing silence discourse tends to summarize the behaviour of Chinese, Japanese and Korean students into one category and place the umbrella of Confucianism over it for convenient explanation. This approach is misleading because blending three cultures into a set of identical values not only negates the uniqueness of each culture but also prevents the understanding of complex human behaviour. In my experience, having worked with students from China, Japan and Korea over the past ten years, I have found vast differences in the thinking styles, behaviours, manners,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 6

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

7

tastes and world views among these groups. Even within one culture, various members may exhibit distinctive styles depending on domestic regions and upbringing profiles. The decision to look into Australian, Filipino and Vietnamese silence first was inspired by my experience with students from these backgrounds through teaching academic courses and conducting teacher development workshops. Such contact not only allowed a valuable rapport with members of these cultures but also encouraged my interest in further understanding students’ and teachers’ thinking processes. The second reason is my realization that these groups exhibit different behaviour and world views from their Chinese, Japanese and Korean counterparts, which would contribute diverse perspectives, experiences and insights to the topic of silence. Since many Australians and Filipinos I have worked with are highly verbal people, it is interesting to explore how they perceive and employ silence in their own ways. The motivation for researching on Vietnamese students derives from my research curiosity. During the early 2000s I had a chance to conduct a project on classroom reticence in a Vietnamese community, where students’ exposure to the rest of the world was limited. Over a decade, the fact that Vietnamese students have increasingly studied, travelled and worked overseas makes me wonder how such international exposure has modified Vietnamese perceptions towards the same topic.

Research perspective The six empirical studies discussed in this book adopt an epistemological reflective perspective and a dialogic inquiry perspective. In the epistemological reflective approach, the arguments and insights into silence are developed based on the validity of L2 learners’ engagement with silence rather than coming from the expert’s power claims. Directed by the dialogic inquiry tradition, the projects investigate silence through the diversity of communities, viewpoints and contexts. While each community of participants perceive the theme in their unique way, in the last chapter, their perception is also organized to interact with the perceptions of other communities. Without mediating for these diverse views to construct knowledge collaboratively, the book would not be able to provide the macro-level picture of silent engagement that it wishes to portray. In addition to the above, data from the studies also indicate the pedagogical direction of how silence should be employed, treated and supported in order to improve second language learning and acquisition. In this way, the studies

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 7

10/12/2013 09:04

8

Understanding Silence and Reticence

not only include narrative and interpretation but also propose adaptation and change for better classroom processes. The ideology of improving practice is the heart of the epistemological reflective research tradition. As Rolfe and Gardner (2006, p. 599) put it, such research has an ‘actively emancipatory’ intention rather than a ‘self-surveillance’ nature.

Connecting with current social theories Investigating the metacognitive processes in the minds of over 100 individuals in educational settings with connection to the broader societies in order to explain silence is a complex and challenging task. Since the work aims at advancing the scholarly understanding of a socio-educational phenomenon, it would not be ethically sound to neglect the views and ideologies of other social researchers whom I equate with in terms of methods of discovery, critical thinking and interdisciplinary interaction. My interest in drawing resources from six distinctive settings in order to understand one single phenomenon is not a coincidence. It comes from the aspiration to discover how the meanings of silence are contextualized, negotiated and constructed. This understanding of reality from more than one angle goes along the lines of Chen’s (2010) proposal to approach the subject of research by moving away from the imperialistic perspective and by multiplying theoretical frames of reference for an in-depth understanding of issues under study. In education, this view coincides significantly with the key concepts in the area of developmental instruction, an approach which argues against the imposition of any single superior mode on students and thus falling into reductionism; and which promotes learning in a wide variety of ways to assist learners in reaching their full potential. Developmental education highlights the need to empower learners through developing new ways of learning, knowing and reasoning (Chickering, 1969; 1993). In a recent book entitled Asia as Method, Chen (2010) carries on the momentum of an appeal initiated by Kao and Sinha (1997) and a group of social scholars over a decade ago to stretch beyond the West in academic research. In Kao and Sinha’s edited book Asian Perspectives on Psychology, 26 academics voice their collective response to the fact that researchers in the Anglo-West, despite being a minority, tend to overlook the enormous body of research and discourse knowledge produced in non-English language publications. Guided by this ideology, non-Western theoretical resources are

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 8

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

9

introduced and discussed to highlight one reality: what was not written in English and happened to be inaccessible among readers of English is often considered as non-existent in academic discourse and is left outside of professional dialogues. Based on this awareness there is the need to conduct research with connection to relevant local literature in the field. This may involve considering whether the discourse on a topic is constructed by scholars with experience and a track record related to that topic. For example, an expert who discusses Confucian cultures might need to have direct experience with East Asian societies to observe the modifiability of their values in the modern-day context, because making top-down judgement by simply reading books without the actual sociocultural exposure might amount to academic colonialism. Besides, it is essential to consider the question of whose views are dominant and whose voices have been left out. In many cases, researching a community through consultation with relevant resources in the culture and language of that community would help avoid an imperialistic view and gain thoughtful neutrality. Exemplary cases of scholars who practise this philosophy are Tomlinson (2005), Cortazzi and Jin (2006a), who construct knowledge and theorization based on commitment to empirical research and first-hand experiences with local contexts. As an Asian scholar who lectures in an Australian university, I feel that it is my responsibility to serve as a sliding door that facilitates a dialogue between the East and the West in educating my students. Upon reading Chen’s work, I realized that he too was concerned with the ethical question of how researchers have often slanted excessively towards Western resources when researching about the world. In today’s context of internationalized education, the hierarchy between Western and non-Western knowledge continues to be strong. In unwritten institutional practices, Asian scholars educated in the West are often graded above their counterparts educated in Asia and, according to Chun and Shamsul (2001), those with Western degrees who returned to Asia are often treated as ‘the vanguard of indigenous scholarship’ (p. 168). It might be helpful to challenge the dominance of Western knowledge with a proposed agenda that appeals for academic theorists to look beyond where we stand and locate new resources to enhance the existing body of knowledge. Insofar as one begins to see this as a collaborative responsibility, richer academic interaction will be more likely to happen. There is the need to engage in a collective dialogue within the imagined community together with other Eastern and Western scholars including Chen (2010), Chickering (1969), Yoshikawa (1987), Enriquez (1997), Davydov (1995), Kao and Sinha (1997), Margolis

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 9

10/12/2013 09:04

10

Understanding Silence and Reticence

(1996b), Creswell, (2008) and Merriam (2009), among numerous others who have created academic theories in support of this view. Another worthwhile concern, which should be considered to strengthen research capacity among both Western and non-Western academics, would be the important place of languages other than English in empirical inquiry. Language as defined by Malinowski (1923) is not just a tool for information or translation, which would be too simplistic, but rather it includes numerous pieces of behaviour with their own unique meaning. The English language, despite its globally convenient role, might not always be helpful, if not too narrow, in obtaining empirical research data from the non-English-speaking world. For instance, the role of the Japanese language has proved to be essential for a project discussed in this book. The study would not have been able to achieve its depth if the interviews for data collection had been conducted completely in English – some part of the participants’ thinking could have been denied and vanished in what would have been significant resources of academic knowledge.

Interpreting silence discourse Silence became an important theme in the discourse of anthropology, psycholinguistics and communication since the early 1970s with the works of Basso (1970), Bruneau (1973), Noelle-Neumann (1974), Johannesen (1974), among others, that provided insights into the complex meanings of silence and appealed for further research commitment. The 1980s continued to see increasing awareness of silence as a statement of refusal to communicate (Wardhaugh, 1985), a form of control and resistance in classroom settings (Gilmore, 1985), and as multiplicity of meanings in speech communication (Tannen and SavilleTroike, 1985). Silence can be religious when it attends to space in the mind. Similar to the need for physical space away from the crowd and disruption to relaxation, humans occasionally need to take a break from the speeches of others for the mental space to renew brain power and generate fresh ideas. In visual arts, music and environmental science, silence can become visual and spatial, being employed to draw attention to important elements and serve various social, artistic and pragmatic functions (Ollin, 2008). In communication, a pause can serve as inner time for one to absorb and reflect (Bruneau, 1973); and silence can also be a voice, which ‘can “say” something merely by leaving something

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 10

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

11

unsaid’ (Zembylas, 2004, p. 194). Silence can be defined as a permanent trait, that is, part of one’s personality, or as situational behaviour, resulting from changes in circumstances. Silence can be a meaningful communication strategy with clear motives such as defiance, objection, disagreement, consideration, among other intentions; or it can be meaningless, simply suggesting, as Jaworski and Sachdev (1998) put it, an ‘absence of noise’ (p. 274). Due to its diverse roles, silence is classified by Bruneau (1973) into three forms, namely psycholinguistic silence, interactive silence and sociocultural silence. Psycholinguistic silence refers to hesitation or discontinuity of speech in order to include supplementary meanings in speech and to assist the decoding process, very much in the same way as punctuation functions in writing. Interactive silence is employed to acquire attention, reflection, interpretation, and judgement from others, to provide space for thinking, responses or appreciation, and even to establish or prevent further development of relationship. If exercised properly, this type of silence can serve as a learning tool. Sociocultural silence is part of the cultural patterns of communication within a society which can be highly valued and, depending on contexts of use, might have various communicative functions such as demonstrating acceptance, faith, respect, protest, power, and other social attitudes. Silence may be positive or negative. In societies where talk is the norm, silence is connected with undesirable values (Tatar, 2005b) and silent students might be seen as passive observers (Lieberman, 1984) who are ‘inadequately educated’, who lack ‘independent thinking’ skills and who do not respect the teacher (Liu, 2002, pp. 39–52). Silence can be used as a discriminating tool against the teacher when students resist a certain style of teaching or a certain type of teacher (Ladson-Billings, 1996), and when students resist the verbal interaction among peers (Schultz, 2009). In societies where silence is valued, it is perceived as having equal significance to speaking because it provides space for reflection on the communicated word (Zembylas, 2004). It also serves as an indication of respect, harmony, ‘attentive listening and active thinking’ (Liu, 2002, p. 48). According to Remedios et al. (2008), the concept ‘silence’ among students does not necessarily refer to complete quietness but is also employed loosely to denote minimal talk during classroom discussion. Furthermore, scholarly efforts have been made to look at silence and talk in more complex ways than simply treating them as sound and muteness. Silence itself can be a form of talk. If talk is sometimes referred to as externalized speech (Ridgway, 2009, p. 49) or interactive speech (Saito, 1992), silence is known as articulatory rehearsal mechanism, internalized speech (Ridgway, 2009, p. 49), subvocal

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 11

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

12

articulation (Rayner and Pollatsek, 1989), or internalization of speech patterns (Mitchell and Myles, 1998). Dealing with silence in education is dealing with a complex assortment of voices. Eventually silence might not be a proper term to encompass every phenomenon happening internally within the human mind. Silence can be classified in multiple manners and purposes, as much as talk can fall into meaningful talk, irrelevant talk, high-quality talk, low-quality talk (Edwards and Westgate, 1987), repetition, regurgitation, confirmation, discussion, debate, social chat, lecture, negotiation, critique, inquiry, negation and so on. If standard or normal accepted classroom talk is sometimes defined as ‘the speech of educated people’ (Edwards and Westgate, 1987, p. 28), then standard or normal, accepted classroom silence can also be defined as the silence of educated people. Without a good understanding of it, silence may turn out to be a disaster for the teacher in evaluating a learner’s need and ability as well as in making all the pedagogical decisions.

The spectrum of silence Silence has layers of meanings which might need to be peeled for assisting recognition. Such arrangement can be referred to as an act of ‘organizing silence’, a term used by Clair (1998, p. xiii) to suggest the need to achieve a more subtle understanding of the construct. Some key types of silence include the following: MM

MM

MM

MM

Active and passive silence (also known as busy or idle silence, Kenny, 2011) – the former happens when learners choose to be silent and the latter happens when one is unable or not allowed to speak. Conscious and subconscious silence – the former occurs when learners have a clear reason for not talking and the latter occurs when they become silent in an unintended manner that may be hard to explain. Weak and strong silence – the former is a form of punishment imposed on students if they misbehave; the latter, by contrast, allows personalized space for learners to develop interests and learning discovery (Bloom, 2009). Silence is also personalized in the sense that learners can skip details which they already know and focus only on the essence of their thought. Eventful silence – learners are guided through productive silence in a well-designed activity which requires thinking rehearsal and, if talk happens, it may interfere with learning. This silence also has a motivational

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 12

10/12/2013 09:04



MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

Repositioning Silence

13

value as it maintains goal-oriented behaviour and supports students’ performance. Decentralized silence – learners do not wish to follow the teacher’s instruction on how to learn but behave according to what the silent individuals are hoping to do. Confrontational silence – the act of keeping quiet demonstrates disapproval and low cooperation towards the teacher or the rest of the class. Uncooperative silence – happens when someone is talking and the other person uses silence as a way of refusing to be involved in the conversation. Misleading silence – occurs when hardly anyone else in the group except the silent person understands why he/she is not participating. Interpersonal silence – two interlocutors take turns leaving space for each other to talk or the two agree to work silently together for some time. This type of silence is mutually approved on the foundation of learning nature, cultural sensibility, or situational requirement. Eloquent silence – silence is intended to express or communicate a meaning (Agyekum, 2002; Sifianou 1997). Semiotic silence – silence is coupled with visual elements such as gestures, facial expressions, designs, colours, flowers and traditional artefacts which serve as ‘silent proverbs’, most of which require the cultural knowledge and ability to decode and interpret (Yankah, 1995; Agyekum, 2002, p. 43).

This knowledge about the multiple meanings of silence is useful in stimulating teachers’ mindfulness of what could be happening when students do not speak. The spectrum above can be employed as a worksheet for teachers to evaluate silence, so that every time the teacher gives some thought to the motive of learners’ silent behaviour it could become an opportunity for adjustment of pedagogical decisions.

Major distinctions between silence and reticence The first distinction lies in the question of motives. Silence is viewed as an aspect of language and a form of conversational dominance (Picard, 1948; Brown and Attardo, 2000). It parallels speech in achieving certain communicative tasks so that these two dimensions are complementary to each other (Jaworski, 1993). Silence, therefore, represents an indispensable layer of interpersonal discourse and is a natural part of conversational skills, accompanying speech to express

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 13

10/12/2013 09:04

14

Understanding Silence and Reticence

a variety of meanings and perform a range of language functions – including to comfort, to support, to accept, to attract attention, to negotiate power, to scold, to interrupt, to challenge and so on (Wardhaugh, 1992; Jaworski, 1993). Reticence, on the contrary, tends to suggest subordination or a potential handicap in activating such communicative skills. As interpreted from research, reticence indicates some level of reserve in speech that might fall in line with undesirable affective features such as shyness and communication apprehension (Evans, 1996). A second distinction has to do with their significance in educational settings. Silence can be a productive factor (Picard, 1948), which not only serves successful communication but also represents a set of skills to be learned and acquired (Jaworski, 1993; Wardhaugh, 1992). For example, silence is employed by the teacher as a positive strategy to allow wait time so that students will participate more effectively (Tomlinson, 2000; Evans, 1996). A reasonable amount of silence provided by the teacher can demonstrate adaptation teaching to the learning pace of learners, based on the understanding that the quickest way of learning is the students’ own way (Knibbeler, 1989). Reticence, on the contrary, does not indicate such supportive control; neither is it viewed as teacher strategy towards any particular communicative effect. Instead, it is often identified as the learners’ inadequate ability in self-expression (Burns and Joyce, 1997; Wu, 1991; Chen, 1985), a problem in verbal response to the learning situation (Tsui, 1996, p. 145), or a lack of initiative in negotiation of meanings (Ping, 2010). A third distinction concerns their on-going impact on language development. Silence may characterize a mentally active period during which learners go through the process of building up language proficiency – so that once this is acquired enough learners will begin to talk (Krashen, 1982; Burt and Dulay, 1983; Stevick, 1989). Reticence, meanwhile, does not embrace such preparedness that works towards linguistic facility. Instead, it is often recognized as an impediment to communication capabilities (Foss and Reitzel, 1988) and a source of disadvantage in second language improvement (Tsui, 1996; Allwright, 1984). Despite the above distinctions, the respective significance of silence and reticence might overlap to a considerable extent. Both of them can be employed in certain situations as avoidance (Kleinmann, 1977) or conflict-avoidance strategies (Jaworski, 1993). For example, Sprott (2000) reports a sad experience of a student who remains silent because the teacher fails to believe in her ability to contribute in the learning process. This account proves similar to how

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 14

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

15

reticence is recognized by Evans (1996) as a likely sign of social withdrawal and behavioural inhibition. These feelings sometimes result from a conflict between personal values inherent in a person’s identity and the otherness that is imperialistically imposed upon him or her (Nemiroff, 2000), a situation that tends to occur among people of non-dominant backgrounds, causing them to withdraw from the power of dominant social groups (Corson, 2001). In such dilemmas, silence or reticence often represents a negative reaction to undesirable circumstances that induce anxiety (Lehtonen et al., 1985; Phillips, 1991; Foss and Reitzel, 1988). Both silence and reticence, in many cases, also demonstrate communication breakdown (Yoneyama, 1999), a lack of ability to communicate, or failure of language (Tannen, 1985) stemming from shyness, anxiety or a lack of knowledge (Jaworski, 1993; Phillips, 1999; Buss, 1984; Tsui, 1996; Foss and Reitzel, 1988; Hilleson, 1996). Despite what we know, silence and reticence remain complex aspects of educational settings that are not always easy to identify. To this end, Malamah-Thomas (1996) and Jaworski (1993) suggest silence as a worthwhile object of linguistic investigation in the second language classroom as it sometimes causes confusion in which communication fails to be understood. Tsui (1996) also believes that reticence is worth examining further and suggests finding ways to help students cope with and overcome it to improve second language development.

Silence and the silent period The roles of the silent period, which were initially proposed by Dulay et al. (1982), are to build listening competence and concentrate on comprehension rather than language production. During this time, no sufficient competence exists (Krashen, 1995) and initiation of conversation does not happen (Saville-Troike, 1988). Utterances, if any, are limited to only brief imitations rather than spontaneous, creative or natural output (Dulay et al., 1982; Krashen, 1985). Silence, on the contrary, does not necessarily indicate low competence and the silent thinker may have reached a proficient command of the language but chooses to keep quiet for reasons other than the lack of verbal ability. In other words, the notion of silence itself is not limited to the silent period but the functions of silence in general can stretch throughout all stages of the L2 learning process. Theorization regarding the concept of the silent period remains largely unconfirmed for three main reasons. First, there is little consensus among

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 15

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

16

scholars about what this stage means. Some think it is a phase that will pass and learners’ speech will unfold naturally (Krashen, 1982); others believe that it may not pass and some learners will never speak the target language (Brown, 2002). Some maintain that this period lasts several months (Dulay et al., 1982); others suspect it may last forever. Some suggest that it is a time for comprehension of input to take place (Dulay et al., 1982); others indicate that this period occurs due to the lack of comprehension (Gibbon, 2006). Second, much conceptualization related to the silent period relies heavily on theorists’ own observation, intellectual reasoning and academic dialogues rather than being founded upon vigorous research efforts. Third, except a few scholars who acknowledge that the silent period may not apply to all learners due to differences in learners’ social and cognitive orientations (Ellis, 2012; SavilleTroike, 1988), most theorists attribute characteristics to the silent period as if all L2 learners are the same, which reduces silence to a homogeneous stage and neglects individuals’ potentially diverse involvements with this period. The awareness of learner differences, in fact, is a major factor in how well and how soon someone acquires a second language (Schmidt, 2010). Tomlinson (2001) is among the few scholars who point out that some learners can develop an L2 inner voice during the silent period, which would benefit L2 development. Inner speech, according to Saville-Troike (1987, 1988), might have both a reflective nature and a social nature. These views taken together suggest that the silent period may have a social nature and thus the boundary between silence and the silent period become less significant. For other scholars, the distinction between the two constructs remains relatively clear-cut because there is hardly any attempt to employ these two constructs alternately. In most discourse, the silent period is visible and observable as it is expected to happen before learners can speak L2, if they speak at all. Silence, on the contrary, seems vague and intriguing because it does not follow any expected period of time or behaviour pattern. In fact, there remains an overwhelming tendency to believe that silence, not the silent period, is connected to reflection, insights, problem solving, and learning (Bies, 2009).

Silence in relation to communicative competence According to Hymes (1967, 1972b), language competence comprises three elements: knowledge, ability and actual use. Although silence may allow space for the construction of knowledge and ability, it may not show evidence of the

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 16

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

17

actual use of language. The gap between silence and actual verbal communication, however, is not always clear-cut due to the existence of private speech and internalization. Private speech can happen in silence, through whispering to oneself or others, or in spoken and written form. It serves to draw one’s own attention (Frawley, 1997) and has a self-regulatory nature (John-Steiner, 1992). All of these skills are able to function thanks to learners’ exposure to social interaction and therefore it is hard to say that silence is far removed from verbal communication. Instead, the internal world and the social world can be quietly negotiated in learners’ mental processes. Such negotiation, which is known as internalization (Winegar, 1997), has the potential to become useful in future communication. Although it is commonly acknowledged that silence plays a role in monitoring language, it remains a mystery how exactly that role can help develop communication strategies. Strategic competence is the ability to make conversational plans and compensate for difficulties in verbal communication (Canale and Swain, 1980). Even though one can quietly internalize such strategies through attentive listening, observing others’ communication, and engaging in selfdirected speech, the development of such competence needs to be negotiated within the framework of language use (Bachman and Palmer, 1996). So far the relationship between silent observation and strategy development has rarely been a concern in second language acquisition research. Oxford (2001) argues that there is a connection between learning and social skills: those who are good at social communication strategies often tend to be good at language learning strategies. Based on this understanding, if silent learners develop effective ways to learn L2, they have potential to develop social skills. These abilities, which Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) refer to as interactional competence, require practical actions such as managing social introduction, turn-taking, initiation of talk, closing conversation, changing topics, interrupting, recognizing the difference between the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) social norms, and so on. Someone who remains silent from such practice may experience difficulty in communication. One may need to keep in mind that silence, in a similar vein to talk, is not context-free. If talk has to be socioculturally appropriate depending on who, where, when, what role and what content, silence as part of language also shares similar needs in order for one to be welcomed, accepted, valued and understood rather than to cause confusion and misinterpretation. Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) maintain that social competence includes factors such as power, politeness and cultural awareness. Arguably, if these elements play a role in how

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 17

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

18

one communicates through talk, they must also play a role in how one appropriately keeps silent. In other words, to keep silent cannot be a decision made by the silent language user alone but is contingent upon social situations. In the context of the classroom where the regulation to moderate between silence and talk is negotiated and co-decided by both the teachers and students, silence needs to take place within the expectation of the class society rather than occur accidentally. The rationale for researching silence cannot be emphasized enough: learner silence is an issue that has entered into almost every teacher’s mind ever since teachers stepped into the classroom at an early stage of their career wondering about the reason behind learner silence and how that may affect the quality and nature of teaching performance. Compared with knowledge of verbal communication, knowledge about silence remains minimal despite increasing bodies of research and discourse on this topic over the past five decades. Not unlike talk, silence constitutes a significant part of classroom behaviour. One can transcribe talk but it is impossible to transcribe silence unless it is translated into words. Suppose scientists were capable of inventing a micro-device that could be planted in the head of every learner, the recording from that device would be even noisier than any recording of talk. Unfortunately language teachers are not trained to observe silence, let alone to listen to and manage it.

The place of silence in second language acquisition (SLA) More research on silence has come from other disciplines including psychology and sociology rather than research in second language acquisition. Although the discourse has embraced rich discussion on the silent period (Krashen, 1985), the inner-speech stage (Vygotsky, 1986), internalization (Winegar, 1997), private speech (Saville-Troike, 1988), and inner voice (Tomlinson, 2001), it has been acknowledged that today’s research on inner speech is not much easier than such research in Vygotsky’s time (Ehrich, 2006). Given all the subtleties and complexities of human talk that make it hard to investigate (Edwards and Westgate, 1987), research on silence is many times more difficult, as there is virtually no scientific method to transcribe silence. As a constantly evolving discipline in the fields of linguistics and psycholinguistics, second language acquisition was initially concerned with cognition and over the years has moved to exploring affect (Chambers, 2007) as well as other areas in language development. Despite such dynamics, the role of silence in L2

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 18

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

19

education has been treated with great caution and, as far as research findings are concerned, has hardly been connected to learning abilities in optimistic ways. Scholarly research in the 1970s pointed out that children who remain reticent in class were often perceived as socially and intellectually incompetent (Gordon and Thomas, 1967) as they make poorer school progress than their peers (Feshbach et al., 1974; Stevenson et al., 1976; Colligan, 1979). In fact, silence in SLA discourse until the 1980s was mentioned as resistance to speech (Harder, 1980), difficulty in performance and lack of comprehension (Dulay et al., 1982; Gibbons, 1985). While acknowledging silence as the initial stage of language study, SLA scholarly research until recently remained uncertain about how to proceed to address the continuing role of silence in the ‘post-silent era’ – a term which indicates the end of the silent film era and which is mentioned to criticize how excessive talk can weaken the subtlety of communicative silence. Although this debate in the movie industry seems irrelevant to language learning, it reminds us that silence should be seen as more than just a period when we were hopeless due to the inability to produce speech and that silence continues to play a significant role in L2 development. In fact, SLA shows less interest in private speech than overt production (Saville-Troike, 1988) and seems ‘insufficiently curious about silence as part of the second language learning process’ (Granger, 2004, p. 30). This discussion is not a literature review of silence. Instead, it is a wellinformed, creative attempt to position silence along with potentially connectable theories, awareness and debate in second language acquisition. Historically, the cognitive revolution in psychology in the 1950s resisted the dominant behaviourist view at the time by highlighting the need to understand the interior of the mind rather than observing the exterior behaviour. It analyses how the brain works through actively responding to information then manipulating, selecting, and storing it for future use; and emphasizes continuity of development rather than looking at development as stages. The works of cognitive psychologists have a strong impact on many other disciplines including second language acquisition. Within what became known as cognitive approaches to SLA, there is the need to look at mental processing (Ellis, 1999; Hulstijn, 2007). Arguably, there would be no understanding of how fluency is acquired unless one finds out how the process works that takes a learner to advanced L2 proficiency. Cognitive psychology hypotheses that L2 acquisition requires not only attention but also effort, which includes both implicit and explicit learning (Hulstijn, 2005; DeKeyser, 2003) as foundation for skills acquisition (Segalowitz, 2003). The development of interactionism during the 1980s stretched these

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 19

10/12/2013 09:04

20

Understanding Silence and Reticence

principles further with the argument that mental effort is insufficient but it is social interaction that provides conditions for language to be adjusted and enhanced. Based on this ideology, a great amount of research has moved in this direction to investigate how interaction enhances learning and indicates evidence of acquisition. In doing this, research and discourse tend to develop more interest in learners’ audible talk than in the inaudible speech in the mind. In fact, SLA pedagogy has historically been informed by research efforts in L2 speech production (Pickering, 2012). The tenet of L2 development has been founded on research on negotiation, feedback, instruction, conversation, interaction, errors, repair, input and recast, among others. The influence of the input-interaction-output model continues to be strong and the main foundation for SLA research is developed through the investigation of what happens with respect to input and output. Since learners’ verbal performance represents the evidence of output, researchers have been reluctant to link output with silence. This reality raises two burning questions: does research into L2 speech acquisition have to reply on audible output alone? How far can SLA scholars examine the internal process of verbal production? As far as the role of internal mechanism is concerned, scholars have looked at issues such as the channel between L1 and L2 development processes, neurocognitive processing comprising functions of declarative-procedural memory and explicit–implicit knowledge, interlanguage transfer, learners’ affective factors (Mitchell and Myles, 1998; Towell and Hawkins, 1994). Theories related to cognitive processing indicate that the mind will develop an L2 system autonomously once there is sufficient input and this process happens independently from the role of other mental functions such as visualization, attention, perception and so on (Putz and Sicola, 2010). This approach to L2 acquisition has been critiqued for being under-representative of learners’ real interactive experience in a broader social context. Learners’ cognitive processing takes place not only in silence but also during verbal communication (Jodlowiec, 2010), which makes it hard to connect the cognitive mind with silence alone.

Silence and L2 input Silence itself does not equal input processing but only becomes meaningful when there is exposure to comprehensible input and efforts are made towards L2 processing. Such efforts may include actions such as obtaining meaning from input, connecting form with meaning, noticing salient feature within input,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 20

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

21

resorting to L1 to translate or explain input, and forming concepts. Silence can be problematic when it comes from distraction, loss of interest, limited ability and poor connectedness with previous knowledge, all of which make learners become unproductive. Cognitive psychology throughout the 1970s and 1980s recognized that learning as well as memory can be implicit or explicit, subconscious or conscious. When learning becomes cognitively complex and demanding, the stimulus domain may be activated and when the rules seem simple and salient, learners will tend to resort to a more conscious mode. Scholars such as Reber (1967, 1993) and Krashen (1982) connect L2 acquisition success with implicit learning mechanism. It is indicated that the explicit knowledge source stores simple rules while the implicit knowledge source stores the complex data. Silence as learning space, arguably, has potential to be connected to such complex, implicit domain and much of this has not been empirically investigated in L2 acquisition. Not all types of silence benefit L2 development. Some silence facilitates SLA while others may not. Silence activates language input through attentive listening to begin with. The use of silence, however, varies among language learners depending on their abilities in employing silence for refreshing the mind, focusing attention, processing input and rehearsing language use. Even within each of these functions, learners might not demonstrate the same thinking behaviour. As Robinson (1997) argues, learners differ in their preferences in processing input, depending on implicit, explicit and incidental conditions of exposure. It has been acknowledged that for L2 development to be strong, comprehensible input in the second language should come in great quantity or high frequency. The richness of input, however, does not guarantee learning success but has to depend on how leaners receive it. When learners are exposed to input that is hard to understand, the mind has to work harder. According to Faerch and Kasper (1986), when input makes the mind struggle, it may not be the problem of the input itself but the struggle occurs because learners do not have sufficient knowledge to understand that input right away. It is believed that such comprehension difficulty provides negative feedback which benefits L2 acquisition (White, 1987). Without space for implicitly processing such demanding data, it would be impossible for learners to cope with new language and develop their competence further. It is useful to note that language input is processed internally whether one is silent or verbalising. While some learners prefer to process L2 data through talk, other may do so in silence.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 21

10/12/2013 09:04

22

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Silence and L2 output The relationship between silence and output remains insignificant in SLA discourse. As a result, very little is known about how preverbal messages are processed in the mind. Preverbal messages are part of the conceptualization stage of language processing, which precedes the formulation and articulation stages in the speech production model proposed by Levelt (1989). According to the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), which reconciles the input and output hypotheses, face-to-face verbal interaction is connected to language learning as one of the key foundation for L2 acquisition. The theory emphasizes teacher– learner dynamics (Hall and Walsh, 2002) and peer interactive tasks (Ohta, 2001), both of which are centred on talk, such as who says what, who asks and who responds; while the relationship between teacher talk and learner inner-speech dynamics is often not mentioned. The connection between silent thinking and output will need further research to illuminate it. Within what is available in the current discourse, this discussion will not be more ambitious than triggering a number of fundamental concepts to hint at this potential connection. Silence plays the role of monitoring the accuracy of potential output. Such output may be language used for real communication in natural settings; it can be controlled or spontaneous classroom practice. The effect of output practice is undeniable in language development because it leads to proceduralized and eventually automatized knowledge. Much of such processing towards output is known as mental rehearsal, which according to empirical research by De Guerrero (1991) has seven characteristics: ideational (creating thoughts), mnemonic (memorizing or retrieving words from memory), textual (organizing structure of a text), instructional (applying linguistic rules), evaluative (monitoring and self-correcting language), interpersonal (visualizing how to talk with others), and intrapersonal (practising inner speech). A second role of active silent processing in relation to L2 output is that it facilitates recalls and mental experiment during cognitively demanding tasks, both of which benefit L2 development. According to Ellis (2005), when learners struggle to produce output which is beyond their existing ability, they employ explicit knowledge of L2 structure to scaffold and construct utterances, and one way of monitoring and testing the value of an utterance is by saying it to oneself. This act of self-talk can be considered as one way of using silence. Silence does not have to be complete muteness but most importantly, it can be employed for whispering or mental rehearsal. Research shows that many L2 learners practise spontaneously speaking to themselves for years without realizing that

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 22

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

23

they have such skills and habits (De Guerrero, 1991). According to Innocenti (2002, p. 62), ‘most of the words we use in our inner speech, before speaking or writing a sentence, exist in auditory or visual images in our consciousness’. The nature of such practice is that learners are not aware of how silence is used and it is educators’ responsibility to raise this understanding as a learning strategy. It has been widely acknowledged that purposeful attention and awareness play important roles in language-learning success (McLaughlin, 1990; Schmidt, 1990; Long, 1990). A third role of mental rehearsal is that it supports the enhancement of motor performance, especially through the use of kinaesthetic imageries (Ryan and Simon, 1982; Woolfolk et al., 1985; Decety and Ingvar, 1990). Vygotsky (1987) believes that humans do not deal directly with the physical world but rely on mediating tools. Arguably, our mental facility to control the surroundings can be regarded as one such tool. As Lantolf (2000) indicates, mental rehearsal as private practice plays a supporting role towards tasks that involve the use of L2 ‘where the primary goal is not learning but performance’ (p. 88). While it is commonly known that explicit knowledge is developed through learners’ conscious efforts to comprehend and construct meanings, and implicit knowledge is developed during fluent language production, there is real potential for the latter to improve through internalized processes. The human mind, in fact, has the ability to connect the physical world with mental manipulation and learn from this process to evaluate tentative action. Lantolf and Centeno-Cortes (2007) provide an analogy of how one can mentally rearrange furniture in a room in a similar fashion as one would perform this task in the real world, and argues that this ability has relevant, flexible applicability to language learning. Although it is often acknowledged that implicit, subconscious conditions of learning, rather than conscious awareness, build foundation for productive verbalization, Robinson (1997) discovered in a study that learners with good grammar sensitivity have the ability to transfer explicit knowledge to verbalization, which means that there is a connection between what we know, how we think and how much we can perform in language. In other words, the mind and verbal mechanism have such strong association that in many cases it is possible to speak an L2 well even though one may not articulate L2 frequently. The following anecdote demonstrates the above awareness. During the early 1990s I was working as a cultural assistant for the School for International Training, which was based in Brattleboro, Vermont. My job was to guide heritage students, who were Vietnamese descendants but were born and grew up in the US. Working with the director of the programme, I helped arrange

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 23

10/12/2013 09:04

24

Understanding Silence and Reticence

for this group to learn the Vietnamese language and study Vietnamese culture during an overseas semester in Vietnam. An interesting case caught my attention. One of our students, Damon, who all his life had spoken only English, both in the home and at school, after being in the country for three weeks began to speak Vietnamese with a surprising degree of fluency. Although Damon grew up listening to Vietnamese now and then, he had never actually spoken the language. It was in Vietnam that, for the first time in his life, he attempted to speak Vietnamese and succeeded to an incredible extent. As the event demonstrates, the language acquisition process in fact happened within Damon’s mind for 20 years completely in silent listening. This phenomenon suggests that there is more potential for the use of learners’ silent mind than empirical research in SLA has explored. According to German psychologist and philosopher Willhelm A. Wundt (1832–1920), language is a mental product comprising two dimensions: an internal domain and outer domain. The internal domain handles a mental process filled with imageries and silent speech (Thomas, 2010), which then get transformed into linguistic elements (Segalowitz and Trofimovich, 2012). Since language production is heavily monitored by the inner formulation system, focusing on speech production alone would amount to only a partial understanding of output. This could mean looking more at the outcome than the process while it is these internal learning processes that would further support scholarly explanations of L2 acquisition. Segalowitz and Trofimovich (2012) provide a useful list including various aspects of language that can be processed in the mind. These include words, sentences, structures, discourse, skills, emotions, thoughts, attention and even automaticity. This is not to mention other operational features such as L1-L2 transfer or switching, interaction of new and previous knowledge, drawing and applying rules, formulating questions, consulting an external resource, observing the speech of others, evaluating input, selecting notes to write down, picking up sociocultural signals and values, making judgement, attempting to overcome anxiety, error correction, speech repair and other types of language editing at different stages of learners’ proficiency development. All of these are subject to research attempts if the field is more interested in looking beyond spoken output as evidence of L2 development.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 24

10/12/2013 09:04



Repositioning Silence

25

Non-verbal influences on speech production L2 development can be triggered by three important non-verbal factors, namely perception, social surrounding, and interlanguage thinking. The first factor is learners’ perception in the mind. There is a logical connection between learners’ linguistic insight and their production (Pickering 2012), in the sense that improvement in thinking has potential to bring out improved verbal output. If the mind is well nurtured to rehearse and develop good processing skills, what the mind produces would reflect on the quality of speech. This internal–external transfer may work effectively with content and linguistic structures rather than in physical and motor performance. For example, it may not happen strongly in the case of accurate phonological production when learners are constrained by difficulty in articulating certain syllable types (Flege, 1981) and pitch level to denote tones (Willems, 1982). The second factor is comfort with the social surrounding where learning takes place, which plays a role in how well one learns and develops language competence. A study by Hansen (2006) demonstrates that language learners develop L2 proficiency best when they feel contented rather than restless, and that social constraints have a damaging effect on their language development. This understanding suggests that learners who are forced to behave in ways they feel uncomfortable are likely to make slow L2 learning progress as their learning mechanism does not operate naturally. The third factor is the ability to use interlanguage, that is to say, employing useful features of the mother tongue to improve L2 communication. The mother tongue, which operates in ways inaudible to other interlocutors, may generate resources to process new information in the target language, which means that what learners have in their L1 system as a reasoning device can be used to process information in the target language. Making learners frequently speak out in the target language without allowing this interlanguage processing is to demand L2 production too early and this may take away learners’ opportunity for enhancing their learning repertoire.

Conclusion This chapter has highlighted a number of theoretical resources, such as the roles of inner speech and internalization, to name a few, which can support the understanding of silence to some degree. Although silence has rich potential

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 25

10/12/2013 09:04

26

Understanding Silence and Reticence

for L2 learning and development, at the present moment empirical research evidence remains insufficient to illuminate the role of silence in SLA. This book attempts to bridge this gap by constructing a picture of how the mind works towards L2 learning and development. It is obligatory to acknowledge that the investigation will be of a predominantly in-depth qualitative and anecdotal nature rather than attempt a scientific research project in its orthodox sense. With this understanding in mind, the next chapters will introduce a number of studies conducted into learners’ perception and use of silence in L2 classroom settings. Efforts are made to examine the mental process of verbal production by specifically finding out what learning functions are implemented and what happens during that implementation. Although learners may not be conscious of how they employ silence, stories of how they process L2 input and output are documented, founded on the understanding that the roles and methods of silence may reveal the route taken by learners towards L2 development. Besides, it would be helpful to see, from the learner’s point of view, what behaviour of the silent mind seems productive and which behaviour is unhelpful within the relevant learning contexts. Simultaneously, the empirical studies conducted for this book would also like to find out whether participants view silence as a long-lasting learning tool or as a temporary stage that eventually should be minimized.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 26

10/12/2013 09:04

2

Australian Perspectives on Silence

This chapter reports on an interpretive case study through in-depth interviews with ten university students in Australia regarding their engagement with silence in second language learning. The motivation for selecting this topic comes from the author’s six years of experience teaching Australian students, as well as the need to rethink the conventional dichotomy between many Asian cultures of learning which internalize silence as a virtue and the Australian academic culture which tends to perceive silence as a complication. Since a great deal of scholarly discourse on silent behaviour in the classroom often gathers research data from Asian students and views Asian cultures as the foundation of silence, the discussion hopes to contribute to the field of second language education with additional perspectives on silence collected from Western students. Such extension is important for the development of a liberal education in today’s increasingly globalized environment.

Language learning needs in Australia Bilingual education was first introduced in Australia during the 1980s (Carder, 2008). The main focus of language education policy was to combine teaching language with teaching content, which was influenced by the language-content integration ideology in the UK at the time. Bilingual practice however, remains superficial due to educators’ underestimation of students’ LOTE (languages other than English) backgrounds in supporting students’ cognitive, affective and social development (Davison, 2001). In a multicultural society such as Australia, language learning has the role of fostering understanding and acceptability towards diversity (Ingram et al., 2004). Language learning in the Australian context lays emphasis on the ability to express oneself through both speech and writing (see, for example, Cross, 2011). Research conducted before

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 27

10/12/2013 09:04

28

Understanding Silence and Reticence

the 1970s shows that large numbers of students in Australia suffered from verbal communication apprehension (Klopf and Cambra, 1979) and such behaviour, according to McCroskey (1970), had a negative impact on individuals’ academic and social development. Over the decades, Australian education has come a long way in helping students to develop more effective communication skills as well as increased confidence in verbal self-expression. The emphasis on verbal skills, however, does not necessarily mean the role of silence should be denied but might need a second thought. The nature of silence in language learning deserves more attention than simply looking into Asian contexts where silence is in many cases acceptable and appreciated.

Australian perspectives on silence Most research conducted into how silence is practised in the Australian educational contexts often avoids discussing Australian locals but tends to treat silence as a ‘smuggled’ concept. It focuses on students of other descents rather than those of local Australian upbringing (Renshaw and Volet, 1995; Kennedy, 2002; Remedios et al., 2008). Silence, as a matter of fact, used to be an issue of concern in the history of Australian education. Traditionally, Australian classrooms were deeply teacher dominated and students’ voices were rarely heard unless encouraged by the teacher (Ellwood and Nakane, 2009). Research studies conducted in educational psychology (Biggs, 1987, 1990; Watkins et al., 1991) revealed that a number of Australian students, until two decades ago, were still prone to rote-learning strategies; something that would surprise many of us who are exposed to today’s highly verbal classroom styles in this country. Since late 1960, Australia became more influenced by the language across the curriculum movement in Britain (Britton, 1970; Rosen and Rosen, 1973; Barnes, 1976), as well as the British educational ideology which advocated the value of knowledge and understanding as built through verbal interaction (Mercer, 1995; Barnes, 1976; Flowerdew and Miller, 1995; Cameron, 2000). Because of this shift, silence among local Australians remains an underresearched area, and pedagogical silence as a tool or space for learning is not a common concept in Australian education. Silence, until recently, has been abandoned as a research topic because many educators often recognize it as inferior to talk. Individuals who remain silent or silenced are framed within the needy and at-risk group (see, for example, Cheeseman, 2007). In the Australian classroom it is often interpreted as a lack of critical thinking skills (Ellwood,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 28

10/12/2013 09:04



Australian Perspectives on Silence

29

2009), lack of learning (Remedios et al., 2008), failure to learn (Smith et al., 2005), low literacy skills, restricted ability to negotiate meaning and knowledge (Schirato and Yell, 2000), lack of competence or commitment (Ellwood and Nakane, 2009), low competence, poor cooperation, and a source of insecurity and discomfort to teachers (Nakane, 2006). In an empirical study conducted by Ellwood and Nakane (2009), lecturers in an Australian university expressed the feeling that students’ silence suggests a lack of communication and admitted that students’ silence often makes the teaching job difficult. Silence, in addition, also takes on a political meaning, generally signalling inhibition (Millei and Lee, 2007), resistance (Macnaughton, 2001) and barrier to involvement (Cheeseman, 2007). Discourse on silence in the Australian educational context is commonly connected with the question of equity in which the tension created by silence tends to mean the lack of conditions for expressing one’s voice, resulting in some degree of damage to social equity. Being silent is not a virtue but is often recognized as an obstacle to self-expression and restricted access to equal opportunities. Furthermore, silence often signifies vulnerability to low self-esteem and oppression. For the above reasons, teachers prefer to see students open up and speak out to demonstrate the evidence of learning engagement. Being brought up in families and educated in schools where verbal openness is the norm, many students learned to assume that classroom peers who come from other cultures and who do not talk much are simply incapable of expressing themselves, rather than recognize a different value formula with regards to talk and silence. This assumption might amount to the lack of intercultural appreciation as well as a restriction of students’ ability to interpret the world. This mentality, according to Dieterich (1973), is a kind of silence: silence towards knowledge and cultural interchange with others. The sharp distinction between talk and silence has thus divided cultures into separate compartments of misunderstanding. Silence, in fact, does not always have a negative connotation and it would be oversimplistic to assume that Australian students always talk and Asian students are always silent. Silence occurs among many Australian students and it has been perceived both as a dilemma and a choice. As far as problematic silence is concerned, recent research attempts have begun to shed light on the reality that a number of Australian students suffer from undesirable silence in many classroom settings. Studies conducted by Fassinger (1995) and Remedios et al. (2008), among others, indicate that the silent behaviour among Australian students during collaborative discussions in many cases results from constraints such as low

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 29

10/12/2013 09:04

30

Understanding Silence and Reticence

confidence, lack of relevant knowledge, inhibition by more competent peers, avoiding the risk of errors, dissatisfaction with the teacher and the struggle to understand academic content. Such findings are comparable to research studies conducted in North American educational contexts, where it was found that silence denotes social phobia (Miranda, 2008), inhibition (Brunschwig, 1991), self-perception of incompetence and the need for protecting dignity (Hall, 2007). Today’s Australian educational culture emphasizes that the cognitive domain in students’ minds is challenged through the practice of classroom dialogue (Dufficy, 2005). It is through verbal discussion that students build active learning partnership, critical listening, respect for others’ viewpoints, the courage to voice individual concerns and the ability to discover problems in peers’ reasoning skills. Two of the four pillars of learning which construct successful education (namely learning to be, to do, to know and to live together) in Australia are oriented towards concrete communication (Winch-Dummett, 2006). The need to avoid ambiguity is considered very important in collaborative learning environments. Even when some children in school are not prone to speaking out much, they are encouraged to employ non-verbal language, such as facial expression, hand gestures, body posture and eye contact, in ways that would help teachers read what they want. To keep completely silent without any indication of intention and attitude is not encouraged as that would perpetuate misunderstanding, distance and undefinable pedagogical decisions. While this encouragement is significant in the sense that it makes messages between teachers and students more mutually accessible, its apparent drawback is that it focuses primarily on teacher performance: the ways in which students are guided to behave would aim to serve the teaching. Although it can be argued that appropriate teaching decisions would definitely benefit learning quality, in the multicultural behaviour setting of Australia, not every individual student would feel it best to communicate his or her intention outwardly. It is in many cases the teachers’ responsibility to develop their own intercultural knowledge and sensitivity towards various learners’ cultural repertoires to work with both types of students: those who are more and those who are less outwardly expressive. As far as intentional silence is concerned, Remedios et al. (2008) are among the few who, based on a longitudinal ethnographic study, recognize silent participation as a mode of learning in the Australian educational contexts. They point out that there are Australian students who learn silently in collaborative learning contexts yet such invisible engagement tends to be neglected in

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 30

10/12/2013 09:04



Australian Perspectives on Silence

31

educational research, resulting in the void in literature to suggest how silence plays a role in education. Although the spoken word is valued in the schooling context of this country, not every individual Australian internalizes it as the best way to learn at all times. It was argued that the ‘pressure to speak when feeling under-prepared to do so is likely to interfere with learning’ (ibid., p. 212) and inhibit students’ ‘engagement with the classroom learning process’ (ibid., p. 210). The notion that silence signifies the lack of learning has been challenged by scholars such as Chalmers and Volet (1997), Remedios et al. (2008), Moust et al. (1987), among others. Research conducted in North America on silent American students occasionally points to a similar direction in which a number of students demonstrate a less verbal style in order to focus more on the quality of their thinking. Wilson (2004), for example, reports an incident in which a bright student was seen to verbally engage the least frequently in a group discussion but data transcripts show that his contribution proved to be of the most thoughtful and interesting nature compared with his peers. The research study concludes that proactive students might be silently engaged: when non-vocal students ‘participate silently in critical talk’ (p. 209) they benefit greatly from the discussion in ways that are not documentable but should not be ignored. This understanding points to a direction where research on silence should focus more on the quality of silence in relation to talk rather than on the mere question of why someone is silent.

Background of participants Ten participants were invited to reflect on the use of silence in second language learning. Five male students (Eddie, Mircea, Michael, Paul and Shane) and five female students (Candace, Emily, Jessica, Helen and Lisa), mostly of Caucasian origins, were involved in this study. Except two who were born in other continents and who migrated to Australia at an early age, the rest were of AngloEuropean background, were born and had grown up in Australia. Culturally all the participants recognize themselves as Australian more than anything else. One person pursues an undergraduate degree in Asian studies and the rest of the group are graduate students who are undertaking various degrees mainly in arts and education. Each of them is a bilingual or multilingual speaker of one to several foreign languages, has extended experiences in learning L2 in classroom settings, and is aware of how they learn to develop their verbal skills in languages other than English.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 31

10/12/2013 09:04

32

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Research design This interpretive case study is based on grounded theory and a bottom-up approach in which data mainly come from the experiences of participants rather than from the researcher’s knowledge and perception. The main research questions include the following: 1. How is silence employed as a mode of learning among the Australian students? 2. In the students’ perceptions, what seem to be the strengths and weaknesses of silence? 3. How do silence and talk respectively allow the students to control their learning process? 4. Do the students prefer working with articulate or quiet peers? 5. What are some potential factors that influence their decision to verbalize or remain silent? 6. What are the conditions under which silence no longer serves as a learning mode but becomes reticence?

The researcher’s position Lecturing in the Australian classroom setting for six years and having never been a student in the country, I am both an insider and an outsider of the educational system. Serving as an insider I have developed knowledge and understanding of this context; being an outsider I am in the position to remain independent in my discussion of classroom behaviour. On the one hand, I am acutely aware of the need to refrain from telling the reader what I know. As Minichiello et al. (2008) suggest, it is important to abandon prior knowledge to keep qualitative research as unbiased as possible. On the other hand, I also understand that part of my interpretation might be unavoidably impressionistic and personal, which are features well recognized in interpretive research (see, for example, Bryman, 2008; Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). As Asher (1965) recognizes, it might be hard to always remain neutral in judgement. With this understanding in mind, great efforts have been made to be as loyal as possible to what the researcher listens to, an attitude which is essential in qualitative inquiry (Creswell, 2007).

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 32

10/12/2013 09:04



Australian Perspectives on Silence

33

Data collection method The main data gathering method is in-depth, intensive interviews with participants in their own settings, when the experiences of learning foreign languages are still fresh in their mind. The responses of participants to the researcher’s questions are of an individual, experiential and subjective nature. The importance of individuals’ experiences and opinions has been recognized by Knigge and Cope (2006). In this project, I am constantly reminded of the need to be sensitive to the culture and learning circumstances of my participants, as well as the works of other scholars that might be linked to this chapter. Trustworthiness is built through my conscious attempts to be loyal to the words of my participants. The main limitations of this project are that it is not suitable for large-scale generalization and that the ways in which data are analysed would be somewhat coloured by the researcher’s expert knowledge and experiences with the use of silence.

Data analysis Data analysis takes great care to be interpretive more than literal in reporting participants’ voices, which means looking beyond the surface of interviewees’ words and exploring significant values. Such caution and pursuit are highlighted by Wellington (2000) and Bryman (2004) as thoughtful ways to decode themes and meanings in empirical data. To explain participants’ perceptions, transcriptions of their responses to interview questions are processed through content analysis which involves detailed coding and categorization. These methods are well recommended by Cohen et al. (2011), Creswell (2008), Hess-Biber and Leavy (2004) and Maxwell (2005) as practical ways to capture participants’ beliefs.

Data discussion and findings Learning a second language through silence The majority of participants in this study count silence as a significant tool for L2 processing due to its worthwhile cognitive values in L2 learning contexts. As data indicate, although conversations are a common part of classroom practice,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 33

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

34

it is unrealistic to expect talk to happen regardless of learners’ need to handle a large part of new linguistic data in the mind. Paul spent four years learning Japanese, mostly through practice of Japanese characters, silent listening and reflection on what had been taught. Shane, who is relatively fluent in Korean, believes that he acquired Korean language skills during five years of more silence than talk. This includes reading, writing and listening to others as they discuss problematic areas, which gives him a chance to ‘punch the same thing’ in his own mind. Emily admits regularly talking silently in her head, proactively processing what she selects to learn, in the way that she finds most useful, a practice which may be unknown to the teacher. Candace and Helen value silence in that it allows the intellectual engagement. Helen spent seven years studying French mostly through silent engagement with written work, processing information presented and finding ways to establish association among various learning resources. Candace, who has studied Japanese since high school through intensive silence and limited talk, claims that silence enables her to formulate appropriate responses. She believes that the flaw of silence is that monitoring L2 often results in delayed communication, which she hopes the teacher would understand, tolerate and learn to manage. This struggle is elaborated in her own words: When I am silent, inside my head it is very noisy. I can hear myself talk, translate, and complete input. When an idea is proposed in L2, I have a full conversation or debate with myself in L1, which I then translate into L2. During that conversation and debate sentences are formed over and over again. This happens as a result of an inadequacy in projecting the self in L2.

Data show that although an open, spontaneous discussion commonly happens in English in every classroom in Australia, when it comes to L2 learning, verbal interaction is no longer stress-free to implement but becomes limited in both amount and quality. With 11 years of experience in learning French, Indonesian and Spanish, Emily is conscious of how languages work for her and distinguishes clearly how L2 is developed differently from L1. Although in her mother tongue Emily engages much better through talk, in the foreign-language classroom she prefers sitting and listening to others. As she reflects: I’m scared I’ll make a mistake, using the wrong word or wrong tense; speaking happens so fast, you’re not often given the time to translate, to form your ideas and sentences. I need the extra time to think about what I’d say and being able to translate from the foreign language to my mother tongue. I think you can still interact through silence. Words aren’t always necessary.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 34

10/12/2013 09:04



Australian Perspectives on Silence

35

For some, it is hard to separate silence and talk in dichotomy. Candace believes that the two domains are profoundly associated and Lisa points out that the switch between these modes will depend on the teacher’s decisions in allocating time for one or the other. For Helen, there is no straightforward division between verbalization and the thinking in her head that only she can hear: both approaches might well be counted as worthwhile forms of interaction. In addition, the shift between silence and talk is also a matter of language competence and intellectual maturity. Several participants claim that for them speaking out during the early learning stage in the classroom is not easy but they normally do so later after having developed some knowledge and skills in the language. On the contrary, Eddie, who spent over a decade learning Italian, realizes that silence actually happens at an advanced level and signifies maturity in his learning styles. As he moved further into an advanced L2 command, he found himself talking less in the language classroom and silence began to take a more significant role. For him silence does not equal the absence of cooperation with the learning environment but equips him with space for working on problems, listening to others, and processing L2 information. He perceives silence as having both strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, it allows the least distraction level possible during L2 processing; on the other hand, he is aware that its consequence is a lack of interaction which is often expected by the teacher and peers. In the end, Eddie wilfully selects silence for learning L2 knowing that its power surpasses its flaws.

The weakness of silence Not all participants, however, perceive silence as the superior learning mode at all times. Jessica and Michael, who feel that silence might restrict memorization and literacy skills development, express preference for an intensive talking style, and maintain that it is talk that really pushes their language competence further. Jessica, who spent six months studying Norwegian, feels that talk is more important than silence in offering hands-on L2 practice and builds her confidence in using the language. With nine years of experience in learning French, Michael believes that the best way to learn is actually to speak the language. With his outspoken disposition, he finds silent processing of ideas in another language a real challenge and only through speaking can he fully engage with what is being discussed, as he recollects: When I was learning French in public school as a child, I rarely spoke because the lessons dealt mostly with grammar and translation. When I learned French

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 35

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

36

in a communicative atmosphere I learned much more I found. When I stayed silent in class I often stopped paying attention and my mind drifted. For me, speaking and avoiding staying silent was the key to learning the language.

Learners’ control of the learning process Participants’ views vary regarding whether talk or silence should be seen as a more superior foundation of an active learning style. While three participants prefer explicit articulation, five others internalize silence as the key to more effective learning, and two participants do not wish to hierarchize the values of silence and talk but feel the need to employ both tools. There is no right or wrong to this end but learning styles are comparable issues to humans’ preferred dining habits, whether one wishes to eat out in restaurants or enjoy home cooking. Most interestingly, participants reflect on how the learning process can be best controlled through the lenses of silence and talk. The question of control is often perceived by scholars as an essential quality in education. According to Schacter et al. (2011), learning is not a collection of factual knowledge but a process largely based on experience in which active learning happens when learners take control of their own learning experiences. Armstrong (2012) strengthens this understanding by maintaining that, in such experiences, learners develop more incentives to learn when they can control not only what to learn but also how to learn it. In view of this, when learners are able to select their favourite way of learning, they would benefit the most from the process – rather than always receiving the decision from the teacher as for how to learn. Four participants, Candace, Jessica, Lisa and Michael, feel that talk helps control learning more effectively than silence for the following reasons, in their own words: Verbal participation suits my personality and experiences (Candace). Talk builds my competence in the language (Jessica). I gain more from interaction (Lisa). Through talk I retain information, engage with classmates, strengthen my memory of the language (Michael).

Unlike this group, five others feel that they can control learning better through silence and that has to do with their own abilities to control the situation through observation (Lisa and Helen), while simultaneously talking and observing is

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 36

10/12/2013 09:04



Australian Perspectives on Silence

37

very difficult and they often feel overloaded (Eddie). Besides, silence can be very useful in giving them time to think, process ideas, and formulate responses (Emily and Paul). Michael, in addition, expresses the need to balance the two modes which in his experience depends largely on many contextual elements: It is difficult to say if you are in better control of what you learn through silence or talk. Some people have the ability to steer the conversation to their needs and thus control their learning while others prefer to control through silent observation.

Preferences for working with silent or talkative students An alternative way to explore silence is to look beyond one’s own quietness and see how each individual perceives and benefits from the silence of others. The impact of students’ silence on the learning of others can be investigated by looking at how much each participant wants their classmates to talk. It can be noted that verbal, talkative or eloquent students are defined as those who are often willing to speak out when opportunities arrive while silent peers are characterized as those who keep quiet or speak minimally in most situations. Data demonstrate participants’ different interests in the kinds of learners they would like to work with. While some prefer talkative peers, others enjoy spending more time with silent ones. Eddie, Jessica, Lisa and Mircea find highly eloquent peers easier to work with as they often contribute to mutual development, and are more willing to take on a leadership role in the learning process. Jessica further argues that working with silent people is not only difficult but also unfair as some peers end up doing all the work while the whole group earn credit for it. On the contrary, Paul, who migrated to Australia from an Anglo-British background, prefers the silent type. Having gained greater control of his learning through silence, which he believes reflects his analytical and introspective personality, he has difficulty admiring people who do not know when to refrain from talking. Paul prefers to work with less talkative peers as he can, in his argument, earn more out of a few words of wisdom that are relevant than a great deal of unusable talk that is unstructured, irrelevant and generally vexatious to his state of peace and well-being. Helen also chooses to work with silent people who she believes are often calm, peaceful and do not voice strong opinions, thus it is less annoying to be around them.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 37

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

38

In her experience, talkative people can be uncooperative, in many cases overly outspoken and stubborn. In these participants’ perception, the most thoughtful peers would know how much to speak and when to stay quiet, keeping their contribution to a minimum while making sure it is of a worthy and succinct quality. Michael does not have a preference over a talkative or silent person in the classroom, as long as the person is aware of other classmates. In his experience, both silent and talkative students can be seen as uncooperative. As he narrates, some talkaholic learners, who believe that the more they speak the more they will learn, often insist on dominating the class and speaking for long stretches of time leaving their classmates bored and disinterested. This is especially frustrating and uncooperative if they do not produce high-quality contribution that has learning values. He recalls one incident in which a student in his French class would speak for up to 15 minutes at a time without interruption and Michael would completely ‘zone out’. On the contrary, silent students can also seem to be uncooperative by their silence. Especially during group tasks, it can be frustrating to be paired with peers who remain too quiet because their silence can make communication difficult and lead to stress for others. These students believe that neither talk nor silence alone is the best policy but it is important to be sensitive to the timing and manner of verbal articulation and silent listening. As data show, there is a coherent relationship between the two domains, in the sense that verbal contribution needs space to operate and an audience to listen to it. It is hard to compare the value of silence and talk respectively because each of these domains does not operate in a vacuum but depends largely on the other.

Conditions for silence and talk Silence and talk as learning modes do not function incidentally but are subject to a variety of factors such as the quality of classroom dynamic, students’ integration with classroom culture, individual personality and mood, teacher and peer receptivity, classroom relationship, learning content, students’ inspiration and intellectual challenge. Candace comments: Sometimes although the topic proves to be inspiring I may not participate, but instead there will be a great deal of thinking processes and mental note taking. It is definitely possible to be engaged in silence. In fact, often the more silent I am, the more the content has affected my thinking.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 38

10/12/2013 09:04



Australian Perspectives on Silence

39

Similarly, Emily maintains that she can definitely be involved even if she is not talking. Through listening she is able to learn different ways to express herself. Eddie adds more to this discussion by remarking that the classroom dynamic can be generated through the chemistry between teacher and students and also between student and student: A great feeling in a class is when the whole group is just moving together and interacting on a number of different levels rather than talking alone. I remember a number of classes where people were able to communicate in fluid and diverse ways, which include not only words but also eye contact, listening, laughing and body language. The problem though for the teacher is the ability to distinguish between the inspired silent student and the bored out his brains silent student.

Jessica and Lisa link their verbal level with mood, disposition and personal needs. They would stay silent until there is the need to ask a question or when they begin to feel comfortable using the language. Helen, likewise, connects her learning behaviour to inspiration with the classroom environment. For her, switching between talk and silence is similar to switching television channels whereby she selects her most preferable mood to learn. There is no real hierarchy between talk and silence but she is able to maximise the potential of both dimensions in ways that allow her to retain interest in learning.

Rethinking the value of talk During their reflection on the value of silence, participants made various comments on talk, although this is not the focus of the project. Most participants agreed that talk needs to be focused, meaningful and relevant rather than pointless, random and excessive. Eddie and Candace suggest that talk should be spontaneous rather than forced, and should support interaction rather than result in unnecessary conflict. Emily and Helen emphasize that talk should serve to develop new understanding rather than to show off existing knowledge. Because of such needs among leaners, teachers should learn to manage both silence and talk well in order to ensure learning productivity. Along this line, it has been suggested that high-quality talk is talk that includes others in the conversation or inspires deep thinking. According to Michael, ‘short bursts of interesting information that give room for responses and rebuttals are the best types of talk. Long, drawn out, invasive talk that allows no room for others to speak is dull, leads to daydreaming and bores listeners’.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 39

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

40

In Mircea’s view, however, the distinction between silence and verbosity is not always a clear-cut one. Whether someone is considered as quiet or verbal depends on the perception of the individuals involved in the classroom process; he reflects on an incident in which he was falsely accused of being a talkaholic: In our PhD writing group at the university, I was criticized for talking too much. With my fellow students’ permission, I recorded the sessions and found out that the person who accused me of talking logged 48 minutes out of 60, and I, who was presenting my piece on the day, spoke in snippets. The total time of my scattered remarks added to just over four minutes. In conclusion, I cannot trust others’ evaluation of my likeliness to talk. I like to talk when it is interesting and don’t like to talk when I’m not interested. These two depend on the topic, interlocutor’s receptivity, time availability, and context.

Silence as reticence Except two participants, Jessica and Michael, who often make the effort to speak rather than keep silent, the majority of participants in the study admit having experienced various levels of reticence, that is, suffering from the undesirable silent moments. Jessica tries to participate as much as possible, being concerned that her quietness might result in the teacher’s low opinion of her enthusiasm. Michael, by the same token, perceives talk as the desirable norm in the second language classroom as it is, in his view, vital to learning. However, how much he talks also depends on the group that he is with. Some groups make him comfortable enough to make spontaneous contribution while others can be intimidating. Michael feels that when students keep silent with the right attitude, they can also indicate some degree of engagement. He believes that a reasonable balance between silence and talk can create classroom harmony while excessive practice of either silence or talk might damage classroom rapport. Many participants realize that silence does not always happen as a natural part of learning but actually results from classroom inhibition. Candace admits spending most of her L2 classroom time in silence and only speaks when called upon. This is due to the lack of confidence in her L2 communication ability, which does not allow her to present her thoughts in the same manner as in L1. Besides, she believes that silence and talk are subject to the question of power, in the sense that the person who talks seems to assert more authority than those who keep quiet.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 40

10/12/2013 09:04



Australian Perspectives on Silence

41

Eddie, who studies Italian and Korean, admits lacking confidence to interact in classroom situations unless he is really sure of his accuracy. Since, in his awareness, verbal participation serves more as a means of achieving classroom harmony, he often feels negative towards students who simply sit there in silence and also worries about others’ negative perception of his silence. To remedy this dilemma, he makes every effort to speak up more, yet such attempts do not always work. Eddie reflects on how talk was connected with anxiety, embarrassment and frustration: Although I’ve been conditioned to think that talk is better in the classroom, efforts to talk were pretty stressful experiences. In my beginner Korean course the teacher forces students in often very awkward and sometimes humiliating situations to speak. But at the end of eight weeks I could string enough Korean together to have a simple conversation. I remember not totally understanding the grammar though and that frustrated me a little.

Emily admits suffering from the fear that her silence might cause the misunderstanding that she is bored or disengaged. Being a chatty person in her mother tongue, she contributed a great deal in English but when it comes to the second language she withdraws into herself as if she was another person altogether. Whilst her behaviour does not demonstrate her abilities as a second language user, she hopes the teacher understands that she is in fact engaged and has ideas. This anecdote resembles the situation reported by Tong (2010) of many Hong Kong Chinese students who are highly verbal in their mother tongue but may be quiet in English as a second language. Emily believes that the choice for talk or silence has a great deal to do with what language is involved in the discussion process. Talk can be intense if it is conducted in L1, otherwise students tend to stay more quiet. However, if the teacher only cares about increasing the amount of talk and allows mostly L1, less time is used in putting L2 skills to practice. Although she learns better through talk, in a classroom with more competent peers she easily becomes intimidated and silent. As admitted by participants, causes of reticence include low L2 proficiency, lack of confidence, fear of judgement, fear of mistakes and group pressure. These features of the silent behaviour among Australians remind us of the similar literature which typifies Asians as silent L2 learners. Such discourse often highlights East Asian communities who suffer from communication reluctance due to pressure to save face, avoidance of judgement and fear of making mistakes. In addition, what holds them back from verbal participation in the classroom is their highly communal nature rather than individual autonomy.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 41

10/12/2013 09:04

42

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Interestingly, the interview data collected from the Anglo-Australian participants reveal that this group demonstrates strikingly the same tendency as their East Asian counterparts. This realization reminds us of the connection made by scholars between Asian students’ behaviour and their cultural traditions. If this connection is true, that is, Asian verbal reluctance comes from their deeply ingrained sociocultural traditions, how do we then explain the fact that these Anglo-Australian students emit similar reticent behaviour with similar reasons in L2 learning contexts? What type of culture would now be responsible for such reticence?

Conclusion As most participants in the study have admitted, languages can be learned silently through a number of learning functions such as processing comprehension, developing thoughts, formulating responses, articulating sounds in the head and rehearsing imagined interaction. Silence also allows control of the learning process, supports the quality of students’ thinking and enhances the quality of their verbal performance. Besides, the degree of silence during L1 and L2 performance in classroom settings can be very different due to learners’ language competence, confidence, learning content, peer behaviour and teacher acceptance. It is common that students who are highly verbal in the mother tongue can be very quiet when it comes to second language learning. Individuals’ use of silence is also governed by a wide range of factors in classroom dynamics such as culture, relationship, personality, mood, content, receptivity, inspiration and challenge. Silence, as learned from the participants in this study, is not always an active learning device. Some admit that silence might represent passivity, communication avoidance behaviour, and respect for an authority figure. Besides, being silent also serves as a survival technique, such as trying not to reveal the true level of one’s language ability to the teacher and peers. Besides, silence does not work independently for all individuals but the silence of one student may affect the learning of others. Many participants are conscious of their peers’ need every time they decide to speak or remain quiet. The nature of silence as constructed by Australian participants in this study is surprisingly similar to the behaviour of many East Asian students often discussed in scholarly discourse, especially in explaining silence as passivity, fear of judgement, respect for authority, harmony, among others.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 42

10/12/2013 09:04



Australian Perspectives on Silence

43

In many language classrooms around the world, teachers have the tendency to pressurize students to participate in spontaneous ways, viewing constant conversation as evidence of a successful, vibrant learner-centred classroom. If students stay quiet, teachers might feel that classroom processes are void of interaction and as a result the teacher’s sense of pedagogical fulfilment is damaged. Silence, however, has been expressed through the Australian students’ views in this study as a necessary mode of learning, alongside the need to talk. The questions that remain to be asked are: would silence or talk demonstrate more learning? And under what circumstances does each of these domains work better to serve students’ learning? This chapter will close here without proposing the best answer for everyone but by posing these questions for language teachers to respond to in consideration of their own teaching contexts.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 43

10/12/2013 09:04

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 44

10/12/2013 09:04

3

Chinese Perspectives on Silence

Silence has rarely been a topic of academic research in China until the recent decades. For thousands of years, in Chinese ancient education, silence was often viewed as the ultimate sophistication: knowledgeable individuals remained humble and quiet while those who knew little tended to be loudly verbal. Classical teachings from the ancient Masters denoted how silence was valued: ‘Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know’ (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 56), ‘disasters come from the mouth’ (Zhang, 2010), ‘a single wrong utterance brings national disasters’ (Lao-Tse, undated, Ch. 13), ‘four horses cannot overtake the tongue’ (The Analects of Confucius, Ch. 12). Traditional education laid emphasis on written language (Edwards and Westgate, 1987) while talking was viewed more as a community activity (Hu and Fell-Eisenkraft, 2003). This picture about silent values, however, is struggling to be applied in today’s Chinese education where silence has increasingly been called into question. The above-mentioned significance of silence is hardly appreciated in the same way in today’s globalized context when China is increasing its exposure to and communication with the rest of the world. Educational reforms in the country have questioned the relationship between students’ traditional values and their study performance in the country and overseas. On the one hand, Chinese scholars want the world to learn about Chinese people’s diverse reasons for silence and to be able to interpret silence in context. On the other hand, it is believed that the Chinese must also expand their communication repertoire and discuss ways to break silence when necessary (Liang, 2010; Wang, 2006; Zhang, 2009).

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 45

10/12/2013 09:04

46

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Silence discourse in China Range of topics With far more effort than in any other country outside of the English speaking world, educators and scholars in China, especially over the past two decades, have given tremendous attention to the silent behaviour in the classroom, and such discourse, mostly published in the Chinese language, is not commonly known within academic literature in English. A small number of scholars are non-Chinese but have researched on silence in the country, and they too have contributed valuable insights to the discourse. Silence research became popular during the early 2000s, with the implementation of National College English Curriculum Reform. According to many scholars in China, in order to integrate in the global community and participate in education overseas, it is no longer helpful to exaggerate the influence of traditional norms on Chinese students’ learning behaviours (Cheng, 2000; Liu and Littlewood, 1997; Zhang, 2009; Zhou, Knoke and Sakamoto, 2005; Wang, 2006), since such norms might sometimes impact on Chinese students in unproductive ways. On the one hand, research studies provide critical insights into how silence may pose hindrance to second language learning success and suggest ways to deal with undesirable silence (Li and Wu, 2010; Ning, 2010; Zhao, 2010; Pang, 2010; Xie, 2011; Xu and Wang, 2011). On the other hand, they deal with silence as a way to support learning and demonstrate learning eagerness (Campbell and Li, 2008; Delios and Makino, 2001; Holmes, 2005; Hu and Fell-Eisenkraft, 2003; Liu, 2002). A number of projects are concerned with the modern-day classroom dynamics, investigating what silence means, and finding ways to encourage talk when necessary (see, for example, Wang, 2006; Li, 2010; Liang, 2010; Seng, 2010). Wang and Zhang (2008), in a study, suggest that many teachers fear complete silence among their students after a question has been asked. Although talk has been increasingly encouraged in the classroom, teachers under the high pressure of looming examinations are compelled to complete the syllabus within a tight allocated timeframe. Frequent interruptions from students and open disagreement with the teacher are not viewed favourably (Wu, 2008; Liu, 2002). As a result, many students feel that it is their responsibility to evaluate their own thoughts in advance before saying them aloud (Zhou et al., 2005) and such cautious attitudes often keep students in quietness rather than in verbal engagement (Jackson, 2003).

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 46

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

47

Seven areas of interest can be noted within silence research and discourse in China over the recent decade. They include the following foci: MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

The nature and causes of reticence (Liu, 2005; Wang, 2006; Lu, 2007; Zhang, and Zhang, 2009; Zheng et al., 2010). Ways to cope with students’ verbal inhibition (Ma, 2004; Yang, 2006; Wang and Zhang, 2008; Qin and Guo, 2008; Cheng, 2000). Educators’ perceptions of silence (Jia, 2008; Zhao, 2010). Perceptions of talk (Gu, 2005). Factors influencing silence (Teng, 2009; Meng, 2009; Qiao, 2010; Li, 2010). Types of silence (Wang, 2009). Multiple perspectives on silence (Li, 2002; Lu, 2007; Wang and Zhang, 2008; Wang, 2009; Qiao, 2010; Zhao, 2010; Li, 2010; Li and Wu, 2010; Ning, 2010; Xu and Wang, 2011; Qin and Guo, 2008; Zhang and Zhang, 2009; Pang, 2010; Ma, 2004; Meng, 2009; Zheng et al., 2010).

Main causes of silence Major findings from academic works published in China from 2004 until recently, mostly written in the Chinese language, show silence in a more negative than positive light and research outcomes cover three important connotations of silence. (1) Silence has a helpful effect on education. It is perceived as a learning mode, space for reflectivity, and part of interpersonal discourse. It allows for processing language input and developing critical thinking facility. Silence also represents an aspect of sociocultural behavioural practice which signifies harmony, respect and modesty in society. (2) Silence represents problematic issues in pedagogy and learning including learner distraction during the learning process, evidence of students’ inability, low motivation in classroom discussion, demonstration of learner anxiety, lack of engagement, dissatisfaction with teachers’ performance, and resistance to the teaching style as well as to the testing system, the textbook and the whole learning experience. (3) Learner silence is not solely a learner issue but represents a shared construct for which teachers and learners are both responsible. The teacher factor includes teachers’ limited resources and strategies, poor questioning techniques, poor classroom management, low charisma, low support and a poor sense of community. The learner factor includes poor learning strategies, a lack of realworld applicability, unclear perception of classroom roles, as well as lack of exposure and input.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 47

10/12/2013 09:04

48

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Types of silence Founded upon discourse in and empirical investigation into student silence in the classroom, a wide array of silence types have been identified, which can be summarized in four major categories, namely meaningful silence, resistive silence, inattentive silence and reluctant silence. Meaningful silence occurs when students need space for reflecting on the teacher’s questions and are responding to controversial, important or challenging issues that require some degree of thoughtful elaboration. As this silence is practised, the mind is actively processing ideas (Wang, 2009; Xu and Wang, 2011). In many cases, silence occurs at a turn-taking juncture in the discourse with others when someone is preparing for talk (Xie, 2011; Xu and Wang, 2011). Resistive silence denotes students’ conscious and collective resistance to teachers’ conventionalism, dogmatism, domination, patronization, spoonfeeding pedagogy, poor class management and low elicitation skills (Wang and Zhang, 2008; Wang, 2009; Li, 2010; Pang, 2010; Ma, 2004; Wang, 2006; Qi and Guo, 2008; Wang, 2009; Li, 2010; Pang, 2010). Silence might not be the habit of every student, but it is in many cases induced by classroom events that impair enthusiasm. Such dissatisfaction with the teaching style turns silence into a form of resistance, disapproval or warning against the teacher’s low-quality performance (Wang, 2006; Pang, 2010). Inattentive silence refers to students’ low concentration, poor engagement, loss of inspiration (Lu, 2007; Teng, 2009; Qiao, 2010), lack of motivation, avoidance of classroom involvement and distraction from learning (Liu, 2005; Wang, 2009; Zhao, 2010; Li and Wu, 2010; Pang, 2010). In many cases, students find themselves resorting to personal activities unrelated to current classroom discussion, such as using mobile phones, playing games on tablet computers, reading other materials, doing homework for a different subject or falling asleep. According to Teng (2009) and Qiao (2010), such behaviour might represent a form of recovery mechanism so that students find the energy to continue surviving classroom processes that fail to engage them. This aspect of inattentive silence makes it slightly overlap with resistive silence. Reluctant silence serves as a shield to conceal shyness, uncertainty and unwillingness to participate in class discussion so as to protect students’ selfimage (Li, 2002; Lu, 2007; Wang and Zhang, 2008; Wang, 2009; Qiao, 2010; Zhao, 2010; Li, 2010; Li and Wu, 2010; Ning, 2010; Xu and Wang, 2011). In many cases, silence also results from students’ limited ability including failure

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 48

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

49

to comprehend lesson content, low pace of learning, and poor verbal skills (Qin and Guo, 2008; Wang, 2009; Li, 2010; Li and Wu, 2010; Xu and Wang, 2011). Sometimes this type is known as ‘what if ’ silence, which denotes lingering concerns such as ‘what if I make a mistake?’, ‘what if I’m criticized by the teacher?’, ‘what if I look ridiculous to my classmates?’, ‘what if this is not the answer the teacher is expecting?’, among other puzzles (Lu, 2007; Wang, 2009; Qiao, 2010; Zheng et al., 2010; Li, 2010). Except for the first category which justifies silence as a learning tool, the other silence types demonstrate a negative inclination in which silence becomes either a problem to be addressed in itself or caution against other problems that require consideration. This observation is thought-provoking, considering the fact a great deal of literature related to Chinese classics and folklore has praised the value of silence as a virtue in sociocultural communication. Although the traditional classroom in China historically promotes and consolidates students’ silence as good conduct, a look into nearly 30 discourse and research articles published in China since 2004 shows a strong tendency to problematize silence as unwelcome behaviour among students. It is important to note that many research studies have made valuable efforts to remain objective by investigating both teachers’ and learners’ perspectives of what silence means in the learning process.

Perspectives on silence From sociocultural and educational perspectives, scholars such as Li (2002), Lu (2007), Wang and Zhang (2008), Wang (2009), Qiao (2010), Zhao (2010), Li (2010), Li and Wu (2010), Ning (2010) and Xu and Wang (2011) acknowledge that not speaking much in the classroom has been the norm which is taken for granted by both teachers and students alike. Despite this, the influence of Chinese culture on classroom behaviour is not elaborated in a vacuum but tends to be linked with the present-day educational contexts. Lu (2007), Wang and Zhang (2008), Wang (2009), Qiao (2010), Zhao (2010), Li (2010), Li and Wu (2010), Ning (2010) and Xu and Wang (2011) believe that it is China’s textbookbased and exam-oriented teaching that promotes attentive listening with little emphasis on building social communication skills. Along with this, silence is often connected with respect and self-control, whereas excessive verbalization might reduce modesty and lead to undesirable confrontation in social settings. Such restraint, however, does not apply to all situations but sometimes it is

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 49

10/12/2013 09:04

50

Understanding Silence and Reticence

believed that thoughtful modification of behaviour towards verbal participation will maximize language learning. From a pedagogical perspective, students’ silence sometimes reflects teachers’ poor questioning strategies (such as overusing yes–no questions and rarely employing opinion-related questions), inappropriate degree of intellectual challenge (such as discussing too complex or too simple lesson content), little tolerance of errors towards students’ contributed answers, unequal distribution of talk-turns, uninteresting lesson content, lack of wait time, as well as negligence towards student’s ability and interest. Through research conducted by Yang (2006), Wang and Zhang (2008), Qin and Guo (2008), Teng (2009), Zhang and Zhang (2009), Li (2010), Li and Wu (2010), Pang (2010) and Xu and Wang (2011), teachers’ competence, disposition and performance are highlighted as important sources of encouragement or intimidation towards students’ ability and willingness to make verbal contribution in classroom discussion. A number of teachers are criticized for being monotonous, lacking in creativity, being teacher-centred, being theoretical, as well as neglecting real-world applicability and students’ interest in their future careers. Other teachers are seen as having low charisma and a poor sense of humour, not respecting students’ right to have individual opinions, and showing little interest in students’ social needs. All of these factors contribute to students’ undesirable silence, which should be interpreted as a warning against teachers’ flawed professionalism. From a learner perspective, many scholars through research attempts have articulated students’ voices regarding the rationale and reasons for being silent, and such causes cover three key domains: perception, need and classroom dynamics. First, students’ perception plays a major role in their reluctance towards classroom contribution, which includes low self-perception of verbal skills (Qin and Guo, 2008; Wang, 2009; Li, 2010; Li and Wu, 2010; Xu and Wang, 2011), and limited recognition of how speaking ability affects examination performance, proficiency and future career (Ma, 2004; Lu, 2007; Wang and Zhang, 2008; Zhang and Zhang, 2009; Qiao, 2010). Second, silence also stems from the need to process challenging lesson content (Wang, 2009; Xu and Wang, 2011) and the need to monitor thinking before contribution (Zhou et al., 2005). Third, learner silence comes from classroom dynamics including reluctance to interrupt or disagree with the teacher (Wu, 2008; Liu, 2002), dissatisfaction with the teaching style (Wang, 2006; Pang, 2010), which leads to poor engagement (Lu, 2007; Teng, 2009; Qiao, 2010) and low motivation (Liu, 2005; Wang, 2009; Zhao, 2010; Li and Wu, 2010; Pang, 2010).

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 50

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

51

It is important to note that the dominant attitude among many Chinese scholars towards learner silence tends to be more judgemental than supportive. Qin and Guo (2008) believe that classroom silence is a common phenomenon in the majority of contemporary English classes in Chinese universities and this condition needs to be examined thoroughly. According to Ma (2004), Wang (2006), Teng (2009), Wang (2009) and Li (2010), more systematic studies should be conducted to explore the interrelationship between student silence and pedagogy. The greatest concern among Chinese scholars at the moment is that silence often indicates miscommunication between teachers and students, which might restrict students’ language output, affect teachers’ morale, and become detrimental to the learning process (Wang and Zhang, 2008; Zhang and Zhang, 2009; Meng, 2009; Li and Wu, 2010; Zheng et al., 2010; Qiao, 2010; Zhang, 2010; Xu and Wang, 2011). Although silence has historically been cherished in Chinese culture as a virtue, the need to problematize silence has become more vigorous than ever before. Silence is acknowledged as a complex, multifaceted phenomenon which is governed by a wide range of cultural, educational, psychological and linguistic factors, for which both teachers and students are responsible.

The context of Chinese silence Two broad research contexts have been employed to locate Chinese students’ silence. The first context is overseas universities where many Chinese get enrolled for their academic study. This body of literature is built by both Chinese and Western scholars who are interested in how Chinese students learn. Since Chinese students’ culture of learning is both similar and different from their Western counterparts (see, for example, Cortazzi and Jin, 2001), and, since the number of Chinese students pursuing their education abroad has been increasing, researchers have developed interest in investigating Chinese students’ silence in order to understand and provide students with better learning environments (e.g. Hu and Fell-Eisenkraft, 2003; Liu, 2002; Liu and Littlewood, 1997; Zhou et al., 2005). Many such studies focus on interpreting Chinese students’ reticence and find ways to improve classroom participation. The second research context, which includes schools, colleges and universities in Mainland China, is initiated by Chinese scholars who express deep concerns about their students’ verbally passive behaviour, feeling that silence might not be the best way to learn languages and other subjects. Although the

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 51

10/12/2013 09:04

52

Understanding Silence and Reticence

adoption of the communicative approach in China remains debatable in several aspects (see, for example, Liao, 2004; Hu, 2005; Rao, 2002), not many Chinese scholars doubt the importance of interaction between teachers and students and of students’ verbal involvement in the class. Many have explored the reasons for silence (Hong, 2008; Liang, 2010; Wang, 2006; Zhang, 2008; Zhang, 2009) and discuss the ways to break unproductive silence (Liang, 2010; Wang, 2006; Zhang, 2009) in hopes of improving pedagogy.

The gaps in silence research Several major gaps remain in silence research in China and such blind spots also apply to silence research in a number of Western contexts. The first two gaps are in the areas of silence pedagogy and the interaction between Eastern and Western scholarly views. Although silence is sometimes recognized as a mode of learning in education, when it comes to language education in particular, Chinese scholars tend to mistrust the strength of silence as compared to the learning value of talk. This attitude towards silence partly explains why academics rarely propose any strategies for employing silence as an approach to second language instruction – despite the need for such pedagogy in China where learner talk is never a major classroom strength. In addition, the researchers rarely connect their studies into the Western discourse; neither do they organize for the two sources of discourse to interact. It is not clear whether this situation comes from low access to Western resources or from the intention to research independently from outsiders’ perspectives. A third problem occurs when a number of scholars hold on to Chinese traditional culture to explain silence rather than analysing the present-day modes of learning that may have deviated greatly from that tradition. This tendency, which has occurred in the discourse both in and outside of China, is insufficient as it might not help pedagogy to become more effective, especially when education is adaptable to trends in the globalized world. The new Chinese generation born in the late 1980s and early 1990s might be different from the previous generations of students due to increased access to the internet and increased exposure to multimedia. This cohort seems to demand a stronger voice of personal independence and a learning environment relevant to their interest. For example, part of online interaction, according to Zembylas and Vrasidas (2007) involves a high degree of silent reflection and written communication rather than face-to-face verbal interaction. Further research attempts

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 52

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

53

should look into such contextual changes and focus on the outcome of both silence and talk as modes of learning. Interestingly, while Chinese scholars are becoming increasingly critical of silence, many scholars outside of China have demonstrated increased empathy for this behaviour and implied that silence in fact has hidden positive values (see, for example, Jaworski, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 1996; Liu, 2002; Tatar, 2005b; Townsend, 1998). In other words, silence has sometimes been recognized as a conscious choice not a passive behaviour. According to Tatar (2005b, p. 292), ‘silence might be an alternative mode of participation in which a student internalizes knowledge in a low anxiety environment’. Students know that they could learn more under certain circumstances, for example through listening to classmates’ ideas which could stimulate their own thinking and help their processing of unfamiliar knowledge. Through silence students gain sufficient time and space for their creativity and cognitive development (Townsend, 1998), and thus silence serves as a ‘facilitative device’ which enables students to ‘gain access, organize and absorb new material’ (Jaworski and Sachdev, 1998, p. 286). Although silence is occasionally acknowledged as space for learning, both Chinese and Western discourse has not really discussed how pedagogy should approach silence in the direction of maximizing its learning capacity. Inspired by this status quo, the project conducted an in-depth investigation into the voices of Chinese students as they connect silence with both how learning takes place and when the sensibility of silence should be questioned further.

The present study Research questions Similar to the other five interpretive case studies reported in the book, this study employs a bottom-up approach which prioritizes participants’ experiences over the researcher’s knowledge and perception. The main research questions include the following: 1. How is silence employed as a mode of learning among the Chinese students? 2. In the students’ perceptions what seem to be the strengths and weaknesses of silence? 3. How differently do silence and talk allow the students to control their learning process?

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 53

10/12/2013 09:04

54

Understanding Silence and Reticence

4. What are some potential factors that influence their decision to verbalize or remain silent? 5. What are the conditions under which silence no longer serves as a learning mode but becomes reticence?

The researcher’s position Having conducted teacher development workshops in China and having co-developed an English textbook (namely, Success with English [Tomlinson et al., 2003]) for this country, I am both a contributor and an outsider of the Chinese educational system. Serving as a teacher trainer and materials developer, I have formed some knowledge and understanding of this context; being an outsider I am in the position to remain independent in my discussion of classroom behaviour. Efforts have been made to keep data analysis as unbiased as possible by refraining from heavy reliance on my previous knowledge and by only employing it to make connections among key issues. Such a stance has been recognized by theorists including Minichiello et al. (2008), Bryman, (2008), Denzin and Lincoln (2011), Asher (1965) and Creswell (2007) as essential in interpretive research inquiry.

Data collection method Two research tools were employed in the project, namely a self-completed open-ended questionnaire, to which respondents are given some time to write their own responses in the absence of the researcher, and a semi-structured interview, which was conducted with a selected number of various respondents who seemed to have complex ideas to share and who represented interesting views which invited further attention. The aim of the questionnaire is to get an overview of how students perceive silence and their own behaviour; while the purpose of the interview is to capture in-depth elaboration of those views as well as rich experience related to them. The participant selection method relies on the voluntary and available nature of participants at the two chosen institutes in Wuhan, China. The initial reason for using the questionnaire came from constraints on timing and budgeting issues. The second, more important, reason had to do with the need not only to gather an overview of participants’ perception towards the topic but also to decide who seemed to have more to say in potential interviews. The connection between the two data-collection tools is that

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 54

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

55

when complex issues were not well discussed in participants’ responses to the questionnaire, a follow-up interview was then set up for further elaboration and pursuit of related thinking for further depth and details. The questionnaire was in English but the respondents were invited to write in either English or their mother tongue as they pleased. The interview was conducted in either English or Mandarin, or both, depending on the participants’ requests. The intention in language consideration is to ensure that participants feel most comfortable in expressing their views. The responses of participants to the researcher’s questions are of an individual, experiential and subjective nature. The importance of individuals’ experiences and opinions has been recognized by Knigge and Cope (2006). The project was conducted with sensitivity to the culture and learning circumstances of participants, as well as the works of other scholars that might be linked to the data in this study. Trustworthiness is built through conscious attempts to be loyal to the words of participants.

Data analysis Data analysis pays more attention to in-depth interpretation than factual and verbatim in reporting participants’ voices. Such methods are highlighted by Wellington (2000) and Bryman (2004) as thoughtful ways to decode themes and meanings in empirical data. To explain participants’ perceptions, transcriptions of their responses to interview questions are processed through content analysis in which their words are categorized, termed and interpreted so as to capture thoughts, behaviour and viewpoints. For example, when participants discuss the ways in which silence assists their thinking, those different ways are first coded in concrete terms including ‘word memorization’, ‘sentences formulation’, ‘speech repair’, ‘thought processing’, among many others. Second, the terms are grouped together according to key domains including ‘form’, ‘meaning’, ‘metacognition’ and so on. Third, interpretive comments are made regarding the recurring or unique patterns of meanings being discovered. Fourth, connection is made between the patterns and the relevant discourse. Finally, important data which signify students’ insights, experiences and perspectives together with my comments on them will then lead to major findings of the project. Such processes of how categorization combined with interpretation produce research outcome are well supported by Cohen et al. (2011), Creswell (2008), Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2004) and Maxwell (2005). This investigative approach reflects features of interpretative

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 55

10/12/2013 09:04

56

Understanding Silence and Reticence

phenomenological analysis (see, for example, Husserl, 1970; Moran, 2000), a tradition often found in psychological qualitative research.

Participants in the study One hundred and twelve students, who were freshmen and sophomores majoring in English from two prestigious universities, participated in the project by responding to a questionnaire which aims at holistically exploring their habits, views and attitudes towards silence. Twelve students from the number above, based on their availability, voluntariness and the thoughtfulness level of their responses to the questionnaire, were interviewed regarding their practice of silence, views on talk and suggestions to either make silence meaningful or remedy unproductive silence. Except one student who is male (Xincheng), the remaining 11 interviewees are female (Fangyuan, Besty, Lidan, Lingling, Chunling, Gina, Kaiyi, Biyun, Youge, Yating and Zhaojin). Aged between 17 and 23, they all major in English study at the undergraduate level in different years, and their experience in English learning ranges between 9 and 14 years. The reason why English major students have been selected is that they have had rich learning experiences with regards to English learning and language classroom events. The two institutes are Hubei University and Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, both of which are located in Wuhan, the capital of Central China’s Hubei Province and a metropolis of Central China. Wuhan is famous for its educational institutions with more than 100 colleges and academies, exceeded in number only by Beijing and Shanghai. Hubei University has 79 years of history. Being a key comprehensive institute, it specializes in teacher training and provides strong support to education for a large number of institutes in Hubei. Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, which was founded in 1948, also has a long history, being an institution of higher education under the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China with economics, law and management as its core disciplines.

Research findings Factors constituting silence Silence can be either intrinsic or circumstantial; that is, internally anchored in every student or externally generated by classroom events. The majority of

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 56

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

57

questionnaire respondents (55 per cent) regard themselves as quiet students by nature. Shyness and reluctance to speak in public have been their characters for as long as they could recall. 23.4 per cent consider themselves verbally active in the class and the remaining 21.6 per cent feel that whether they are active or quiet depends on the changing circumstance in the everyday classroom. These participants elaborate on how classroom circumstances interact with their individualities and result in either talk or silence. According to them, silence can be either a conscious decision to serve a learning purpose or a problem resulting from inability and other weaknesses. Deliberate silence serves processing thoughts, attentive listening, the preference for quietness, the ability to learn in the silent mode, a demonstration of modesty, and respect towards the space of others. Problematic silence results from a series of learning difficulties. They include limited language proficiency, L2 performance anxiety, fear of teacher judgement, peer pressure, failing to make connections with the learning content, unsociability, conformity to the quiet norm, resistance to pedagogy, low interest, lack of confidence, avoidance of disagreement, demonstration of modesty, intimidation towards highly proficient peers, lethargy, misunderstanding of roles, distraction, exam-orientedness, intolerance of ambiguity and lack of readiness to speak. Out of the above causes, discourse on Chinese students’ behaviour shows that perhaps the most common cause of quietness comes from either poor oral communicative ability or self-perception of low verbal competence. These reasons seem to coincide with the discourse on Chinese students who study overseas and who sit in the same class with highly verbal Western peers (Cheng, 2000; Jackson, 2003, 2004; Liu, 2002; Campbell, 2008). Silence also comes from the nature of classroom relationship with peers. A small number of participants admit being intensely influenced by their classmates’ behaviour. For example, if a number of students are quiet and classroom climate lacks collaboration, everyone else might be drawn into a state of inertia. This, however, does not always mean that quiet students make others quiet. In many cases, the overpowering confidence of some individuals who are highly eloquent or overly talkative might be also detrimental to classroom mood and inhibits others from participation. As Kaiyi comments: Some students rush to speak out without much preparation. They move away from the topic and talk about unrelated issues which disturbs the teacher and other students. These classmates make me decide to keep quiet because I don’t want to be like that.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 57

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

58

On the contrary, classmates’ contribution when moderate and meaningful would have a positive impact on others and can inspire further participation. Gina shares her view: It is not always true that when you are shy, you remain silent. Sometimes, when you are shy, you try to talk. In one of my classes, many students are talkative and when I look around, some of my good friends are also talking. I feel embarrassed if I don’t join them, so I try to contribute as much as I can.

Limited timing and peer pressure play additional roles in students’ decisions to remain quiet. Xincheng elaborates on the factor which restrains his desire to speak: Time constraint is the reason why I do not talk much. I’m afraid of taking time from others, especially from the teacher. When it comes to a formal competitive debate, I’m aware that I need to give time for others to speak.

Teacher responsibility for learner reticence What the teacher does in the classroom represents a significant influence over students’ inclination to speak or their withdrawal into silence. Many students feel that one should not underestimate how influential the teacher is, simply because every teacher can make students talk or stay quiet through his or her individual style. A number of teachers who use their life experiences to connect and illustrate lesson content could make the lesson so interesting that reticent students would open up and interact with them. Other teachers who only focus on the textbook make the lesson tiresome as students can always read the book at home. Kaiyi shares her view: A good teacher is one who makes students feel that we can talk any time we want, without having to request permission, feeling we may be wrong, or being afraid that we are not accepted.

Teachers’ poor questioning techniques constitute an important cause of silence. Six participants recall how they resist answering questions which seem to be either too simple or too challenging. A second factor has to do with insufficient space for students to process their thinking. Xincheng admits: When raising a question, the teacher should give us some time to think, but this does not always happen. Many do not give us sufficient time to reflect after they ask a question.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 58

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

59

This thought goes along the line with Jackson (2003, p. 465), who in a case study on Hong Kong reticent students explains the tension between students’ verbal proficiency and time availability: ‘Participants many times kept silent due to the fast pace of discussions and lack of time to organize their ideas as second language speaker’. The need for wait time has been well acknowledged in many research studies conducted, for instance by Liu and Littlewood (1997), Jaworski (1998), Liu (2002), Zhou (2005), Cazden (2001), Kaufman (2008), Tatar (2005a, 2005b), among others. A third factor is related to failure in utilizing learners’ background as teaching resources. Without personal knowledge and experience, students do not know how to contribute to class discussion and easily become reticent, as Lingling explains: I’m quiet when my teacher asks me to describe something which I have never experienced before.

Thirteen participants do not have a clear idea why they sometimes become silent in the classroom. When struggling to provide an explanation, they touch on other factors including pressure from examination, failure to appreciate the value of verbal interaction, unfamiliarity with classmates, and discomfort with the teacher’s style. Biyun reflects: The teaching method is very typical, boring and traditional. The teacher only applies very traditional teaching methods, reads off his power point slides all the time, and likes giving orders to students.

When classroom processes are uninspiring, students lose the talking mood and become socially introverted. This reaction is similar to the data from a study by Cheng (2000), who comments: ‘In a teacher-centred environment, learners are doomed to reticence and passivity. If such experience is constantly repeated, learners are likely to develop permanently reticent behavior’ (p. 442). In addition, different expectations of roles between the teacher and students may also result in silence. Campbell (2008) in a study has found that a number of students do not expect verbal contribution as part of their learning role, as if learning and verbal contribution were unrelated. Another major reason for low contribution from students has to do with the teacher’s unapproachable personality and poor classroom management. Some teachers fail to build trust among shy students, induce a stressful classroom climate, lack a good sense of humour, receive student contribution with criticism, and let strong students dominate discussion. Additionally, it is not easy to instil in students strong motivation to become involved in verbal

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 59

10/12/2013 09:04

60

Understanding Silence and Reticence

debate when the teacher has to focus on teaching for examination performance. Because of this poor connectedness between what is required in the system and classroom expectation, as Delios and Makino (2001) and Jackson (2004) observe, many students tend to focus on formulas, correctness and grades rather than the dynamic of verbal communication and life skills. Arguably, for students to interact more, the educational system should be able to convince students that they will be assessed on practical, real-world communication abilities.

Ways to handle reticence Silence does not equal reticence. Instead, reticence happens when silence becomes unwished-for and stressful in situations where verbal contribution seems more desirable. Many students feel that teachers could help them to overcome unresponsiveness in many ways. From a pedagogical perspective, teachers could motivate students and arouse their interest in talking by making class time interesting, such as organizing language learning games or competitive activities, and selecting current and controversial issues for discussion. These are suggestions gathered from 31 participants. Fifty-one participants suggest that the teacher needs to develop effective talk-management skills. This may include, for example, inspiring students to talk by creating a relaxing and comfortable atmosphere, receiving students’ contributions with friendliness to help build confidence, organizing oral presentations, among other strategies. Along these lines, scholars such as Jackson (2002), Tatar (2005a, 2005b), and Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2003) advise teachers to distribute even attention to the class, provide more wait time, establish a warm classroom climate, become more accepting and supportive, and organize small group discussions to reduce stage fright. Many participants are concerned about teachers’ questioning techniques. Some tend to respond more if questions are flexible and unconventional, stretch beyond textbook content, and flow naturally in the discussion. Others wish to be given sufficient time to process the answer and share it with other classmates before reporting to the teacher. It is also suggested that the teacher should let different students handle questions rather than relying on strong students all the time; and that questions should not demand right or wrong answers but need to tolerate various viewpoints and even mistakes. Knowing how to provide feedback on students’ responses is another way to encourage contribution. Besides, through participation, students’ English proficiency as well as strengths

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 60

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

61

and weaknesses can be revealed and such information could help the teacher to develop proper activities and appropriate lesson content. From a sociocultural perspective, verbal communication helps improve students’ interpersonal skills, facilitate mutual understanding and develop good friendship. Some believe that classroom discussion trains students to work collaboratively, which would benefit their future working lives. Being unable to voice their concerns is a major weakness that would impede students’ ability to work efficiently with others. Despite such needs, knowing when to keep silent continues to be an important interpersonal skill both in and outside of classroom settings. Lingling articulates her thought regarding her choice towards social silence: Sometimes my silence is a shield that protects me during class discussion and helps me maintain good relationship with others. I do not want to speak when I strongly disagree with others, as I might lose my temper. I do not want to speak when the teacher needs more time, and when I have nothing to say. In these cases, silence is a natural part of my behaviour. Silence makes me feel safe.

Biyun expresses a similar concern yet interprets her silence in a different light: Silence can become a caring act. When I disagree with my classmates, I keep silent to avoid making them feel uncomfortable. When I have advanced knowledge to share, I’m afraid to show off and make my classmates feel bad so I keep silent. Silence, for me, is not about saving my face or keeping me secure, but it is about saving the faces of others and making them feel secure. In other words is a strategy to keep good relationship with others. Talk sometimes may destroy a lot of good feelings.

From a psychological perspective, teachers’ positive attitude is a decisive factor which influences students’ openness. Seventeen participants feel that if the teacher is patient, considerate, kind or humorous, they tend to become more verbally involved. In their classroom experience, teachers who are passionate about teaching and are concerned with students’ well-being could inspire a great deal of communication. In addition, those who are knowledgeable and well-prepared for their work; who acknowledge and give timely compliments to students’ progress; who vary their teaching strategies and attempt innovative methods would be able to stretch students’ verbal performance beyond their existing habit and ability. Teachers with routine, unsmiling, strict, egotistical and uncreative styles would restrain students’ motivation and make their world miserable. Unfortunately, in participants’ experience, there are far more teachers like this than those who really know how to inspire. Zhaojin admits:

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 61

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

62

One major reason why students stay quiet is because the teacher talks too much and the time left is too little for the whole class to use. During such moments, the teacher often asks questions and when we attempt to answer them, the teacher then criticizes our answer, hurting our feelings so badly that we only want to keep our mouths shut.

Fangyuan explains further that many are silent not because they are inherently shy or afraid but because they simply do not feel good. Zhaojin adds that students need the freedom to express their views: if learner and teacher viewpoints interact, the discussion will be useful and interesting. Xincheng believes that some teachers expect one standard, correct answer to every question rather than creative responses, thus students are not inspired enough to contribute. Along this line, Besty suggests modifying teaching behaviour: Teachers do not need to nominate us to talk but only adjust their personality to make it is easy for students to do so. When a student is nominated to give an answer, he or she may not have a good idea ready to say, but when someone volunteers to answer a question, he or she would do so after becoming wellprepared. In this way, allowing conditions for voluntary participation will get better quality contribution than nominating us to speak.

Perception towards talk All twelve students being interviewed share the same view that talk is more important than silence in language learning. This attitude seems to be a reaction to the fact that most of them are dissatisfied with the current lack of verbal interaction in their classrooms where intimidation happens due to unsatisfactory pedagogy, time management, teacher personality and teacher attitude towards their contribution. In their perception, silence is useful but silence alone does not get them to successful learning; whereas talk helps improve communication skills and constitutes a vibrant classroom climate. In responding to the questionnaire, the majority of participants (84.7 per cent) regard being verbally active as worthwhile classroom behaviour. Its benefits are indicated in a number of cognitive, social, psychological, pedagogical, and organizational ways. Verbal discussion helps students to improve speaking ability, build confidence, engage with knowledge, expand understanding, enhance critical and creative thinking, improve classroom dynamics, keep pace with the teacher and provide information to strengthen teaching quality. From a logistic perspective, verbal contribution plays the

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 62

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

63

role of inspiring teachers’ performance and relieving part of the teaching burden. Besides, verbal interaction is essential when the purpose of the lesson is communication practice and when students are taking English as their major which should require a high degree of fluency in speaking skills. For some participants, taking every opportunity to speak out could train them to eliminate inherent inhibition, enhance social alertness, and improve verbal spontaneity. These are important characteristics of any successful communicator and classroom processes should provide conditions for such abilities to develop. The minority of participants (4.5 per cent) seem more cautious about the values of speaking practice and do not perceive it as an invariably positive feature of classroom life. In their view, there are times when silence assists thinking at its best while intense talk makes students easily lose track of their own thoughts. This group feel that they can learn a second language effectively through silently taking notes, translating words, memorizing structures, reading texts, practising listening and looking for resources to answer their own learning inquiries. The remaining participants (10.8 per cent) feel that it is hard to view talk straightforwardly as useful or harmful; but whether silence or talk works best depends on learning circumstances. They maintain that even when talk seems useful, one should not be too verbose and it is important to think carefully before speaking out. This is because unrelated topics or questions often waste class time and disturb other people’s thinking. Besides, the nature of a syllabus also plays a part: some courses encourage students to talk, while others such as writing and reading courses need to emphasize other skills. Many admit that silence may be more suitable to science subjects but not language classes. Biyun suggests: The content of discussion is very important. How willing and how much we talk depends on how we feel inspired and have something to say.

For several participants, there are two kinds of talk: talk to the whole class, which requires careful thinking before you say something; and talk during group work, which can be spontaneous and informal. Youge shares her thoughts regarding this distinction: When you are in a small group, casual or careless talk is better than total silence because this means you’re collaborating and showing enthusiasm. When everyone talks, you learn from many at the same time; when everybody is quiet, you learn only from yourself. Always learning in silence is a selfish act because you benefit from others but refuse to let them benefit from you.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 63

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

64

In the digital age, students are increasingly exposed to information not only about cultures of other countries but also about how students around the world practise education. Regarding interaction with such new knowledge and options, Yating shares an interesting experience: Once I watched a video of a class discussion taking place at Harvard University. I noticed that students often think ahead of the teacher: they talk before the teacher raises questions. I see that as the evidence of active and independent thinking. In our classroom in China, things seem to be the opposite: we follow teachers’ thoughts, wait to answer teachers’ questions, and accept teachers’ final words. When I compared such situations, I really wish to try something new as I feel so bored of what we’re doing here.

To a number of students, nevertheless, verbal participation does not always have positive values. Talk is good only when it is moderate not overdosed. Besides, a classroom in which everybody talks is unrealistic and undesirable. To expect every student to be verbally active seems impractical considering vast differences in students’ personality, habits, learning styles, and participation preferences. In many cases, talkativeness and quietness are not absolute characteristics but the boundary between these features can be arbitrary. Lidan reveals: Whether I am a silent or talkative person depends first of all on how other people perceive me, and second on how much they talk. Although I feel I’m a relatively quiet person, compared to some of my classmates who do not talk at all, I am seen as a talkative person.

Towards an ideology in verbal contribution Even though the majority of participants hold the opinions that every student should be encouraged to speak out during the lesson, 35 participants (31.5 per cent) disagree and argue that it seems impractical to demand that every student be verbally active. Their responses show that the extent to which one should be verbally active will depend on such factors as students’ personalities, knowledge, proficiency, learning styles, individual decisions, personal interests, discussion topics, the specific content of those topics, class sizes and class cultures. What the teacher could do is to create a positive classroom climate with optimum learning conditions, then let students decide for themselves whether, when and how much they wish to participate. Some participants believe in the ecology of the classroom where different members with different styles constitute a

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 64

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

65

balanced society. They argue that if every student in the class is highly verbal, the class will be thrown out of control. Allowing every student to talk in the class would take up excessive class time and interfere with the overall lesson plan. Fangyuan comments that broader society needs more thoughtful listeners than casual talkers, and so does the classroom. Lidan meanwhile, considers possible contextual factors which govern verbal participation: It is hard to say if every student participating is good or bad, because this depends on different situations. If the class size is large with more than sixty students, it is ridiculous for everyone to speak out, but if there are only 15 students, it is likely to happen under control. Besides, whether participation is appropriate also depends on the subject. If it is a debating or speaking class, being active is necessary and recommended, but if we consider writing or reading classes, every student talking will not lead to a good outcome.

From a learner perspective, students’ participation varies in four different styles, which rely on spontaneity, opportunity, teacher nomination and after-class consultation. Some prefer to contribute spontaneously at any time when they have ideas. Others feel that they could choose an appropriate time to speak, and that the best time is when the teacher seems to have provided full explanation of an issue and is ready to move on to the next point. The majority of participants (54 per cent) admit feeling reluctant to contribute voluntarily but tend to wait for their teachers to call on them. A smaller number of students admit that they consult the teacher only when class time is over especially through email correspondence. Some prefer to listen to peers’ questions which they feel may be raised on their behalf so they do not need to ask anymore. Gina reflects on why she chooses to leave her teacher alone: If students talk too much, that would disturb the flow of teaching. Besides, students are supposed to be obedient. Students’ spontaneous participation may challenge teachers’ teaching and thinking.

Three participants (2.7 per cent) believed that whether learners’ spontaneous contribution causes a disruption or not depends on different teachers. Experienced or knowledgeable teachers would not feel disturbed, while selfcentred and inexperienced teachers may find such behaviour troublesome. Chunling admits that the style she adopts when beginning to work with a teacher is important because that style would set her mood, her habit, and the teacher’s perception of her for the rest of the course. She admits: I hoped my teacher would call me to answer questions during the first lesson.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 65

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

66

When I speak, my confidence improves and that leads me to actively participate during the whole course.

Learners are often not consistently silent or verbal. Some who are quiet towards the teacher may not be quiet towards their classmates. Those who are quiet towards one teacher may not behave as such towards other teachers. Someone who is quiet in one class may not be quiet in other classes. With a fluctuated rather than absolute nature, silence tends to function in response to the immediate surroundings rather than on a permanent, self-centred basis. Fifteen participants feel that learning is inherently individualistic because everyone learns differently from others. How learning takes place within the mind is matter of a personal choice, no matter how the teacher wishes to control classroom experience and make it the same for all. For example, if the teacher encourages the class to learn quickly, some might speed up but others will stay at their own pace. Whether the teacher wishes to control or not, students might hold on to their favourite styles and behaviours. Some participants prefer to leave it up to the teacher to decide whether the class should talk or remain quiet, arguing that it is the master who knows best how the class should respond at each stage. Others, on the contrary, wish to have a say in what the teacher should do so that there are opportunities for learning to take place through both verbal and silent means. Youge makes a helpful suggestion: For us students, bothering too much about mastering the given knowledge also takes away our willingness to speak. I think the teacher should care more about life skills, about students, and about applying knowledge. Excessive focus on teaching is harmful for learning because students can always learn without too much teaching. If the teacher pays attention to teaching, I will be quiet; but if he or she pays attention to me, I will speak.

Conclusions Based on participants’ suggestions, there are three classroom conditions which require students to resort to silent processing in order to make learning effective. These conditions include discussions which touch on controversy, individual stance and complex input. Silence is considered useful when the topic is controversial enough to require extended thinking, when students are invited to generate their own ideas rather than to repeat what the teacher says, and when teachers’ input seems so complex that it demands processing for comprehension.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 66

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

67

Silence can be either useful or detrimental to learning. A number of participants in the study enjoy silence as useful space for thinking, expression of attention, interest in and respect for others, a safe territory to avoid demonstrating ignorance and a means to refrain from expressing uninteresting opinions. In the meanwhile, they dislike silence when it signifies timidity, fear of taking risks, and participation avoidance – especially when the task requires discussion, when questions need responses, when time is allocated for speaking practice, when experiences are interesting enough to share, and when peers need to compare viewpoints. When all of these can serve as resources that would enhance and inspire learning, silence happens to hide ideas and reduce collaboration. Despite all this, many also suffer from compulsory silence when language processing results in excessive silence, when one is overly concerned with perfection and peers’ disapproving reactions, when the teacher is uninspiring, and when lesson content is routine. Although part of the outcome of this study reflects what has been found in the current research literature in and outside of China (such as how silence is related to learning space and learner abilities, among others), two particular insights are generated which do not seem to overlap with the current discourse. One is the concept of face saving. Even if silence is related to modesty and face saving, which are virtues highly regarded in Chinese society, saving face in many cases means saving the faces of others – not one’s own face. Several participants reveal that if they speak out and boast knowledge, this behaviour might make their less competent peers feel inferior, thus their decision to refrain from the spoken word would amount to the act of saving peers’ faces. The second insight is the need to investigate learners’ decision-making process towards silence and talk as responses to teachers’ performance. Pedagogical quality, teacher personality and instructional content are the vehicles that drive learner willingness to become more verbal. In many cases, to look at the nature of learner silence in itself is insufficient but researchers need to investigate how learners’ silent behaviour might serve to indicate where teaching has failed. Data in this study reveal silence in positive, negative and neutral lights, each of which depends on educational circumstance and learner needs. Silence is positive when it plays the role of supporting thoughts and improves the quality of learning as well as verbal performance. In other words, silence has the ability of making talk good. Without that space, students would be nervous and rush to talk randomly and make mistakes that might damage the communication process.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 67

10/12/2013 09:04

68

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Silence is negative when students feel afraid. After all, students should keep silent because they want to, not because they are forced to. Extreme silence throughout the whole lesson may suggest that students are not putting their heart into the learning process. Listening to the teacher alone is not enough for learning to be effective but one needs to share ideas. Too much silence could mean not sharing ideas with others. Many students feel that they normally do not get much from silent classmates, the teacher gets no feedback, and the class gets no interaction. One student comments that silence can be a closed door that makes it hard to look inside for a good understanding of peers’ thoughts, feelings and attitudes. Despite the distinction above, silence could become neutral; that is, neither good nor bad. Since both talk and silence might involve thinking, it would be hard for the mind to be completely empty whether one is verbalizing or not. While talk means external thinking, silence is internal thinking. If talk allows classmates to learn from one another, silence may allow them to learn together. It is important to recognize the complexity of silence in relation to many influential factors in the circumstances related to students’ ability and interest, teachers’ and peers’ performance, as well as timing, lesson content and learning difficulties. As data speak for themselves, not every factor can be easily identified by participants (evident in the fact that some participants struggle to understand their own silence); and none of the factors functions independently (evident in the fact that various causes of silence occur within the shared space and timing of a lesson). The co-presence of these factors, whether consecutively or simultaneously, makes silence a multifaceted construct. Interview data demonstrate that one moment of silence could be simultaneously caused by two factors, such as when the teacher asks a very difficult question and when several students in their responses happen to boast their knowledge beyond desirable. The rest of the class in this case might resist both the teacher’s question and their peers’ contribution simply by keeping quiet. This phenomenon is rarely discussed in the current discourse. Besides, the fact that the cause of silence may change at any moment characterizes silence with a non-static nature. Underneath what is perceived by the teacher as learner silence is a diverse array of forces that need to be addressed, investigated and understood. During an interview, Biyun told a story which she had read, which I believe comes from Zig Ziglar’s (2000) book See You at the Top. The story goes like this: a flea was in a bottle with a lid on it. It tried many times to jump out but failed as the lid stopped it. After quite a long time, even if the lid had been removed, that flea couldn’t get out. Because the lid was now in that flea’s heart,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 68

10/12/2013 09:04



Chinese Perspectives on Silence

69

it thought that the lid was always there. Sometimes we are just that flea, though the environment has changed, we keep the deep awareness that we are restricted and will not be able to jump out again. Biyun, Chunling and other students recall a similar experience in which their silence represents school cultures in China. In their understanding, there exists a gap between what is expected by high school and what is expected by university education. In high school, one is disciplined to be obedient, stay quiet and accept what is taught. In university, however, students are encouraged to think more independently, question ideas and voice their concerns. The trouble is, even if students know that the expectation has changed, they have been trained to remain quiet for so long that now it has become difficult to revolutionize their behaviour. Students are like the flea and silence is the bottle. The expectation towards quiet obedience is the lid on that bottle. Even when such expectation no longer counts, in every student’s heart there remains the reluctance to break that silence which has become engrained during childhood and adolescence. The habit has been formed over 12 years of intensive schooling; teachers cannot simply alter the expectation and hope to remove it overnight but need to work strategically to train students in new habits. Much of silence is shaped by school cultures. There is no way to go back and alter the past but teachers with thoughtful pedagogy and innovative minds should be able to unpack this issue for students to decide on a behavioural structure that suits them best. Whether the flea is happier in the bottle or outside is entirely up to the flea, but not knowing that there is an out-of-the-bottle option would continue to restrict learning.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 69

10/12/2013 09:04

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 70

10/12/2013 09:04

4

Japanese Perspectives on Silence

The question of silence in the Japanese classroom is indisputably connected with the Japanese broader social context in which the culture of communication is founded upon individual and social values well respected in the country. Silence is a pragmatically deep-rooted feature of the Japanese society in which action receives more emphasis than words and thus the lack of words should not be taken as a sign of disinterest and unintelligence. Although, outside of Japan, silence has been interpreted in both positive and negative lights such as foundation of learning (Caranfa, 2004) and frustration in learning (Bosacki, 2005), expression of power (Achino-Loeb, 2006) and discomfort (Copenhaver, 2000), poor and rich communication (Kociatkiewicz and Kostera, 2003), in Japan silence tends to be praised as a virtue. Many Japanese believe that only an unresponsive and ill-mannered person needs direct and complete verbal language (Tannen 1995). According to Lebra (1987), the Japanese admire those who communicate implicitly, subtly and non-verbally, hoping the listener is responsive enough to complete the interaction with his or her meaning. Silence is totally acceptable in social spheres as long as one shows ‘signs of involvement’ (Donahue, 1998, p. 148). Silence in English language learning, furthermore, is not simply a matter of quietness in a specific context but is infused with the Japanese public’s attitude towards English, restricted experience with English and adaptation to the examination-based educational system. Compared with some other parts of Asia, Japan is one of the few countries that tend to resist English and keep a cautious distance from it (Kachru, 2005) for reasons related to national pride, self-determining economic development and limited requirement for employing English in Japanese daily life. Such indifference towards the English language, together with the long-established absence of verbal debate in the Japanese classroom, have intrinsically rendered communicative English as of less significance in Japan than in other national contexts. According to

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 71

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

72

Hosoki (2011), the need to acquire the use of English is often associated with the need to acquire Western knowledge. When English is connected to the acquisition of declarative knowledge rather than communication facility, the whole approach to learning the language does not attach a high degree of interactive importance to it but rests more on linguistic form memorization and test performance.

Background: the Japanese educational context Despite such tendency for silent learning, English language education as contributed by native English teachers and imported materials promotes a different ideal in which verbal performance in the classroom is encouraged. Because of this, over the past four decades in Japanese education tension has existed between the desire for acquiring a communicative mode of education and the emphasis of entrance examinations into universities and high schools on linguistic forms of the language. When these two inclinations are weighed against one another, many Japanese students view entrance examinations as more important than developing verbal English and thus remain less inclined to focus on interpersonal aspects of English than accumulate knowledge transmitted by teachers and through textbooks (see, for example, Littlewood, 2007; Yu and Wang, 2009). Aside from such conscious choices, Japanese sociocultural behaviour in the classroom is often viewed by Western teachers as a lack of confidence and learning engagement. As a matter of fact, students’ silence during classroom activities is caused by inner tension that is heavily related to the difficulty in conveying meanings in English (Kurihara, 2006; Shimizu, 2006) and the inclination to perceive teachers not as facilitators or organizers of learning but as authorities (Yue and Le, 2009). Despite this reality, Japan’s rapid economic growth has slowly contributed to a reformation in English education. In the 1980s, as Japan reached a peak in economic development, more Japanese travelled overseas for study and had more opportunities to open their minds to the importance of spoken English. The educational reform which was influenced by internationalization began to emphasize the necessity of shifting from the receptive learning mode to a more self-expressive one for effective communicative purposes (Kubota, 2002). Funded by the government, the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme, starting in 1987, employed a large number of assistant teachers from a variety of English-speaking countries to team-teach with Japanese

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 72

10/12/2013 09:04



Japanese Perspectives on Silence

73

secondary school teachers not only to make Japan internationalized (Lai, 1999) and motivate students in developing communicative English competence (Sasaki, 2008) but also to foster the English proficiency of Japanese teachers of English (Takeshita, 2010). The increasing impact of technological and economic globalization since the 1980s until the early twenty-first century has accentuated cultural pluralism and characterized the prevalence of English for fostering the indispensable capacity to adapt to the demands of international communication (Kubota, 2002). To keep up with globalization, English education in Japan has begun to reconsider its policy and approach. Public elementary schools have implemented English as a required subject for the fifth and sixth grades (Takeshita, 2010). The new curriculum emphasizes the need to simultaneously retain the Japanese cultural identity and the desire to be open-minded towards other cultures together with the ability to communicate thoughts in English while respecting the positions of others (Sampson, 2010). Although the new English curriculum was implemented in 2011, some Japanese learning habits continue to pose a challenge to new educational practice as students’ silent attentiveness and obedience are highly valued, while speaking aloud in class seems rude and somewhat arrogant (Kato, 2010; Nozaki, 1993). On the one hand, learners wish to fulfil the role of the good student by being thoughtfully calm and attentive rather than verbally aggressive (Nozaki, 1993; Hammond, 2007). On the other hand, the spread of globalization made Japanese students suspect the efficacy of the traditional grammar-translation teaching method, the influence of which remains dominant in many English classrooms in Japan (Sasaki, 2008). The integration of English into the JET Programme, however, entails several drawbacks. First of all, while Japan aims to be internationalized, the linguistic model that Japan employs is quite restricted to certain geographic and racial varieties. According to the survey conducted by Shimizu (1999, as cited in Kubota, 2002, p. 21), among 5,096 assistant language teachers in 1998, about 48.8 per cent were from the USA and 22.71 per cent from the UK. This is because Japan is still obsessed with the particular notion that the ideal English model should be based on the inner-circle countries and such preference continues to dominate teacher recruitment processes. Despite such investment, due to differences in cultural values, many of these teachers struggle to assist Japanese learners in improving their English abilities. While Western teachers take it for granted that the students’ role is to express their opinions or ask questions freely during the class, Japanese students tend to stay quiet, perceiving silence as a virtue, meddling with which during the lesson can be regarded

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 73

10/12/2013 09:04

74

Understanding Silence and Reticence

as a sign of discourtesy (Kato, 2010). Due to such differences in perceptions, teachers sometimes feel frustrated with their classes and become disoriented in the way they conduct lessons. During the 1990s, along with the development of globalization, Japanese people found increased opportunities to encounter more English-speaking people in their lives and the necessity for acquiring communicative English became significant. After the government issued the Courses of Study in 1993 and 1994, which aimed at ‘fostering a positive attitude toward communication through foreign languages’ (Sasaki, 2008, p. 74) and which attached more importance to an understanding of international culture and communicative English, many universities, colleges, high schools and junior high schools expressed a desire to shift the purpose of teaching from academic English to more real-world language use (Hosoki, 2011). In order to foster such English, in 1997 educational guidelines and the media began to capture the public’s imagination with trendy catchwords such as ‘globalization’, ‘cultural diversity’ and ‘international understanding’ (ibid., p. 204). Together with this came the challenge of having to redefine academic ability as well as develop new criteria in the assessment system that required teachers to assess not only students’ knowledge of the language but also their interest and motivation in communication (Sasaki, 2008). While acquiring interpersonal skills in English represents an important objective in Japanese education, the English language itself has not gained status as a key instrument for individuals to build successful careers in Japanese society. Although globalization has highlighted the need for enhancing communication, the general public still considers entering prestigious universities as the key to obtaining higher status; and in response the examination system continues to prioritize reading and writing skills over verbal competence (Hosoki, 2011). Besides, it requires more time, energy and conditions for students and teachers to adopt a highly verbal approach to learning in the classrooms; and Japanese classes continue to be deeply teacher-centred with limited foundation for the implementation of communicative pedagogy in the curriculum. It may be interesting to note that while synonyms of the word ‘communicative’ in many Western dictionaries tend to be ‘talkative’, ‘voluble’ and ‘loquacious’, which emphasize verbal ability, the same term in the Japanese dictionary points to concepts such as ‘transmission’, ‘news’ and ‘signal’ – none of which are directly talk-related. It seems that the meaning of communication in a society denotes what is commonly accepted as the social norms of that society. If this is true, the meaning of the Communicative Approach in language teaching might need to

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 74

10/12/2013 09:04



Japanese Perspectives on Silence

75

be reinterpreted in connection with its context of implementation rather than presume any overtly verbal model.

Recent discourse on Japanese silence The natural history of Japanese students’ silence is not always related to lexicogrammatical competence of English but rather a sociolinguistic gap in the desirable mode of social communication and the degree of inherent expression that may play a role in this behaviour. Founded upon research efforts over the past two decades, largely by Japanese scholars, Japanese silence falls into three main categories of meanings including sociocultural, academic and pedagogical significances. First, it represents an expression of modesty (Cutrone, 2009), politeness (Nakane, 2007), mutual expectations of roles (Kurihara, 2006), shared space for thought processing (Nakane, 2007; Kato, 2010), shared space for attentiveness (Nozaki, 1993, cited in Hammond, 2007), and shared space for participation (Harumi, 2011). Second, the meanings of silence have to do with learners’ linguistic and behavioural difficulties, including limited language competence (Nakane, 2007; Kato, 2010; Lin and Yin, 1997; Wan et al., 1992), foreign-language performance anxiety (Kurihara, 2006; Shimizu, 2006), peer pressure and fear of judgement (Kurihara, 2006; Kato, 2010; Cutrone, 2009), unfamiliarity with peers and teachers (Kurihara, 2006), low motivation (Chu and Nakamura, 2010), low confidence (Nakane, 2007), unpreparedness for overseas study (Arthur, 2004; Yun and Le, 2009), and reluctance to be the centre of attention (Nakane, 2007). Third, silence results from teachers’ limited abilities (Yue and Le, 2009), including poor classroom management (Kato, 2010), unsuitable methodology (Cutrone, 2009; Yue and Le, 2009) and ineffective selection of learning content (Kurihara, 2006). Research efforts have been made to bring out the voices and experiences of Japanese students in overseas academic institutes as they occasionally question the value of their own silent behaviour in a new academic environment such as in the US and in Australia. A case study by Nakane (2007) reveals the lack of proficiency, including difficulty in understanding peers’ and lecturers’ utterances, which hinders students from participating in the class. Japanese students’ silence is also explained as the fear of failing to make themselves understood, unfamiliarity with turn-taking rules in the Australian classroom and the lack of time for processing thoughts in preparation for verbal participation. Studies by Kato (2010) and Wan et. al. (1992) show that Japanese students find it difficult

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 75

10/12/2013 09:04

76

Understanding Silence and Reticence

to adjust to the diverse accents of lecturers together with their different teaching styles, so that they not only struggle in understanding lectures but also feel reluctant to make a contribution in class discussions. Kato (2010) finds that for some students it is hard to divide efforts between the need to concentrate on listening to the teacher and the need to process ideas for participation. The three types of anxiety, as defined by Horwitz et al. (1986), that hinder students from speaking their opinions in the classroom are communication apprehension, fear of negative social evaluation and test anxiety. Kurihara (2006), in a study, identifies foreign language performance anxiety as involving fear of ‘negative peer reaction’ (p. 39). It is commonly acknowledged that social pressure from peers during classroom discussion often influences the attitudes of individuals (Kurihara, 2006; Potter and Wetherell, 1987). Seven per cent of the Japanese participants in Kato’s study (2010) claim that being silent is a virtue, and untimely participation during the lesson can be regarded as bad-mannered to the teacher and a nuisance to peers. Due to such social need for modesty, Japanese students consciously refrain from overt expressions of opinions and display of emotions. They also avoid being the centre of attention by selecting a seat in the classroom which may receive less direct attention from the lecturer (Nakane, 2007). According to Nakane, some of the verbal interaction in the Australian classroom is regarded by many Japanese students as irrelevant as they do not perceive talk as the optimum mode of learning. Although such behaviour is ostensibly misinterpreted as a lack of learning engagement, the lack of student questions often stems from the embarrassment of not having learned enough rather than the absence of learning engagement (Littrell, 2006; Hammond, 2007; Cutrone, 2009). The major difficulty among Japanese students in many Western classrooms, therefore, is not the struggle to speak out but rather it is the struggle to adjust to a different mode of participation and meet new expectations so that they will not be misunderstood as demonstrating poor learning eagerness. As the learning and teaching styles in the host countries come into conflict with Japanese students’ previous educational experiences, getting used to unfamiliar educational methodology often lays a huge burden on Japanese students to adapt to their new academic environment (Yue and Le, 2009; Arthur, 2004). Such situations call for more research efforts to investigate Japanese students’ perceptions and behaviour as these get modified beyond the Japanese contexts. This chapter reports the outcome of a study which explored how Japanese students learn to academically adapt and reflect on the adaptation process when the educational context is shifted from Japan to Australia where learning

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 76

10/12/2013 09:04



Japanese Perspectives on Silence

77

engagement is displayed through verbal articulation and where there is a strong need for spontaneous, open exchange of ideas with others.

Research focus and participants’ profiles The project is designed to investigate Japanese students’ perceptions, attitudes and experiences in relation to the use of silence in the classroom, whether as an academic learning mode or as an inherent social behaviour. Interviews were conducted in which Japanese students expressed their opinions regarding their mental and intellectual processes of developing English knowledge and skills through silence and speech, their feeling and thinking towards peer interaction and the overall academic environment, factors influencing their choice to be quiet or verbal as well as their preferences for the best timing and conditions for such modes. Participants in the projects include ten Japanese students at higher educational institutions in Melbourne, Australia. Although all are studying and researching across a number of different academic disciplines, they share similar experiences in having learned and used the English language in the Australian academic context. Six participants are female (Hiromi, Masae, Maya, Tomoko, Yukari and Yurie) and the remaining four are male (Manabu, Yusuke, Satoru and Daichi). Their age varies between 24 and 50 years old and they are intellectually mature enough to cope with the pressure of higher degree programmes within their field of expertise. Except for one participant, the rest are all pursuing their Master’s degrees in various fields. The participants’ experience in English learning varies from five to 19 years, both in the contexts of Japan and in Australia, which suggests that they have experienced diverse learning styles and environments, and thanks to this are able to reflect on their language-learning process. Two of them were even learning to be lecturers in English and thus are able to discuss the learning process in conscious linguistic terms. Some of the participants have both high school and university learning experiences in Australia and the time that they have spent studying in this country is between two and 12 years. All the participants have university degrees. One participant is a school teacher and another a seasonal Japanese language tutor at Monash University, while the rest have all been students. This means that their opportunities for verbal communication in English in and outside of the classroom are abundant. Most of them are capable of and interested in furthering their training and education. The sampling method is

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 77

10/12/2013 09:04

78

Understanding Silence and Reticence

both purposeful and incidental because it is based on participants’ background of being Japanese studying in Australia as well as their availability and the voluntary nature at the time of the research project. There is no attempt to impose any generalization on the findings over a larger population.

Research methodology The project employs a semi-structured interview as the primary data collection tool and utilizes interpretive discourse analysis in order to, in the words of Denzin and Lincoln (2011, p.4) ‘make the world visible’. It is a case study because the investigator seeks to capture ‘the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events’ (Yin, 2009, p. 2) and allows for an in-depth exploration of a few individuals (Creswell, 2008). The data analysis method is inspired by phenomenologists in the sense that the participants’ experiences are taken into account based on their own view, in relation to their own social context (see, for example, Moran, 2000; Sokolowski, 2000). The project embraces a deeply qualitative nature by seeking to understand the meaning constructed by the participants themselves in relation to, as suggested by Creswell (2008) and Merriam (2009), how they experience and make sense of the world around them. One semi-structured interview was conducted with each individual participant, who expressed his/her beliefs on the use of silence in educational settings in relation to talk. The interview took place in either English or Japanese, or both – depending upon whichever language seems most comfortable to participants at the interview time. The data are then interpreted partly based on the participant’s intuitive knowledge in combination with the researcher’s expert knowledge of classroom events.

Findings and discussions This section reports and discusses key findings from empirical data in which ten Japanese University students reflected on their experiences working with silence and talk. Silence will be discussed in relation to language competence, the decision to speak or remain silent, shared responsibility in the classroom community, types and functions of silence, as well as the interconnectedness between verbal and non-verbal modes of participation.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 78

10/12/2013 09:04



Japanese Perspectives on Silence

79

Language competence as developed through silence Most participants admit that during the early stage of their English language learning in the Australian classroom they often refrain from initiating discussion but prefer to wait for others to present their ideas first just to make sure their potential contribution would be appropriate to the topic and classroom situation. In retrospect of many classrooms in Japan, this waiting time may take up to 70 per cent of the whole class time and such mentality and behaviour have often contributed to the silent climate in the Japanese educational setting. With regards to making decisions when to participate, students connect verbal contribution or the lack of it with such factors as classroom conditions, teachers’ expectation and students’ behaviour. On the whole, participants express the general belief that foreign languages can be learned in silence, through receiving information and through observing how other class members respond to one another’s opinions. Along with this, participants also attempt to enhance their language and communication skills through observing real-world communication as well as media broadcast in English. All these behaviours seem consistent with Crystal’s (1987) proposition that language is not always assimilated through talk but a large part of it tends to be acquired through exposure to significant and intelligible input. Some reveal that whether one decides to talk or remain silent depends on which skills of the target language one wishes to improve. Those who hope to develop reading skills would prefer some internal space to reflect as they not only need to concentrate but also go back and forth on the reading content, knowing that talking out prematurely could disrupt such flow of thinking. On the contrary, if learners wish to enhance their speaking skills, a certain degree of verbal rehearsal is preferable. It is unanimously agreed that speaking out when possible is the favourable behaviour that helps enrich verbal communication facility since such practice allows an exchange of thoughts. Individuals’ internalized speech, no matter how deep and useful, cannot be shared to reach a mutual understanding and appreciation simply through silence. Two participants indicate that their silence goes through two main stages: silence in their early stage of language learning allows them to focus on the form of the language including repeating word pronunciation to themselves, selecting the right word and arranging syntax. Later, when linguistic form is no longer a problem, silence is employed for focusing on meaning and preparing for sharing worthwhile ideas. In addition to all of the above, the decision to talk or remain silent also depends largely on the subject matter of individuals’ interest, the familiarity of

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 79

10/12/2013 09:04

80

Understanding Silence and Reticence

the parties involved in the conversation, positive relationship with the teacher, class size, the time and opportunity available, the pleasantness of classroom atmosphere, the coordination of turns as well as other encouraging conditions such as good health, comfortable room temperature and other contexts that allow for stress-free participation. As members of a cohesive community, students do not learn separately but reciprocally, and silence and talk are the agents which make such synchronisation possible. Besides, data show that every individual has a dual responsibility not only towards his or her own learning but also towards the learning of his or her community. On the one hand, learners need to employ silence for practising speaking quietly and processing their own thoughts; on the other hand, when such silent learning has taken place sufficiently, it would be time to interact with the rest of the class so that others too can benefit from the product of their silence.

Some core functions of silence In today’s globalized educational context there is a general tendency to approach silence with empathy rather than to frown upon it as an undesirable learning behaviour. Although participants in the study feel that in some educational settings in Australia and elsewhere, silence could be internalized as a sign of restricted collaboration and reduced evidence of learning, Western discourse in communication has increasingly become cautious in making this type of statement and university academics would reconsider the reliability of such assumptions to avoid prejudice and to show appreciation towards different cultural behaviours in education. Several participants assume that talk is more harmful than silence because in many cases the former can hurt, cause conflict and disturb the thinking process, while the latter brings comfort and a concordant social surrounding. Except one student who finds it hard to interact without the verbal word, most participants agree that one continues to make connection with the class even when staying quiet. Silence, which allows individuals to concentrate on meaning, process information, and raise questions, should be recognized as evidence of participation especially when other contributors to the conversation are aware that the silent partner is listening. Participants feel that silence does not always depend on the matter of whether the language being used is the mother tongue or English. Even when classroom talk in Japan is conducted mainly in the mother tongue, some students would prefer listening to speaking during the learning process. In

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 80

10/12/2013 09:04



Japanese Perspectives on Silence

81

their experience with the Japanese classroom, it was estimated that a large part of classroom process took place in students’ silence and students often interacted with the teacher mainly by nodding to demonstrate agreement or shaking their heads to express disagreement. This is because silence is customarily welcome and appreciated by teachers and peers alike. It is particularly useful and valuable when one needs to study alone, especially when reading course materials. Sufficient silent time is needed for one to think over the issue and such silent reflection will result in better understanding of the subject of learning. Silence, however, has its relative meaning and does not always have to mean ‘complete silence’. A reader can hear herself talk when she is reading a book and the classroom observer can perform an internal dialogue with herself when others are conversing. The types of silence that participants have employed in their learning experiences include silence as a form of resistance or support, as space for thinking, as respect towards the speaker, as a way to hide conflicting thoughts or feelings, as time to compare and contrast their own ideas with the ideas of others.

The relationship between verbal and silent modes of participation Both talk and silence can be either productive or destructive. If reasonable talk keeps conversation progressing reciprocally, reasonable silence among students can leave space for more conversation to be created by others. On the other hand, if excessive talk among a few class members dominates class time and inhibits the rest of the class, excessive silence holds students back from learning from one another’s contributions. Yurie expresses this concern when recollecting an incident: In one of my classes, there is a foreigner from New Zealand. She just dominates class talk and does not allow others to express opinions. I don’t understand why this student just wants to say everything all by herself.

Efforts made by this study to compare the values of silence and talk have resulted in a balanced picture in which there is a time for silence and a time for talk in every learning scenario. Participants’ collective voices show that silence is just as important as interaction in every language class. The main function of silence, first of all, is to leave space for learners to observe class members’ responses to one another’s utterances. Second, silence can be a tool to express approval or disapproval depending on the contextual clues given and perceived in shared circumstances. Third, both silence and talk may receive warm or

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 81

10/12/2013 09:04

82

Understanding Silence and Reticence

reserved acceptance from students since both of these behaviours form an integral part of wisdom practice. In other words, there is no consistent rule as to which behaviour should prevail in one’s learning repertoire across all teaching and learning contexts. Instead participants feel that they engage better with classroom processes sometimes through talking and at other times through mute reflection. While verbal contribution is desired for sharing ideas with everyone, silent moments are equally desired for tentatively listening and for internal engagement with those ideas. Both talk and silence serve as a means to connect new knowledge with existing knowledge: while talk helps one to express thoughts, silence helps mull over such thoughts. In participants’ learning philosophy, there is a general acknowledgement of the strategic values of silence and talk. While talk allows students to obtain feedback from peers’ responses, silence allows for reflection on one another’s ideas. Without such useful reflection moments to prepare for interaction, talk will be of low quality and value. Both silence and talk are important in establishing a positive classroom relationship because both are required in conversations. Silence is needed to show respect and concern to the speaker and verbal responses are required to reciprocate when someone has shared a thought with you. Participants are aware that a classroom resembles broader society in which not only language learning but daily conversations also require a sensitive integration between silence and talk. What remains most important to know is when to be a good listener and when to be a good speaker in the classroom so as to maintain community congruence. Apart from such synchronization, there exist a number of factors which exert influence over willingness to speak or tendency to withdraw from speech. Provided that the discussed topic is familiar to students, the English language used in the class stays at their level and the teacher knows how to encourage participation, Japanese students would be reasonably willing to participate. However, it is often the implicit rule that a student who has already spoken a few times would demonstrate sensibility by withdrawing into silence to create verbal opportunities for peers’. In the event most members of the class have willingly shared their thoughts, the few remaining individuals who have not spoken will feel left out of the group and might try to make contribution in order to be recognized as collaborating well with everybody else. In this way, silence is not the only artefact that shows how people conform to group harmony but rather talk can very well serve the same purpose; and the silent student in this scenario will feel embarrassed for not talking, which can be considered as disrespectful to the group. This reflection by several Japanese individuals in the study

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 82

10/12/2013 09:04



Japanese Perspectives on Silence

83

somehow dismisses the myth circulated about Asians who invariably employ silence as the symbol of respect, or as Liu (2001, p. 195) puts it, as a way ‘to maintain harmony’ – while silence in many cases can also be considered rude in Japanese cultural behaviour. Even though most participants in the study feel that listening to others is as valuable as speaking out, their attitude towards their own silence and their attitude towards the silence of others seem to differ considerably. First of all, their self-perception can be very mixed. While some are not afraid their silence may lead other class members to develop negative attitudes towards them, others are concerned that their teachers and classmates might interpret their silence as a sign of a failure to understand the lesson or even a failure in learning. In the meanwhile, their perception of others’ silence seems to be more consistent. A thought-provoking issue emerging in the relationship between silence and talk is participants’ predominant attitude towards talkative and silent peers. In response to the question ‘Do you prefer to work with talkative or silent people?’ most admit a preference for working with the outgoing extrovert over the silent introvert. Those perceiving themselves as silent learners would enjoy working with talkative peers for fear that interaction might be restricted when all the introverts sit silently together. Those perceiving themselves as more articulate learners also prefer working with other articulate learners hoping for a fruitful exchange of ideas, on the grounds that it does not seem easy to get the mutual academic satisfaction of idea exchange from the introverted learner who tends to listen most of the time. Despite the overall fondness for eloquent peers, some participants disclose that in their own learning experience not all outgoing peers are helpful and pleasant to be with since good cooperation and effective communication cannot be judged simply through the amount of verbal exchange. A number of highly articulate people can prove to be uncooperative individuals who enjoy speaking about themselves and their own concerns rather than listen to the opinions of others. Besides, there exists a close relationship between silence and talk in terms of shared space, timing, participation opportunities and speaking desire. Someone’s frequent contribution can reduce the talking opportunities of others. Silence in this case, as stated by one participant, can be a way to demonstrate a disagreeable attitude towards class members who talk too much. The reflections below show the interrelated behaviour between highly verbal and less verbal students: I realized that my unfamiliarity with certain topics often keeps my mouth shut. Understanding that poor knowledge might prevent me from making

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 83

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

84

contribution I then decided to educate myself on that topic. However, the moment I became knowledgeable enough to contribute, the fact that other classmates seem too talkative and class time is fully occupied continues to take away my interest in making a contribution. (Hiromi) When I have ideas to share or know the answer to questions I make effort to speak up during class discussion as much as possible. However, I don’t suppose the lesson works best when some speak too much and others too little. Overall I learn more through talk rather than silence especially when others offer feedback to my contribution. (Tomoko) When I’m incapable of responding to the lecturer’s question, listening to how others respond to that question can help me figure how to respond when future opportunity comes. Although my silence is good for me as a self-learning tool, others’ contribution is more useful for me than their silence. (Daichi)

Factors influencing the desire to be silent or talkative Silence can be positive or negative, representing either a conscious choice with its own social meaning or an expression of shyness and low confidence level. However, when it comes to learning engagement, some reveal that full engagement cannot happen if one never takes the opportunity to speak out during class hours. In participants’ own judgement, some of the factors that influence their preference to talk or refraining from it include class time availability, teacher and peer attitudes, the level of inspiration they receive from interesting teachers and peers who not only share meaningful ideas but also raise good questions and listen well, together with the classroom climate, learner interest and familiarity with discussion topics, and the overall situation. Teachers or peers who are eloquent and assertive can also intimidate less able students from participating no matter how much they wish to do so. When asked ‘Do you like or dislike learner silence in the classroom?’ some participants are clear about what silence means to them. Manabu elaborates: I cannot say which type is better because silence itself does not matter but its purpose does matter. If silence is used to show objection or dislike then it is not pleasant.

Maya explains: I generally show my consent by talking more than being silent. I use silence more as a form of disagreement probably because I do not want to offend others and tend to be careful about stating objection.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 84

10/12/2013 09:04



Japanese Perspectives on Silence

85

Daichi shares his experience in treating silence as a learning opportunity: By listening to others, I gain a lot of new information. I always enjoy listening to others especially when they share what I have never thought of or did not expect to find.

In the data, silence is treated as a useful tool for processing thoughts, pondering on one’s personal experience, figuring out how to apply rules, making connection with previous knowledge, relating issues, taking notes, explaining things to oneself, attempting to understand, memorizing expressions, questioning an idea, thinking about the topic and preparing to speak. Despite these, some participants occasionally find themselves negating or resisting the lecturer’s style by remaining quiet although they do recognize the value of interaction. Hiromi expresses this tension: I do not think objection or disagreement should be best expressed in the form of silence but rather in words.

In a learning community comprising both verbal and quiet members, addressing the question ‘which type of silence and talk do you like/dislike and why?’, the participants express interesting attitudes towards both learning behaviours. Favour and discomfort towards silence alternate in the data and the reasons for them can be mixed, complex and thoughtful, in which silence is caught in a love–hate relationship which is subject to contextual change, individual preferences and learning purposes. While silence is highly valued by some participants as opportunities for learning; others connect it with undesirable emotions. Below are some positive thoughts: I like peer silence when peers are listening to my contribution. If I feel others are listening to me attentively, I would feel encouraged to explain myself better. (Daichi) I appreciate the silent time given to me so I can prepare to present my idea because I can put quality into what I’m going to say rather than say it without careful thoughts and the quality becomes so messy that nobody will like what I say. (Yukari)

Others tend to view silence in a more critical light: I don’t like silence when people keep good ideas to themselves rather than share them. This is a moral issue and it will make it difficult to form good relationships. (Yuka)

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 85

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

86

I feel nervous when others keep silent without giving any responses to my contribution. (Hiromi) I don’t like discussions in tutorials in which people use silence as their objection or disagreement. (Maya) I don’t like the awkward silence which makes me feel like I’m being forced to say something to break it. (Masae)

In some cases, participants find themselves resisting the lecturer’s ineffective pedagogy through the use of silence. This phenomenon has been recognized in research conducted by Yoneyama (1999, 2001), who found that students in Japanese high schools often resist control by authority, resulting in tension between the intuitiveness for conformity and the desire for resistance. When this tension occurs, participants resort to inner speech, viewing it as an expanded form of verbal practice in a less threatening environment which the teacher fails to provide. The above satisfaction and tension with the behavioural styles of others represent the practice of social mediation: learning is a two-way process whereby the learner influences and gets influenced by the social surroundings through interacting with them and through modifying behaviour. As Vygotsky (1988, p. 36) believes, the ‘true direction of development is from the social to the individual’. Such movement demonstrates a shift from lower innate mental processes to higher mental functions including mediated perception, voluntary selective attention, and abstract thinking. Being shaped through social interaction and serving as a tool that directs thought processes, silence takes on a social nature and can perform a social function. One example of such function is the development of egocentric speech, which according to Vygotsky (1986) is utilized not only for communication but also for thinking, self-direction and self-control. With the emergence of private speech, language and thought merge and influence each other as language becomes intellectual and thinking becomes verbal. This process of thinking aloud has profound implications for the L2 classroom in particular as the process of assimilation can be monitored and mediated. Private speech can be seen as an expanded form of practice through which students develop their knowledge in a non-threatening, stable environment provided by the type of teacher who is accepting towards both inner space and voicing out ideas. Several students internalize this dual responsibility with which they can remain quiet and listen to others in order to learn by themselves but at times they need to reciprocate by sharing their thoughts out loud so that

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 86

10/12/2013 09:04



Japanese Perspectives on Silence

87

others find the chance to learn from their input and feedback. Such process of participatory appropriation allows individuals to modify their learning behaviour through involvement in meaningful and enriching classroom discourse. In participants’ views, there should be no hierarchy between talk and silence as both dimensions can be either productive or destructive. If good talk keeps conversation progressing reciprocally, good silence leaves space for more conversation to be created by others. If excessive talk among a few class members dominates class time and hinders learning, excessive silence reduces beneficial feedback and contribution. As learners move in and out of silence, they also learn to adapt their regular styles in ways that would suit new learning situations. If the need to modify cultures of learning is viewed as a type of cross-cultural adaptation, such effort can be guided by a third-culture theory known as the double-swing model proposed by Yoshikawa (1987). The theory conceptualizes how individuals and their respective cultural values can intersect and be negotiated in constructive ways. Relationship and communication would be productive where both parties exchange sociocultural behaviour in the course of the mutual behavioural interpretation. While two partners may be separate and independent at first, they become interdependent in their dialogue so that the cultural gap is bridged by mutual respect and effort. The ultimate aim of communication is not to eliminate differences, but to use the dynamics that arise through the encounter, and desirable effect is achieved when both participants change during their communication and construct an integrated, multi-cultural sense of self.

Conclusion The collective voices of the Japanese participants show two major tendencies in how they prefer to learn. Many are willing to adapt their styles towards more verbal competences to meet the requirements of classroom situations, support peers’ learning, demonstrate sensitivity towards the learning cultures of others, and develop communication skills for the global context. A second inclination shows silence as a safe and helpful policy due to the need to concentrate, process meaning, upgrade the quality of talk, and minimize open conflicts. To some, silence serves more than a self-regulating purpose but is also structured and directed towards the learning rhythm of the classroom community. Learners’ interest in expanding their experience and shaping new behaviour to support L2 development coincides with Sasaki’s (2012) research which

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 87

10/12/2013 09:04

88

Understanding Silence and Reticence

discovers that, while some Japanese students resist absorbing new values, feeling proud of their Japanese identity and their use of silence as an important strength, others express the need to modify their learning behaviour and even part of their identity. As Leontiev (1981) appeals, the ultimate purpose of education is not to discover what one is but what one ‘not yet is.’ If a learner has not performed a certain learning behaviour, it is worth finding out whether such tendency has a good reason or simply results from the lack of experience. Once being well informed of all the available learning conditions and styles, learners should be allowed to make decisions regarding how to learn. Eventually, educators should be able to support students with thoughtful guidance rather than to leave them alone. The ways in which some participants internalize the roles of silence seem to indicate some degree of mature thinking rather than withdrawal from interaction. Those roles include, for example, creating a safe shield from social conflict and monitoring the quality of talk. Such perception about productive silence goes well with scholarly views which praise the value of thoughtful, high-order silence. Akhutina (1978) highlights a Vygotskyan inner speech stage and suggests that one does not necessarily resort to talk to prove that proactive learning has happened; Dolya (2010) also recognizes the natural progression in which humans tend to advance from a social communication tool to internalized thinking tool. Such internalization of language, in many cases, rests upon social, historical, educational and cultural interaction with other social members. On the foundation of Vygotsky’s proposition that learning is highly social, it is evident that the Japanese educational system is a well-organized social construct in which talk and silence follow communication rules which are communally developed and cherished. Achieving communicative proficiency, after all, is an act of social synchronization. As Japanese students move to a country such as Australia where verbal interaction is valued as the major medium of education, behavioural modification and negotiation between silence and talk are required. It seems clear that participants in this study have demonstrated such awareness to a great extent. Along this line, scholars such as Davydov (1995), Margolis (1996a, 1996b), Leontiev (1981), Halliday (1985), who are influenced by the works of Vygotsky have unanimously settled with the understanding that language, thought and behaviour cannot be disassociated from the values of their surroundings but are subject to the influence of social context.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 88

10/12/2013 09:04

5

Korean Perspectives on Silence

Second language education in Korea Discourse on second language education shows that the Korean population in general gives the ultimate concern to English education (Yoo, 2005; Song, 2011). Determination to reform language pedagogy came in the years following World War II. During the 1950s and 1960s a large number of educational advisers from the US came to Korea to provide training to Korean teachers on American methodology. In the meanwhile, hundreds of Koreans were sent to the US to pursue higher education and returned to Korea to hold positions in higher education institutions. Although the American ideology of equal opportunity exerted a strong impact on Korean education, the teaching and learning modes in the Korean classrooms continued to resist the American-style learner-centred model and retained what was seen as a teacher-controlled lecturing style. According to Seth (2002), the promotion of educational autonomy was unsuccessful due to the highly centralized Korean educational system and the national requirement for unity of the pedagogical quality and learning content. Although later in 1980s there were teachers’ movements to break away from government’s centralized control and to promote teacher autonomy, there was no real evidence that such movements were directly influenced by the American ideal. Since the early 1990s, with intensive efforts towards curriculum innovations, educational reform in the country began to move away from centralization and allow for more autonomy at various local levels. Compared with the Japanese perspective on English education, Korean educators seem considerably more passionate about English as an essential instrument to the country’s economic and educational development. The year 1977 saw English becoming a compulsory subject in public elementary schools (Gayrama and Lee, 2011) and parents’ increasing support for children’s English education. The Korean public’s attitude towards the English language is an

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 89

10/12/2013 09:04

90

Understanding Silence and Reticence

enthusiastic one and this favour for English is well demonstrated with concrete efforts including US$15 billion of private tutoring in English per year (Byun, 2010), large numbers of students sent overseas for English training (Park, 2009), over 20 English villages established in the country (Choi, 2008), and large numbers of native English speakers increasingly employed in all levels of the educational system (Jo, 2008). According to an estimation by Park (2009), Korea’s financial investment in English education is nearly three times as much as Japan’s; and more than half the money invested by parents into their children’s education goes to English language training. Such determination to learn English has reached the extent where young children at elementary levels were sent overseas alone to study English, although such practice was considered illegal (Choi, 2005) or the extreme case where some parents paid money to have their children go through tongue surgery so that they could pronounce English words correctly (Demick, 2002, cited in Park 2009). Organized efforts have been made to support the quality of English language instruction in the country. The first to fifth English language curriculum innovations in Korea had been founded upon the grammar-translation approach until 1992 (Bae and Han, 1994). Although the National Curriculum has been reformed in the subsequent decades, resulting in a shift towards a more communicative model (Chang, 2002, 2009), many Korean teachers’ limited verbal fluency makes them resort mainly to the mother tongue as a medium of instruction (Li, 1998; Jeong, 2004; Lee, 2008; Ko, 2008) rather than provide input in the target language. Since L2 exposure remains weak, classroom interaction often does not happen in English and learners’ verbal rehearsal remains minimal. Apart from this, the content of English textbooks does not seem inspiring enough to stimulate verbal participation. A recent study conducted by Lee (2009) on high school textbooks in Korea demonstrates that the treatment of many topics remains superficial, opportunities for dynamic discussion are lacking and information to build sociocultural appropriacy is not provided. Such drawbacks in pedagogy and materials somehow explain the lack of foundation for Korean students to develop strong interactional habits in the classroom. Despite educational reform efforts, the picture of English language achievement in the eyes of Korean scholars and educators is far from optimistic. According to Kim (2006), the English-only movements in the classroom have caused stress for both teachers and students due to the pressure to struggle with L2 content, to produce L2 output and to tolerate miscommunication in classrooms where Korean has often been the medium of instruction. Chun and Choi (2006) maintain that such investment has not produced the positive academic

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 90

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

91

outcome that it deserves and Korean learners of English have continued to struggle with English communication. Most are aware that English is a difficult language to learn due to large linguistic differences between Korean and English, manifested by the fact that many learners, including those who are involved in immersion programmes, continue to use more Korean than English even during language training. Likewise, a recent study conducted by Nam (2010) into middle-school classrooms of English in Korea demonstrates that both native and non-native English speaking teachers maintain a highly teacher-centred pedagogy and learners’ talk remains minimal, which is partly due to large class sizes and partly to teachers’ lack of discussion management skills. On top of this, Korean teachers’ and students’ expectations in many cases do not match. A study by Pyo (2008) on 111 university students and five lecturers discovers that while students yearn for a more practical and competence-based approach to English education, their lecturers seem more concerned with theory-based pedagogy. Despite many teacher-training programmes increasingly funded by the Korean Ministry of Education to improve teaching quality (Jo, 2008), the predominant use of the mother tongue, the current teacher-centred pedagogy together with many teachers’ disregard for learners’ needs somehow explain why opportunities for Korean students’ L2 verbal rehearsal in the classroom continue to remain minimal.

Korean perceptions of silence Historically, Korean society regards silence more highly than the spoken word (Yook and Leeahn, 1999) and this philosophy pervades interpersonal practice at various levels. Frugality with words is considered the prime virtue, while unrestricted outspokenness is considered ill-mannered. During the Chosun Dynasty, a talkative wife would be lawfully divorced by her husband and, in order to practise good conduct before marriage, a young woman would be advised by her parents to spend three years in muteness (Yum, 2012). The preference of silence over loquacity in Korean culture reflects the influence of Buddhism in this country, which values inference rather than directness and which avoids the obsoleteness of the stated word. The history of Korea has recorded the episode of senior monk Rev. Sung-Chui Lee, who for eight years never articulated even one word having recognized the inefficiency of verbal language in human articulacy (Kim, 2003). A more thoughtful way to relate to others is to bond rather than communicate (ibid.), and the most sophisticated

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 91

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

92

way of conveying a message is to do so without obvious verbal communication (Yum, 2012). According to Choi (1995) there are around 300 proverbs about words and silence in Korean traditional culture. Only 66 of them (22 per cent) consider words or speaking as important and only 33 of them (11 per cent) treat both silence and talk as equal; while as many as 201 of these proverbs (67 per cent) value silence more than speech. They highlight the importance of taciturnity as well as the need to control emotions by refraining from speech. Indirect and implicit communication is so essential that suppression of personal excitement and wordiness will facilitate one’s quest for truth and knowledge. Nonverbal cues make up an important part of every interpersonal message, although such cues are expressed more delicately than generously: gestures and facial expressions are well controlled so that they will never be too much. Even in the present-day context, some degree of reticence is still highly regarded as good manners in many social settings. Spoken language does not have to be the major means of interaction and thus is used sparingly when it comes to complex or delicate situations (Kim, 2003). Articulation of personal views and persuasive language is restrained rather than freely used; and Western-style arguments are either not employed or employed with great caution. As a way of maintaining good relationships, Korean disagreement is often indirect and non-confrontational (Cho, 2005), manifested either by delayed response (Hong, 2003; Song, 1993), suggestive response (Kim, 1985) or silence, which can be understood by one’s ability to either read between the lines or recognize signals such as pauses, faces and gestures (Robinson, 1996). Jeong (1990, cited in Kim, 2006) classifies silence into the following eight categories based on its sociocultural functions, namely: MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

Positive silence – expressing sympathy, agreement, understanding and promise. Negative silence – denoting disagreement, denial, criticism, rebellion, dissatisfaction, warning, threat and displeasure. Indifferent silence – showing neglect, contempt, insult and low interest. Insensible silence – displaying carelessness, negligence and distraction. Introverted silence – stemming from poor expression skills, distance and passiveness. Uninformed silence – resulting from unfamiliarity with the topic of discussion. Emotional silence – arising out of confusion, fright and anxiety.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 92

10/12/2013 09:04

MM

Korean Perspectives on Silence

93

Considerate silence – demonstrating politeness, respect and thoughtful concern.

By and large, communication in Korean society is indirect and revealing one’s emotion openly is unappreciated. Silence and verbal hesitance are commonly acceptable behaviours while excessive verbal articulation is frowned upon as lacking sophistication. To demonstrate this value, Kim (2003) provides an example in which one will sense others’ need for help and provide help even before being asked. Such ability to read emotion and understand meanings without resorting to words is an important skill and appreciated behaviour (Yum, 1987), which contrasts with many Western notions of effective communication which emphasize clarity in the spoken word (see, for example, Grice, 1975). In this regard, the most advanced communicator is not one who talks eloquently but one who relates well to others without resorting to conventional talk, a perception comparable to what Spitzberg and Hecht (1984, p. 575) refer to as ‘relational competence’. From an intercultural perspective, Kim and Ko (2010) maintain that, unlike many Western cultures where speaking is the primary means of self-expression which consolidates a sense of self, in some East Asian cultures speaking can be a source of distraction to intellectual ability. Such a major difference explains many intercultural misunderstandings within and beyond educational contexts. For instance, Korean communication style is sometimes viewed by Americans as vague and inexpressive, while American communication style can be viewed by Koreans as babbling and assertive (Kim, 1977). Such an impression, which derives from subjective cultural frameworks, can happen in many educational settings where teachers and students come from different backgrounds. Arguably, cultural mismatch in judging each other’s behaviour may interfere with the classroom relationship as well as teaching and learning effectiveness. Arguably, the structure of Korean silence echoes the structure of the Korean society in which community hierarchy influences whose voice is to be heard first. A junior would be willing to wait for seniors to lead conversation and is not supposed to initiate it. Such norms in the family and broader social contexts somehow transfer to educational settings where students do not spontaneously talk to the teacher but tend to wait for signs of nomination. Furthermore, students’ verbalization has to be controlled to avoid boastfulness, and talkativeness is a sign of poor sophistication. Such verbal modesty includes refraining from openly criticizing others or expressing one’s personal opinion too freely. Despite Korean scholars’ acknowledgement of frugal verbal behaviour as a

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 93

10/12/2013 09:04

94

Understanding Silence and Reticence

major feature of the people, Western scholars such as Aubrey (2009) believe that Koreans in the modern day, unlike Japanese, do not always value silence but in many cases prefer verbal assertiveness. When it comes to learning English, in particular, there is the need for more verbal practice than what is regulated by the above-mentioned norms. Unfortunately, factors such as students’ limited verbal proficiency (Kim and Bonk, 2006), fear of errors (Song, 1994; Kong, 1996; Jambor, 2007), lack of classroom discussion experience (Kong, 1996), and expectation of teacher nomination (Han, 2005; Song, 1994) all contribute to the reasons why Korean students refrain from using English during peer discussion in educational settings. Attempts to cope with these factors are often met with many social forces which continue to play a part in the challenge of using the target language. Kim (2004) reports incidents in which Korean teachers provide students with input after class time by speaking some English and this practice is frowned upon by many colleagues as being pretentious and unnatural; while others feel that the invasion of English in the everyday school may affect the value of mother tongue use. A study conducted by Lee et al. (2003) on Korean high school classrooms reveals that a number of Korean teachers are highly authoritative and leave little space for students’ autonomous activities. Because of this, tension often exists between the advocacy for English use in classrooms and the prevailing Korean social behaviour, making Korean teachers feel disempowered because the nature of verbal communication in English does not conform with expected student manners, group dynamics, classroom rules and teacher authority as promoted by the broader society (Hwang et al., 2010).

Research aims and participants The study investigates Korean students’ perceptions, attitudes and experiences in relation to the function of silence in L2 learning and development. Interviews focus on learners’ mental and intellectual processes, feeling and thinking towards peer interaction, and factors influencing their choice to be quiet or verbal. Participants in the project include eight Korean students from three highly reputed universities in Korea; four are male students (Hyungwon, Seung-yun, Joo-sung and Gyu-bo) and the other four are female students (Nam-hee, In-hwa, Hye-in and In-kang), aged between 22 and 29 years old. Except for one participant, who is a graduate student, the rest are all pursuing

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 94

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

95

their undergraduate degrees in various fields including engineering, economics, politics, administration, nursing, science and English education. Participants’ experience in English learning varies from nine to 18 years both in the contexts of Korea and overseas. Their views on silence are related to English-language classes in university classrooms, with occasional reflection on their high school years’ L2 learning experience.

Findings and implications of silence in education While the Japanese participants in this book express appreciation towards the role of silence in learning, their Korean counterparts tend to rethink the value of silence and indicate a strong preference for talk. Some contradiction occurs between academic discourse on Korean appreciation of silence and the views of participants in this project. While the former source indicates unequivocal recognition of the need to be silent, empirical data in the latter source suggests a genuine desire to move away from it. The subsequent section reports how Korean students perceive the use of silence, followed by a discussion of how and why talk is preferred over silence as well as the connectedness between the two dimensions. The chapter then presents Korean participants’ attitudes towards talkative and silent peers as well as factors influencing the desire to talk or withdraw into silence. The research topic will be discussed in relation to language competence, the decision to speak or remain silent, shared responsibility in the classroom community, types and functions of silence, as well as the interconnectedness between verbal and non-verbal modes of participation.

How silence functions Although only two participants prefer silence and the rest advocate a highly verbal classroom process, most of them acknowledge the values of the silent learning mode to some extent. They are aware that silence does not equal idleness but embraces a range of learning efforts such as internalizing language forms, listening to others, taking notes and organizing thoughts. For Hyung-won and Gyu-bo, silence is used in two ways: to learn and to communicate. In learning, they believe in the ability to achieve language successfully through not talking much but through exposure to the talk of others. In communicating, silence might have conflicting functions such as approval or resistance;

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 95

10/12/2013 09:04

96

Understanding Silence and Reticence

active processing or passive involvement. Silence signifies autonomy when one consciously chooses to remain silent and reflects passivity when one simply practises group norms. Silence may send a positive or negative message depending on individual learning styles and dispositions. For instance, some use silence to show acceptance and cooperation whereas talk could mean disagreement or resistance to authority. Silence as resistance is a complex issue which results from students’ attitudes, lesson content, as well as teachers’ ability and behaviour. Hye-in reflects on how silence was employed as a tool to resist teachers’ way of handling classroom processes. In high school, she and her classmates went through a phase of rebellious adolescence, which was a time when many students did not always develop positive thoughts about teachers. When the teacher asked questions, students avoided eye contact and refrained from giving answers in order to resist authority. In her university years, however, silence took on a different meaning. Lesson content became more challenging than in high school and professors would not ask easy questions so everyone had to struggle to think. Some lecturers forced the class to accept their arbitrary views; others were not clear in explaining complicated concepts but pressured students with many questions to test the understanding of those concepts. Hye-in resorted to silence to show resistance to lecturers’ ineffective pedagogies. Silence is employed for monitoring language to avoid rushing towards premature performance. Inner speech and quiet observation allow learners to live the indirect experience of a verbal communicator without actually talking out loud. Nam-hee, who values silence to some extent but prefers talk, estimates that the total talking time she used in class during the last semester of her study was only a few minutes, which seemed insufficient for her verbal skills to develop properly. To compensate for this, she decided to learn English by processing information in her head, imagining what she was capable of saying. She believes that without saying things quietly to herself she would never be able to speak the language. Despite this, the main weakness of silent monitoring is that it might result in delayed speech. Arguably, quiet processing supports the formulation of talk but for actual articulation to happen will require corporeal skills rather than mental skills alone. Although silent processing can be beneficial to learning, excessive processing might slow down verbal communication and place constraints on vibrant classroom discourse. In-hwa also admits being frequently silent in most of her language classes, trying to form sentences in silence yet focusing too much on making them so perfect that she could barely even verbalize one.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 96

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

97

Another function of silence is to incubate abilities for future communication. Hyung-won believes that the transition from L2 processing in the mind to the actual verbalization is a real challenge for most learners and it is important to take that challenge in order to develop communication skills. In his thinking, the button to transfer processing ability to action needs to be activated and this activation is crucial to the development of speaking skills because after all silence is useful for constructing knowledge and preparing skills but it cannot replace the genuine rehearsal of speech communication. His ideal formula for success in foreign language learning includes 80 per cent of class time spent on building knowledge and ability through listening, reading, writing, reasoning and memorizing language; while the remaining 20 per cent of class time needs to be invested in verbal practice with others. He feels that if he always holds on to inner speech, nobody can interact with him. Thinking and speaking are the two gears that would complete the learning cycle, because words saved in the head need practice by saying them from the mouth. Apart from this, several participants believe that silence is packed with more information than speech – in the sense that one minute of silence contains more words and ideas in the mind than one minute of talk can ever produce. Thanks to this characteristic, another important role of silence is that it allows students to focus on processing a large quantity of knowledge within a short time. Silence therefore can enhance the speed of learning more effectively than talk, which tends to be more time-consuming.

Preference for talk over silence Even though the study focuses mainly on silence, six participants express the need to move away from it and wish to be assisted by teachers to adopt a more verbal learning style. Not all students internalize silence as the most useful learning mode. Six of the eight participants in the project express preference for output production, perceiving the role of talk as superior and essential to language development. Nam-hee, who characterizes talk as productive and silence as receptive, argues that talk supports thinking, enhances language practice, and commits linguistic data to her memory. Hye-in, Nam-hee, Joo-sung and Seung-yun believe that listening to lectures alone is insufficient for second language learning but verbal output should be the final product of language training because it provides evidence of learners’ communication ability. Furthermore, Joo-sung maintains that language practice aloud will help

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 97

10/12/2013 09:04

98

Understanding Silence and Reticence

learners commit new language to their memory more effectively than silent memorization. Some admit suffering the lack of the right sociocultural conditions to participate in class discussion. Hyung-won reveals that his extended experience in an exchange programme in England has eventually yielded in him the need to move away from his silent habit. In his portrayal, Korean teachers’ style was to summarize knowledge and emphasize what is important to remember, while students’ response was to memorize that package rather than to think on their own. However, after attending a language course in England he became aware of the existence of a more verbal classroom culture. Back in the classroom in Korea he began to feel the tension between his conformity with the current silent norm and his new desire to transform that norm. Such tension is a weakness that needs overcoming. Although silence is useful for thinking about how language works, it is not a positive habit to remain silent all the time but one has to put language rehearsal in the mind in actual verbal use. Joo-sung admits experiencing difficulty producing speech for fear of the teacher’s and peers’ critical judgement and this concern seems to slow down his language learning progress. For some participants, while L2 learning requires a substantial amount of verbal rehearsal, the Korean social setting expects one to keep talk to a lesser degree in order to appear polite. Tension therefore results between academic desirability and social behaviour. Furthermore, speaking English with members of other cultures such as Australians, Sudanese or Filipinos might demand a more extroverted social style; holding on to the silent classroom style in Korea while developing the ability to use English with others might not be the optimal policy. Almost all participants acknowledge the mutually complementary relationship between silence and talk in the sense that spontaneous talk provides communication experience and builds verbal confidence while thoughtful silence allows cognitive processing of the language. Furthermore, the value of talk and silence cannot be judged in their own right but has to rely on the aim of the lesson. For instance, grammar, translation and test-preparation classes will require more silence, note-taking, exercises and memorization while a conversation class will demand speaking involvement. Data suggest the need for a balance between L2 processing time and L2 talking time: excessive talk may reduce opportunity for language processing while excessive silence will restrict verbal rehearsal opportunity. The ideal language learner should be able to strategically divide class time between these two modes.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 98

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

99

Perspectives on English classrooms in Korea Participants in this project seem both self-critical and critical of the Korean educational system. Tension occurs between what students wish to do and what they are capable of doing. Gyu-bo, for instance, criticizes himself for the lack of confidence to speak out. Due to his limited verbal proficiency, he makes do with listening to peers’ talk and reflecting on it as ways to improve his skills. Seung-yun also blames himself for not actively participating during class time, as he visualizes learning language as learning to communicate and listening to others as learning only halfway. Silence cannot function on its own but works in relation to talk to enhance learning. Many elements in speech delivery such as pronunciation, intonation and stress cannot be processed silently in the mind but need the actual sound to rehearse them for developing rigorous fluency. Hye-in describes what she believes to be typical of the Korean classroom in which much of class time is dominated by the teacher’s transmitting linguistic knowledge to students who silently process that knowledge. She hopes that this situation could improve so that everyone has a chance to interact rather than keep silent all the time. Nam-hee expresses concern towards more teacher–learner cooperation so that classroom processes can involve more sharing of ideas and feedback. She adds that this change can only happen if the teacher openly encourages talk and provides conditions for talk. According to Joo-sung, the drawback of English education in Korea is that opportunities for verbal rehearsal in the language are far from sufficient due to large classes, teachers’ habitual lecturing mode and the writtenbased national examination system – this is not to mention teachers’ limited pedagogical skills to organize talk in ways that would benefit learning as well as their limited ability to produce L2 input. Since Korean teachers were far from being verbal during their previous educational experience, their verbal discussion skills in the target language are not strong. As a result, many are incapable of using L2 as a medium of classroom instruction and thus restrict L2 input. This situation calls for the need to provide professional training to upgrade the teachers’ verbal skills. A study conducted by Cho and Krashen (2001) suggests that when Korean teachers of English are exposed to new training experiences, they might adopt new values and become open to trying out new pedagogies. Interestingly, compared with Japanese participants in this project, who value silence as a route of learning in its own right, Korean participants give more support to talk and feel that silence is a drawback of the Korean

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 99

10/12/2013 09:04

100

Understanding Silence and Reticence

educational system. For a solution, they show willingness to negotiate with teachers for improving classroom modes of learning. Although such negotiation is absolutely essential for educational reform through recognition of learners’ voices, it has hardly been verbalized in any discussion forum. While the sample of this project is not large enough to lead to any generalization, the data leave us wondering whether it is true that Japanese society may value silence to a greater extent than Korean society. A comparative study conducted on 558 university students in Japan and Korea by Tamai and Lee (2002) on sociocultural orientation demonstrated a sharp difference between the two groups in that the Koreans are much less conforming to authority and group values than the Japanese, who reveal a stronger tendency to refrain from self-expression. This actuality might help explain the inclination among Korean participants in this project to challenge the inherent silent mode of learning in the existing Korean educational culture. In another empirical study on cultural adjustment among 274 Chinese, Japanese and Korean students, Yeh and Inose (2002) also discovered that the Korean group adapted more voluntarily and was less likely to encounter communication problems when studying in the US compared with the Chinese and Japanese groups. This finding coincides with the inclination among the Korean students in this project to question their silent behaviour and express interest in modifying their learning style when necessary.

The talk–silence relationship Participants in the study developed a clear attitude towards the value of talk and silence as well as how these dimensions work to support learning. Data put together point to a close relationship between silence and talk. First, both talk and silence can be bilingual, which means that one can think or speak in the mother tongue or the target languages. Second, silence and talk may overlap in their functions: the former processes L2 individually and the latter processes L2 collaboratively; learning through silence is helpful in an individual manner, whereas learning through talk enhances more communal efforts. Third, both talk and silence need to be appropriately used for learning to be productive and successful; and can be a waste of time when poorly employed. Talk is only valuable when it makes sense to listeners and silence is only valuable when it serves active processing in the mind. Fourth, both talk and silence are hard to control: talking does not mean one will always be welcome by the teacher and

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 100

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

101

peers; and being silent does not necessarily mean one happily accepts what is taught. Data show that not all kinds of talk will improve classroom relationship. Such relationship is nurtured by well-thought-out rather than random participation, which may represent poor use of time, and may damage mutual respect in the classroom. An appropriate amount of silence invested into organizing thoughts will make talk more significant and such output will make silence worthwhile. Classroom talk, however, does not have to be always in the target language but can be in the mother tongue as long as it helps strengthen the learning process, support exchange of ideas and stimulate collaboration. Hye-in finds it useful to discuss with her classmates in Korean how to the language works and how to overcome challenges in order to help each other learn. In her view, there are two kinds of talk: social talk to maintain a positive classroom relationship and academic talk which deals with learning content. It is the second type of talk that requires reflection to make it meaningful. She often says such thoughts quietly to herself and feels that her classmates are also doing the same thing; so on the surface the class seems quiet but in fact everybody is talking at the same time. The difference between inner talk and surface talk is that the former prepares ideas for the latter to be shared when students feel ready. This reflection might have implications for pedagogy in which a time can be allocated for students to incubate thoughts before they can share them publicly. The drawback of this method is that students may get used to this support and may not cope with real-life situations in which there is pressure to come up with immediate responses during conversation. Generally speaking, both talk and silence experience challenges of different natures. An open discussion is hard to achieve in a classroom culture which has historically perpetuates silence; silence is hard to tolerate when the teacher needs some responses from the class in order to make further pedagogical decisions. Mismatch in mutual expectation during the lesson may lead teaching in the wrong direction. For example, the teacher may over-teach what students already knew or under-teach what students have not learned enough. Some degree of responsiveness therefore is desirable to support not only optimum teaching impact but also a reasonable balance between learner talk and silence in the classroom.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 101

10/12/2013 09:04

102

Understanding Silence and Reticence

The timing of silence and talk The majority of participants do not support a very silent class but do not favour a too talkative class either: most agree that classroom processes have to be moderate to leave space for reflection and space for communication. Joo-sung admits that classrooms full of talk from beginning to end will cram his mind with noise and prevent learning from happening. When trying to figure out a complicated learning matter, he needs to be in a quiet surrounding for concentration. Silence and talk, however, can reach a compromise through the practice of self-talk. Some participants admit often whispering to themselves as a way to organize their thoughts and define whispering as a transition between silence and verbalization. Gyu-bo can hear himself talk when intensely trying to formulate sentences and edit them before delivering his opinion to others. Most interestingly, he feels that silence allows him to respond instantly and elliptically to what he learns whereas it seems hard to do so through talk, which requires more time for fully expanded responses in words. Silence thus serves as a shortcut and a time-saver for what he needs to tell himself without disturbing others. In addition, cultural norms, social acceptance and the cognitive or communicative nature of learning are factors that influence a student’s decision to keep quiet or speak. Hyung-won mentions two of those factors as the on-going purpose of learning and social norms of the community. He enjoyed participating in class discussion when studying in England where verbal communication was the standard. However, back in Korea when he needed to focus on improving his examination score, learning through silence became more efficient for cognitive and analytical performance. Academically, In-hwa feels that talk is necessary for interacting with peers and developing proficiency while quiet study serves practice in translation, vocabulary and grammar. Socially, she becomes silent when others are silent and feels prone to talk if others are talking. Seung-yun also explains that if the teacher needs to transmit a substantial amount of information to the class then everyone should keep silent, take notes and save questions till the end of the lecture. Another factor that governs silence and talk has to do with students’ language proficiency. Gyu-bo argues that silence can be a step back to remain humble and preserve energy after one has developed verbal communication skills to a certain extent – the same way as good fighters who tend to refrain from fighting after their skills have reached a certain degree of profoundness. He believes that at a lower level students need to practise more than be shy,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 102

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

103

but when their level has become advanced they need to produce higher quality speech through some thoughtful silence. Akin to other participants, he feels that silence should not happen as a result of students’ fear of talking. Nam-hee, likewise, agrees that silence may come from low proficiency but admits that such lack of verbal contribution is not always a sign of withdrawal but could be indication of L2 processing.

Attitudes towards talkative and silent peers The majority of participants adopt a critical view towards talk and feel reluctant to work with peers who seem to talk carelessly. Speaking out freely in the classroom is not the most appreciated classroom behaviour but one needs to balance between active verbalization and attentive listening. Out of the eight participants, only two prefer to work with talkative peers while the rest express a cautious attitude towards verbal contribution, in the sense that learner talk should be genuinely collaborative rather than serve to assert one’s ability; and that asking questions in class should represent learning intention rather than attempt to earn credit from the teacher. Participants were split in their preferences when it comes to the degree of outgoingness among peers. While Seung-yun and In-hwa enjoy working with verbally eloquent classmates for sharing information, discussing, accomplishing an outcome together, and stretching learning beyond their silent routine, Gyu-bo, Hyung-won and Joo-sung prefer silent peers because they respect others’ thinking space. They feel that talkative people turn them off as they have a tendency to complain too much. The other three participants seem cautious about the kind of talk they are exposed to. For talk to be welcome and accepted, it needs to be moderate not excessive, positive not destructive and subtle enough to avoid conflict that might damage classroom relationships. Joo-sung welcomes talkative peers as long as they respect his opinions, listen well and avoid conflict rather than persistently holding to their own ideas. Hye-in strikes a balanced view by admitting that she enjoys working with both talkative and silent peers. While talkative peers put pressure on her to rehearse her speaking skills, silent peers respect each other’s space to work on the same learning content. Similarly, Nam-hee visualizes a lesson happening in students’ complete silence as uninspiring and a classroom filled with excessive talk as disruptive to reflective space.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 103

10/12/2013 09:04

104

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Rethinking classroom harmony Contrasting with academic discourse which interprets Asian students’ practice of silence as a way to maintain group harmony and social bonds (see, for example, Harumi, 2011), none of the Korean participants in this project internalize silence as playing such a role. Instead several indicate that it is talk not silence that connects individuals, brings harmony and improves classroom relationship. In their view, even when silence is employed to avoid confrontation, it is talk that allows ideas to interact and strengthens the learning bond. Notwithstanding this realization, there exists a gap between ideology and behaviour as current sociocultural norms hold students back from speaking out not only to Korean teachers but also to foreign teachers who seem more accepting towards an open discussion. In Seung-yun’s experience, keeping silent excessively may cause the misunderstanding that students do not understand the lecture, in which cases the teacher might proceed to over-explain the same knowledge unnecessarily. Gyu-bo feels that his language progress happened more as a result of verbal effort rather than silent routine. Nam-hee also admits learning better through talk while silence might weaken the process of verbal skills development, and suggests that no one, including the teacher, should monopolize class talk but there is the need to let everyone make their contribution. The social inclusion ideology in classroom pedagogy, which requires assisting students’ learning so that no one is left outside of teachers’ support, comprises three major components: affective, cognitive and behavioural needs (Conway, 2005). The implication of this understanding for the classroom teacher is that it is always worth developing new ways of teaching and learning as long as teachers’ facilitation manages to respect how students feel, what they are capable of performing and how they cope with the classroom process. In many cases, when cultural behaviour intersects with academic skills, cultural behaviour might easily be judged in an academic light. For instance, the silent moments which are accepted in the Korean educational setting, when incorporated in classrooms in Australia might indicate low academic ability in the teachers’ view. The well-behaved student from Korea may be perceived by Australian teachers as an ineloquent, reticent student who does not socially attune herself to the styles of other classmates. Unless the student receives culturally sensitive support from the teacher, it might be a challenge to learn and make progress at the same pace with everybody else – simply because to get along academically will require tremendous effort from the student to modify her culture of learning.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 104

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

105

Such need for social acceptance is highlighted by Sale and Carey (1995) as an important factor for academic achievement. Students who do not feel socially accepted will lose motivation and the ability to perform well in schools. Moeller and Ishii-Jordan (1996) also suggest reaching out to students’ individual needs by providing support such as a consistent structure for classroom processes, explicit rules of behaviour, a variety of teaching approaches, trust and a good classroom rapport.

Factors influence the desire to be silent or talkative Both silence and talk manifest learning efforts. Data indicate Korean students’ acute awareness that their silence is filled with learning attempts. In particular, students make the effort to understand subject matter and non-verbally interact with others through gestures to signify approval, acceptance and understanding. Most of the time participants employ silence to listen, take notes, organize information, link newly offered content with pre-existing knowledge, formulate thoughts and monitor language. Some admit that they might occasionally fall silent when losing track of the lecture or their mind starts wandering elsewhere. Arguably, the same characteristic applies to the nature of talk: although most people mean to make sense by participating along the same communication line with everyone else, they sometimes lose track of what is going on and may begin to ask absurd questions or make incongruous comments which end up confusing others. Data also illuminate a logical connection between classroom condition and the degree of verbal openness among students. First of all, too many talkative peers will reduce others’ desire to participate. Second, the content of talk needs to be inspiring and related to learners so that they have ideas to share in the conversation. Third, a positive classroom relationship should be established to make everyone comfortable enough to verbally open up. Fourth, if classroom norms need to change from predominant silence to more speech, the teacher needs to implement clear strategies such as introducing new rules, discussing more useful topics, modifying teacher personality, among others. In participants’ experience, silence is not a settled construct but is subject to change. Factors influencing talking or silent behaviour include the nature and challenge level of lesson, learners’ preparation, teachers’ personality and encouragement, the openness of peer culture and degree of peer participation, discussion content, the cognitive or interactive nature of learning activities and

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 105

10/12/2013 09:04

106

Understanding Silence and Reticence

the quality of lesson content. Joo-sung feels that external social conditions, such as the presence of many talkative people in the class and the teacher’s choice of topics being unrelated to students’ interest, also influence his conscious decision to remain silent. After all, silence seems to be the current state of classroom behaviour by default and it is talk that requires more innovative conditions to happen. The relationship between verbal inclination and classroom process, however, may not be as simple as it seems. In many cases even when innovative conditions are provided some individuals may already have their own behaviour and learning agenda. Hyung-won feels that silence does not necessarily mean not participating and talk does not always mean being more engaged. Instead he tends to keep quiet rather than talk when the lecturer is inspiring to him. He believes in involvement and engagement without talking: the willingness to change his mind and welcome others’ opinions without stubbornly holding on to his own view is already a way of participation. Another reason for silence comes from the lack of conditions for students to be verbally involved. In many high school classrooms in Korea, teachers explain the lesson content, translate texts and read them aloud for the class to repeat, without expecting students to speak out spontaneously. Hye-in shares an experience in her university in which the teacher does not answer her question but reserves the right to ask questions and when this happens silence becomes her conscious choice. Students’ silence also happens as a result of a teacher’s inability. In participants’ views, the Korean educational system does not have many teachers who are highly proficient in verbal English and limited L2 input from teachers somehow explains why Korean students lack conditions to speak out in class. Although foreign teachers often encourage them to participate, only two classes a week seem insufficient in helping them to develop advanced verbal skills. Some believe that the Korean educational culture trains people to be verbally passive. They argue that if a person is raised in a family that considers expressing opposing opinions to parents as inappropriate behaviour, this person will bring this belief into school and behave towards teachers in the same manner. Such upbringing and schooling have perpetuated silent obedience in the classroom. For some, silence reflects confidence or the lack of it. As Hye-in explains, in her high school years she did not verbally contribute much since she had mastered the lesson content through studying at home before class. In university, however, the content became so challenging that she found it difficult to participate. If her silence in high school came from confidence, her silence in university came from the lack of it.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 106

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

107

Some participants indicate that talking, rather than keeping silent, represents a way of showing respect and cooperation – although the Korean educational system has not taught students to talk freely or confidently to older or more important people. Along this line it is teacher encouragement and the atmosphere of the class that will influence students’ decisions to talk or remain quiet. This observation is consistent with research conducted by Rhee (1993) on Korean schoolchildren, which demonstrates the significance of social influence and shows that students’ behaviour is often constructed through teacher and peer support. Interview data from the current project indicate that, to provide conditions for verbal discussion, teachers need to make tremendous effort based on knowledge of students’ sociocultural profiles regarding what students want and how their strengths can be stimulated. Opportunities for speaking should be well designed rather than just giving time and spelling out teacher expectation: they should be tuned to an appropriate level and contain interesting substance to inspire students’ learning. Besides, making decisions on the appropriate mode of learning is not merely the work of teachers but learners also need to consciously modify their behaviour and contribute to the transformation of classroom routine where necessary.

Types of silence Data show that silence can be classified into various types, including selforiented and other-oriented; positive, neutral and negative; approval and disapproval; communication-conducive and communication-inhibitive; productive and inactive; as well as attentive and distractive. Data indicate that self-oriented silence plays the role of serving one’s own learning while other-oriented silence supports the learning space of others. Silence can be both pleasant and unpleasant depending on one’s feeling and relationship with others. It can be neutral when one has nothing in particular to say to others; positive when resulting from mutual understanding without the need for explanation; and negative when silence prevents cooperation and understanding. In addition, silence can be the opening of communication or the termination of it. Silence has a communication-oriented nature when it builds preparation for and eventually leads to talk; silence takes on a communication-avoidant nature when it results from students’ evasion of verbal discussion. Not all kinds of silence produce the same result: silence has pedagogical value only when its outcome is clear in every classroom task. Students should be guided to utilize

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 107

10/12/2013 09:04

108

Understanding Silence and Reticence

silence effectively. If talk goes wrong the teacher will recognize and correct it, but if silence is misused only the user will know and every silence user has the responsibility to be aware of this. Participants recommend that language learners should be flexible and take control over various circumstances under which one may be required to either speak out or keep silent and employ these modes wisely. Hyung-won, for example, feels that there can be positive silence and negative silence. The former includes silence as attentive listening, thinking space, self-study, time for consulting resources and demonstration of interest. The latter includes silence as concealed feelings, refrainment from sharing viewpoints with others, distraction, uncertainty, disapproval, sarcasm and resistance to learning. These attitudes are not cherished because, according to Yeh and Inose (2002), in many social contexts to confront others is not part of the Korean sociocultural values. Likewise, there can be positive talk and negative talk, the nature of which has been discussed above. Which mode to resort to is again the question of internal and external conditions. Along this line, Fujishin (1977) recommends the need to be recognizant of and responsive to the communication environment rather than holding on to what common cultural traits have always conditioned one to behave. Such flexible and sensitive acceptance not only helps avoid miscommunication but also enhances one’s intercultural competence which is a component of communication facility. Franks (2000) also suggests being aware of communication styles in other cultures, respecting the authentication of different behaviours and accepting variations that would enrich one’s life experiences.

Conclusion Findings from the study demonstrate not only learners’ justification of silence but also, more importantly, how such silence interacts with and responds to the everyday classroom dynamics. Attempts to connect the findings of this project with the relevant discourse on Korean students reveal striking differences between participants’ views and many scholarly views, which has potential for a major debate to emerge with regards to ‘East Asian silence’ and which suggests how cautious we should be in approaching this theme. Instead of summarizing the chapter itself, I would like to conceptualize this debate by highlighting various perspectives and by challenging the existing inconsistency in the ‘East Asian silence’ discourse.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 108

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

109

The Korean students in this project do not appreciate the view which designates Asians as communal and silent learners. Instead they favour a certain degree of learner autonomy and express strong interest in a dynamic mode of learning which allows individual choices, space for reflectivity and verbal interaction, although not essentially in Western ways. This position somehow coincides with Han’s (2005) observation that Korean students can be highly competitive and individualistic due to the competitive nature of the examination system and parents’ pressure for children to stand out and become better than others in education. Recent discourse on Korean students’ perception show students’ resistance to rote-learning and to uncommunicative English language teaching in Korea where they label the recent approach as the teaching of ‘dead English’ (Moon, 2011, p. 170). Contrary to the literature which maintains that: Korean and other Asian students prefer to learn by listening to lectures (Lee, 2006), do not wish to question the teacher (Chu, 1993; Ferguson, 2001), view the teacher as the absolute authority (Martin, 2003; Hui, 2005; Lee, 2006; Wong and Tsui, 2007), are ‘not able to be critical’ and ‘more interested in specific facts’ (Lee, 2006, p. 452), the study reveals a different set of findings that seem to portray Korean students in a more judgemental and self-governing light. In particular, the Korean participants aspire to be involved in a more verbally interactive classroom, question Korean teachers’ fluency and skills in verbal management, and express the need to share responsibility with the teacher in stretching classroom learning mode beyond the current lecturing mode. Although a number of research studies conducted into classroom silence in various international contexts have indicated communication apprehension as the key reason for learners’ not talking (see, for example, Zhang et al., 1996; Olaniran and Stewart, 1996; Pryor et al., 2005; Hsu, 2007; Lu and Hsu, 2008), this project does not yield any data in the direction of students’ verbal apprehension and such understanding goes along the line with a recent PhD study conducted by Huang (2012), which also discovered that international students are not afraid of classroom communication as what is often assumed and portrayed through discourse and research. The question of talk emerging from this study has highlighted talk in a different route from what has been discussed in the current literature. While much academic discourse supports positive classroom relationship as being built through talk (Graff, 2009) and favours the positive impact of talk on learning (Cazden 1988; Wertsch and Toma 1995; Cone, 1993; Nystrand, 1997; Peterson, 2003; Walsh, 2006: Vetter, 2010), there remain two neglected issues to consider.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 109

10/12/2013 09:04

110

Understanding Silence and Reticence

First, few scholars have actually organized for students’ views on peer talk to enter into the research picture and thus the discourse on talk seems partial, discussing the relationship between the teacher and learner talk mainly from the researcher’s perspective (see, for example, Nakamura, 2008, 2010; Behrens and Jablon, 2008; DeWitt and Hohenstein, 2010). Second, talk in general has been regarded as predominantly supportive to learning while the disturbing aspect of talk is rarely investigated to see how unproductive and unhelpful talk can be avoided. Discussing the value of talk is very much comparable to discussing the value of food: one cannot make the overall claim that food is good for human health but the effect of food has to depend on what kind of food, who eats it, how much and when. Although the research literature has discussed such dimensions as verbal discourse (Edwards and Westgate, 1994), turn taking (Cosmay, 2007), teacher support of talk (Wilson, 2004; Reninger and Rehark, 2009; Sullivan, 2011), and verbal benefits (Cone, 1993; Peterson, 2003; Walsh, 2006; Vetter, 2010), learners’ critical views towards the manner and timing of peer talk in classroom settings have hardly drawn research attention – even in today’s intercultural communication contexts where members of different cultures perceive the words of others through different lenses in the everyday interaction. To assume that as long as students agree to talk, learning will take place seems to be an over-simplistic observation that requires further investigation. If talking out loud denotes sharing ideas while keeping quiet indicates keeping thoughts to oneself, it can be commonsensically argued that the nature of talk is explicit, public and communal, while the nature of silence seems implicit, private and individualistic. While many Western educators and students favour talk and many Asian counterparts are more prone to silence, which means that Westerners are more communal and Asians are more individualistic with regards to the talk and silence theme, much discourse on intercultural differences seems to say the opposite – that Asian cultures are communal while Western values are individualistic. How is one supposed to make sense of the contradiction between such an assumption and reality? Dichotomy simply does not work when one attempts to explain differences in intercultural behaviour by placing the East and the West in two compartments. While such division was invented to serve the convenience of cultural generalization, it creates the damaging effect of reducing diversity among many cultures. One piece of evidence related to such cultural reduction is referring to the East Asian countries such as China, Japan and Korea as sharing the same Confucian behaviour. Data from this project, nevertheless, have demonstrated that the Japanese and Korean perspectives on silence and talk are vastly different

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 110

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

111

– although the two cultures have long been branded by scholars as belonging in the collectivist, high-context Confucian-based societies. While many Japanese in this study admit that they employ and value silence in a deeply educational way, their Korean counterparts express a strong interest in the need to move away from silence to enhance learning. It remains a challenge to resort to the same Confucian principle in order to explain these two different cultures of learning. The picture in which Asian societies are regularly traced back to the remote past to explain the present can be equivalent to regularly employing Socrates to explain the West. Attempts to build convenient understanding through cultural labelling might lead to far-fetched assumptions about behaviour, occasionally resulting in more mystification than illumination – unless scholars agree that without creating further mystification, research simply cannot go on. In today’s educational context, we value a dialectic method of inquiry and highlight the need for experiential learning through multiple senses often without adequately acknowledging that these pervasive philosophies derived from Socrates about 2,400 years ago. This recognition, however, does not necessarily mean that every single value we have today in a Western context can be traced back to Socrates. That would be too absurd; and since we cannot do this to Western societies we cannot do this to any other societies with enriching histories of evolvement. In fact, the implicit perspective that Asian cultures are traditional and static while Western cultures have always evolved is a myth, especially when humans have been educated enough to retain records of where values originated from as well as to trace how those values have developed. It may not be extremely relevant if academic research continues to proceed by way of positioning some cultures thousands of years backward in order to claim that people from such cultures are hard for us to communicate with. Over the past two decades, many scholars (such as Liu and Littlewood, 1997; Matthews, 2001; Tamai and Lee, 2002; Kennedy, 2002; Han, 2003; Li, 2003; Moon, 2011) have given a word of warning about the danger of attaching mysterious Asian behaviour to Confucian values for reasoning convenience at the risk of reducing cultural complexity. Cheng (2000) points out the distortion of truth in scholarly interpretation of Confucian doctrine which includes, for example, the argument that Asian students’ respect for knowledge amounts to students’ absolute obedience towards the teacher without thinking or questioning. In addition, the argument that if people come from a Confucian country they naturally behave in the Confucian way might require a second thought because numerous members from such cultures simply do not behave in that direction.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 111

10/12/2013 09:04

112

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Sometimes we see other cultures as static without being aware that it is our view that remains static. Although it may be useful to recognize some aspects of the Confucian legacy in the course of social development, the link between history and the dynamic of the present day needs to be investigated beyond certain over-stated assumptions. As a matter of fact, contradicting discourse has increasingly resulted from interpretation based on Confucian doctrine and that based on modern-day dynamics. For example, while some sources maintain that Japanese and Korean cultures are highly similar as they both share a strong, unbreakable Confucian foundation (Ho, 1994), others highlight that Japanese and Korean cultures remain vastly different to the extent of being mutually opposite (Aubrey, 2009). While some sources maintain that Asian students respect teachers as the superior source of knowledge (Ho et al., 2001), others highlight that Korean students do not respect teacher knowledge as much as they respect teacher humanity (Han, 2005). While some sources suggest that Korean students often fail to demonstrate their own thoughts, position and experience but rather rely on the voices of others (Gürel, 2011), other sources highlight that Korean students are highly critical of teachers’ performance (Han, 2005) as well as resist rote-learning and uncommunicative approaches of classroom instruction (Moon, 2011). While some sources maintain that students in Asia expect teachers to be the figure of absolute authority (Ellis, 1994), others highlight that Korean students prefer to see teachers build friendly rapport with students besides teaching (Gayrama and Lee, 2011) and prefer teachers to become less authoritative than they often are (Park et al., 2009). Inconsistent views like the above can run on indefinitely, suggesting that it has become increasingly problematic to simply view Korean and other East Asian students as conformist humans bonding under the same umbrella of beliefs. Along this line, Wong (2004) suggests that to understand the dynamics of academic behaviour in today’s context it would be more helpful to perceive Asian students’ learning styles as contextually based rather than culturally based, which means that most students will respond to the changing social context of their time rather than remain loyal to the society of their ancestors. In fact, none of the participants in this project have mentioned any Confucian traditions in their world view: they neither acknowledge nor negate such legacy in their thinking. Instead, they remain simply indifferent to the whole doctrine and prefer to state opinions in their own individual ways, in relation to their changing learning needs and in response to the educational needs of their society. Holding on to ancient politics to explain contemporary behaviour,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 112

10/12/2013 09:04



Korean Perspectives on Silence

113

therefore, is to disconnect humans from contemporary contexts and disregard their changing socio-educational needs. Scholarly interpretation of Confucius in many cases tends to focus on issues that cause communication problems rather than those that enhance great achievements. It also tends to overemphasize collectivist values and neglect the individualism-oriented philosophy in Confucian times. One example of such overlooked content is Confucius’s emphasis on self-cultivation, which refers to individualism that is ‘empowered through unity’ or ‘supported by the group’ rather than ‘freedom from power’ as in Western individualism (Wilson, 1995; Brindley, 2011), and the advocacy for skilled judgement rather than the knowledge of rules, which refers to critical thinking ability. Much of the literature related to Asian students has attributed Confucian thoughts to rote learning and face-saving, which denote low-order thinking while in fact over 2,000 years ago, Confucian doctrine had already touched on high-order thinking values including self-sufficiency and critical skills. Such content can be found in The Analects (Xue, 1997) where actions such as inquiry, reflection, and openness to new thinking are highlighted, as having been quoted and discussed in Chan (1970, 1997), Ames and Rosemont (1998), Jones (1999), Watkins and Biggs (2001), Kim (2004), Shi (2006), among others. The often-heard comment that Asians ‘passively accept knowledge being handed down from the authority’ seems to contradict data from this project and research by a number of scholars, which indicate that students do not simply accept knowledge from the teacher but do evaluate, welcome, resist, connect, compare, apply, process, and engage with knowledge.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 113

10/12/2013 09:04

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 114

10/12/2013 09:04

6

Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

In 2007, while conducting an English as a second language (ESL) teacher development workshop at the Central Philippine University in Iloilo, an intellectual city with a large number of universities, I realized that many teachers curiously were highly critical of expert knowledge and suspected the theories that I presented. They expressed more interest in how to cope with unexpected problems in the classroom than in learning static strategies from teacher training handbooks. In their teaching experience, the everyday lesson plan was rarely implemented in its original form but frequently was adapted in response to the changing classroom dynamics. During a discussion, the teachers and I became curious to find out what happens in the teacher’s mind when unexpected classroom moments occur. What resources do teachers rely on and how do teachers use them? Do they deal with such issues through silence or by talking out loud with students? The first response to this question among some teachers was that they often reflect quietly. If that is the case, how is silence employed among teachers? We felt that pedagogy can actually be monitored through the inner voice during classroom events. Up to that moment, everyone had learned a great deal about making prior-to-class lesson plans as well as post-lesson reflection on classroom instruction. But little had we thought of the kind of spontaneous decision making and changing while the lesson was actually going on. Although this practice was intuitively known to every teacher, it was by no means a simple area to comprehend. We agreed that such practice in the mind seems hard to identify, record and analyse and, for that reason, we wanted to take the challenge of developing a research project to investigate it. After all, exploring teacher practice within its immediate context seems like a more exciting idea than conducting a workshop by bringing in external theories. The aim of the study was to capture moments of decision making and mind changing among teachers during the actual class time. Those moments are hard

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 115

10/12/2013 09:04

116

Understanding Silence and Reticence

to capture, but it is not entirely impossible to do so. We came up with two data collection tools for that purpose: namely classroom observation and stimulated recall. The complex internal voice within every teacher, which is sometimes referred to as self-talk, needs further understanding regarding how it really works. The project was conducted in collaboration with Ester Jimena, a senior lecturer from the English Department at Central Philippine University, who offered to help with the data collection process. Three teachers volunteered to be participants who would provide data for the project. The first questions we raised were: under which circumstances do teachers activate their selfmonitoring facility and how does that work? The main understanding that comes from the research study is the fact that the teachers under study express their mindfulness towards their students’ learning. Although such concern is hidden in silence, it was manifested through the act of modifying the classroom process towards what works best for students. This study taps into such thinking process which is unknown to the students but might be interesting to educators who are curious about the silent processing in pedagogical practice. As Ormrod (2003) indicates, it is through understanding small efforts and finding ways to enhance them that teachers can work towards the achievement of goals and make progress through increased relevance and efficiency.

Silence in pedagogy Silence is not unique to learning as it also applies to classroom teaching; that is, by means of teachers’ thoughtful silence to serve pedagogical impact. Teacher silence could be exercised in the form of the teacher lecturing less to leave space for learner talk; or it could be the teacher being more sensible about selecting activities, considering students’ reflection and the task outcome. If learners’ cognitive processing helps to improve the quality of learning and verbal performance, teachers’ metacognitive processing guides instruction and modifies communication with the class. Different teachers would employ silence in their own ways depending on disposition, ability, knowledge, understanding, pedagogical styles, learner responses and the flow of classroom dynamics. Much of silence, apart from reasons of distraction, is about self-monitoring towards premium performance. Although teacher talk has been an important area of research and discourse, teacher silence is not. This reality suggests that teachers are often expected to focus on talk rather than to keep quiet. This expectation seems

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 116

10/12/2013 09:04



Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

117

problematic considering educators’ advocacy towards leaving space for learner talk. This chapter shifts the focus from a learner position to a teacher position for a variation in perspectives, for the awareness that teachers also use silence as a thinking tool and for a broader understanding of silence as a pedagogical support. The way teachers employ silence in second language classroom practice remains uncommon in educational discourse. A common mistake made by many teachers, according to Plakans (2013), is to babble when failing to find the right word to explain a theory. Filling time with useless chatter might hinder learner output (Walsh, 2002), discard class time, confuse students and damage their enthusiasm. As educators, we tend to make a bigger deal of learning difficulties than teaching difficulties. Furthermore, we rarely take time to connect the struggle in learning with the struggle in teaching: as if these two domains were unrelated. I once heard students in an academic course at an Australian university make this comment: ‘I find the unit content really hard to digest because the lecturer has a hard time making herself clear. She went around and around and lost track of her own reasoning. Halfway through her monologue, she paused and asked us: “where were we?”’ Not unlike the struggling learner, teachers sometimes also struggle and need help. One remedy would be to cultivate reflection on lesson processes before, during and after class. This discussion reports the findings from in-depth interviews with teachers about such moments, when they become uncertain about the impact of their initial plan and modify their decisions during class time so as to achieve impact. Such thoughtful practice has potential to innovate pedagogy and train teachers to become more resourceful professionals. Compared with struggling learners, the concept of struggling teachers seems much less common in educational discourse apart from discussion about novice teachers – as if experienced teachers were supposed to be free from pedagogical difficulties. In fact, the literature regarding classroom complications tends to put a spotlight on the learner. The struggling learner has been explained with connection to such constructs as inability in task performance (Bennett and Dunne, 1992; Simpson and Ure, 1994), low proficiency (Tomlinson et al., 1997), unproductive habits (Delpit, 1995; Lasley and Matczynski, 1997), poor ESL competence (Tomlinson et al., 2003) and limited sense making skills (Elmore et al., 1996). All of these concepts attribute classroom deficiencies to the learner rather than to the teacher. Although it has been widely acknowledged that successful teaching lays the foundation for successful learning, learner difficulties are often treated as learner problems rather than as a direct consequence of poor pedagogy.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 117

10/12/2013 09:04

118

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Since teacher silence in this study does not denote complete silence or distraction but addresses the use of silence in pedagogy, much of the discussion will unpack silence and reveal what is known as the inner voice (Tomlinson, 2000), inner speech (Vygotsky, 1934), introspective self-talk (Morin and Everett, 1990) or the voice of insight (Waldman and Newberg, 2012). For this reason it will be useful to introduce this concept to some extent. The voice which goes on in the mind is often related to a concept known as inner speech, which, by definition, is language directed to oneself rather than others for the purpose of self-monitoring behaviour. Vygotsky (1934) illuminates a close connection between inner speech and external speech. In my understanding of Vigotsky’s insights, there are at least five main differences between the two types of speech. First, inner speech tends to be an economical, abbreviated form of external speech, which may contain the predicate without a subject and omitting a number of less prominent words. Second, the former is comprehensible only to the thinker while the latter is comprehensible to others. Third, the former is exercised inwardly while the latter is practised socially. Fourth, in inner speech, language may not be a settled, complete substance but constantly vary in order to act as a mediating role to thought, while external speech happens in some settled linguistic form. The fifth distinction is that the transfer from inner speech to external speech is not merely a voiced realization or translation of one form to another but such transfer may be subject to complex, constant modification; the relationship between inner speech and task performance, therefore, is one in which productive self-guidance has potential to support achievement. To some scholars, inner speech represents a metacognitive process which can be explained through the precepts of sociocultural theory of the mind. It is an act of self-regulating one’s thoughts, actions, intentions, or plans. Freeman (1996) states that this process allows teachers to gain access to their thinking about their classroom practice. Thus the practice of talking to oneself (Manning and Payne, 1996) has potential as a useful tool in self-monitoring. It aids teachers in coping with stressful situations in the classroom and in making decisions while teaching. The lack of this skill may render teachers’ knowledge and skills ineffective in action. According to Meichenbaum et al. (1985), inner speech has a private or egocentric nature and is not intended for a listener other than the subject herself. Its self-directed characteristic helps individuals to talk their way out of negative thoughts and situations, thus rerouting them to carry on in a positive new direction in whatever they are doing (Helmstetter, 1986). Self-monitoring, which is an important feature of inner speech, refers to a systematic approach

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 118

10/12/2013 09:04



Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

119

to the observation, evaluation and management of one’s own behaviour in order to achieve a better understanding and control over the behaviour (Armstrong and Frith, 1984; Koziol and Burns, 1985). Inner speech supports planning, instructing and managing classroom processes. Manning and Payne (1996, p. 88) perceive self-talk as having four distinctive functions: namely goalsetting, guiding, coping and reinforcing. Which of these functions operate will depend on the teacher’s judgement of events in her particular teaching situation. Close concepts to inner speech are private speech (Ellis, 1994), inner voice (Tomlinson, 2000), self-guiding speech (Berk, 1986), and self-talk (Fielsten and Phelps, 2001). While Manning and Payne (1996) believe that inner speech may even occur in a thinking aloud form, Ellis (1994) maintains that the nature of inner speech is that it is inaudible to others and has no expectation for a response. It serves the development of thoughts, responses, making decisions and self-regulating behaviour (Tomlinson, 2000; McCafferty, 1998; Al-Namlah et al., 2006). Inner speech is an approach to behaviour management, a conscious effort to change one’s mind (Feilsten and Phelps, 2001); a psychological skill that supports improvement in performance (Fulgham, 1999) and affects the intention-creation process (Hines et al., 1995) by mediating between behaviour and performance (Al-Namlah et al., 2006). Freeman (1996) highlights two important aspects of inner speech in relation to classroom practice, namely the awareness of one’s cognition while teaching and the ability to express appropriately the content of such cognition. Factors which influence teachers’ self-monitoring tools include teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and experience as well as students’ participation. Pedagogical decisions can be informed by the teachers’ principles of teaching (Richards, 1998), perception of learning (Smith, 1996) and view of learners’ needs and abilities (Soodak and Podell, 1994). They are also governed by teachers’ knowledge of the subject matter and their awareness of students’ knowledge (Harmer, 1991, 2005). Reconciling teachers’ knowledge of subject matter and students’ ability is a significant task to undertake in order to do justice to the teaching and learning process. In addition, classroom decisions are also influenced by the quality and quantity of students’ participation (Bailey, 1996). Such contribution assists teachers in becoming aware of which task stimulates students’ thinking (Conlon, 2005).

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 119

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

120

Research focus and participants The study seeks answers to the following four questions: MM

MM

MM

MM

Do teachers engage in silence productively as a self-monitoring tool during teaching? If so, do teachers talk quietly and what is the nature of this inner speech? What are the factors that influence such processing? Where do those factors come from and what roles do they play? What are the pedagogical implications of teachers’ silence as a self-monitoring tool while teaching?

The participants in the study were three ESL university teachers at the Department of Languages, Mass Communication and Humanities of Central Philippine University. Ruani has a Master’s degree in English language education with six years of teaching experience, Vicky has a Master of Arts in multimedia for humanities and social sciences with three years of teaching experience, and Leilani has a Master’s degree in English language education with nine years of teaching experience. All three teachers were teaching an integrated English course given to university freshmen. One of the three participants is male and the other two are female. They were selected first on a voluntary basis and second due to their rich educational experience and background.

Research instruments and data analysis method The data for this study were collected by two research instruments: classroom observation and stimulated recall interview. Two classroom observations were conducted with each teacher. The purpose of the classroom observation was to identify critical incidents and other significant episodes that triggered departures from the outline of the lessons. According to Richards and Farrell (2005), critical incidents are unplanned or unanticipated events that occur during a lesson, which, when analysed, could be learning experiences that help to improve classroom practices. They were highlighted by the researcher and after each observation were pointed out to the teachers during the stimulated recall interview. The purpose of the interview was to find out how the teacher perceived the nature of his or her self-monitoring skill and its relationship to classroom decision making. Such recall data serve as the key in interpreting and gaining insights into the process of teaching and learning.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 120

10/12/2013 09:04



Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

121

Useful data, first of all, comprise the identification of two important features: critical incidents and self-talk occurrences. Second, they contain the participants’ reflection on such moments through stimulated recall interview. During analysis, the content of self-talk and factors which influence self-talk are identified. Lastly, the transcripts of the stimulated recall interview are examined for identification of key issues, categorization of these issues, and pedagogical implications of self-talk as a self-monitoring tool while teaching. Examples of influential factors over teachers’ inner speech, which were identified during analysis of interview transcripts, include teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, teaching experience, strategies and students’ responses, among others.

Data analysis and key findings Data show that teacher silence is filled with inner speech rather than empty moments. Participants could not recall any instant in which they become distracted from the attempt to improve students’ learning experiences. Their inner speech practice has eight key functions, namely evaluating pedagogical actions, modifying the lesson plan, interpreting learner reaction, controlling time availability, considering learner readiness, providing assistance, reinforcing important knowledge, and unpacking challenging lesson content.

Evaluating pedagogical actions The three teachers unanimously agreed that there is another voice talking quietly inside them besides the public voice that every student can hear. This internal voice served the purposes of evaluating, negotiating and deciding on the appropriateness of actions, reactions and decisions involving instantaneous and often unexpected circumstances in class. It works as a self-monitoring tool which, according to Richards and Lockhart (1996), assists teachers’ thinking and interactive decisions. Ruani says he often assesses a plan or guesses the outcome of an activity before it happens; at other times when it has been conducted he might wonder if it needs any modification or reinforcement. Similarly, Vicky reflects: I picture the outcome of my actions and decisions in class in my mind. Such thoughts include, for example, the need to go back and further elaborate on a

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 121

10/12/2013 09:04

122

Understanding Silence and Reticence

certain part of the lesson or the need to add more activities so that my students will understand me better.

The teacher’s inner voice, however, is not always hidden but occasionally becomes public as teachers think out loud, such as asking a question to check with students about potential reaction. In this way, the thought and the question merge together, which erases the boundary between the internal voice and the external voice.

Modifying the lesson plan Leilani employs silence by becoming aware of every key point she has touched on. Her thoughts serve as guideposts to help her conduct the lesson without missing out on any section. As she admits: I plan my lectures and activities for my classes ahead of time, and I have that plan in my mind all the time while teaching. I often check the planned items to be discussed in class and see how far we have gone. Then I’ll try to weigh up if we have sufficient time whether to stay in the discussion or move on to the next item, otherwise the students wouldn’t be able to progress towards new lesson content.

As instruction progresses in class, students’ responses influence the teacher’s monitoring and that might change direction of the planned lesson. Vicky reflects on such modification: I seldom notice how this happens because my action often comes spontaneously according to the reaction and quality of students’ contribution within the session.

How the lesson actually gets changed has to do with the teacher’s own evaluation of what is worth dropping and what is worth adding. Ruani explains: If the discussion sometimes takes a bend into some unplanned areas, then I decide to clarify, connect with the previous lesson, drop or continue with the discussion. Another thing to do would be to see if the modified plan connects well with the classroom atmosphere.

The above comments compliment Malamah-Thomas’s (1987) suggestion that learner reaction can be a decisive factor for keeping the plan or modifying it to suit the changing nature of classroom interaction. Often, this diversion from plans requires flexibility on the part of the teacher. Moreover, it also necessitates teachers’ openness to accommodate digressions, especially when they are

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 122

10/12/2013 09:04



Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

123

relevant to the lesson and, at times, have potential for more learning opportunities. In addition, Vicky underlines the importance of a dynamic interaction between the lesson plan and the classroom environment, wherein an appropriate decision is made in relation to the actual needs of the students.

Interpreting students’ reaction Students’ reaction does not have to always be in words. While Ruani and Vicky, with six and three years of teaching experience respectively, are more concerned with what students say, Leilani, who has more years of experience in teaching, pays more attention to the non-verbal behaviour significantly displayed by the students. When first becoming a teacher over a decade ago, she used to focus on students’ words. Over the time, she feels that she now listens to both students’ verbal response and their non-verbal expression. This internalization suggests what Richard and Lockhart (1996) believe in, that is, teaching experience exerts some influence over the interactive decisions made by the teacher. She acknowledges that students’ non-verbal behaviour plays a significant role in the monitoring of her teaching. Such kinetics as eye contact, sitting posture, hand movement, a smile, a frown or lack of nods can be read as feedback from the class, which may suggest expressions of approval, satisfaction, interest, confusion or anxiety. Sometimes not being able to recognize or read such non-verbal signals makes Leilani feel that she is not connecting with her students.

Controlling time availability As far as classroom management is concerned, full participation, communicating the goals of the lesson to the students, wait time and time allocated to various tasks were mentioned as thoughts occurring in the minds of teachers during the class, which were either verbalized or unverbalized. Ruani decided to remove part of the listening activity due to time constraints: I thought I had to consider the time. The time allotment was less than 30 minutes for the three passages, not to mention the evaluation part. The students needed to know the answers to the gap-filling exercise; otherwise they wouldn’t get to practise their listening skills.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 123

10/12/2013 09:04

124

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Considering learner readiness All the three teachers demonstrate a strong tendency to consider the readiness of the students when introducing a new item or when proceeding to the next part of the lesson. This happens with their consideration of helping the students to prepare for their examination. For example, Vicky emphasized the significance of making the students aware of the outline of the lesson and becoming comfortable with it, thus they were able to follow the flow in an organized manner. I wanted them to be really prepared for the next topic and that’s why I said ‘I will have to discuss now …’ I told myself that they have to be aware of the outline of the lesson so that they can smoothly follow the flow. I wanted everything that I say to them to be very clear.

Another concern was with the coming examination and how to help students to cope with it. Leilani comments: I openly declared the lesson on listening to be difficult because I found it difficult myself. I was saying to myself, ‘I should assist my students with this step.’ I wanted to help them understand partly because I want to help them to prepare for their examination, and partly I felt it was important for them to develop good listening skills.

What is most interesting in this aspect are the particularities that Vicky and Leilani were aware of the need to make students feel good about learning besides just teaching them the skills. Affect, according to Stevick (1999), is a way to enhance the learning experience and bring about the credible effect of teaching.

Providing assistance Data show that providing relevant and thoughtful assistance is perhaps the most important part of classroom pedagogy. This happens when the teacher manages to identify the kind of help required, the way it should be given and its expected outcome. In the teachers’ experience, assistance can be given through such strategies as adding information, making changes, illustrating, slowing down and expanding certain teaching points. Ruani discussed some reading materials which he had found in the library that were not part of the prescribed text. Although the lesson focused on speed reading rather than vocabulary, he couldn’t help but introduce some vocabulary

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 124

10/12/2013 09:04



Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

125

items based on students’ learning difficulties. Ruani recognized this need through students’ looks of confusion and decided to spend an extra amount of time on several key words. Instead of giving them the meanings of the words, he decided to train the students in making guesses in context. This could mean spending more time than intended but he felt that it might be worth trying. Ruani elaborates: First I wanted to test my students’ knowledge of some new vocabulary but realized that they didn’t know these words. I was telling myself to discuss them by giving illustrations rather than to provide meanings. Although this took more time than I had initially allocated, my effort became rewarding when students discovered for themselves what the word means through the context provided. I felt satisfied because I had tried something other than the usual spoon-feeding way and my students were happy to have practised guessing skills.

Another critical incident emerged during one of the classroom observations with Vicky, which demonstrates how self-regulated teaching takes classroom events beyond the initial plan and connects the lesson to students’ needs. Vicky was reviewing the lesson on subjunctive moods. She wrote some sentences on the whiteboard. It took her more than three minutes to finalize the examples as she suddenly became uncertain how to take students through this challenging item. To create a sense of context, she began to construct a conversation by asking questions which sounded like a step-by-step guide for the students to follow. Vicky explains: The idea came only when I was writing the sentences on the board. In doing this I not only helped my students understand how the structure works but also how it functions in a dialogue; and such context was co-created by both the students and me. Without involving them in the process, the impact would not have been that good.

As revealed during the interview, Vicky’s decision to spend time on this discussion was prompted by the result of the examination, which came out that day. She expressed her disappointment towards the students’ low scores and decided to review some of the essential grammar items. She realized that the students were confused, specifically on the tenses in subjunctive moods. By involving students in the discussion rather than simply telling them, she succeeded in making the discussion more thought-provoking and memorable. She could sense the enjoyment of learning through students’ enthusiastic responses and how well they contributed. Without the examination results

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 125

10/12/2013 09:04

126

Understanding Silence and Reticence

that day, the decision to assist students with the structure would not have happened and would not have led to such a great learning moment. The incident suggests that much of relevant teaching comes from teachers’ realization of students’ needs and relevant strategies to turn such needs into learning desire. Students’ learning in this scenario became rich not only because it came with the teacher’s timely support but also because it happened in a co-constructing way.

Reinforcing important knowledge Many teachers have an inherent tendency to be repetitive in classroom talk. For example, a teacher might reiterate certain items during lectures and discussions for emphasis or filling time during the thinking process. Classroom power is never balanced: when students are busy thinking, they do not normally talk, but teachers are given the authority to think aloud without being criticized. Because of this, instruction is sometimes rephrased and repeated to the extent of becoming redundant in the teaching process. Classroom observations show that although some repetition aims for emphasis or clarification purposes, other motives of this phenomenon are worth examining closely. In my estimation, if the chattiest teacher in this study refrained from saying all the unnecessary things during a two-hour lesson, the time being saved could go up to 15 minutes of the lesson. This would allow some space for students’ practice of language output and avoid students having to put up with the teacher’s meaningless talk. Despite this understanding, it is not always easy to know when to stop talking, especially when students do not provide feedback to show how much they are following the teacher. Being asked why he repeated a few things which had already been said, Ruani reasoned that he wanted to ensure students’ understanding of what they were supposed to do. In one activity on job interview practice, which had some complex components of role-play, dialogue, and evaluation, Ruani resorted to writing the procedure of this task on the board as a reinforcement strategy. As he elaborates: The notes are also for me to keep track of what my students are doing as well as the time for each step. Later I would also use the notes to summarize the task. When preparing my lesson plan I didn’t give thought to this presentation but realized the need for it only during the actual teaching.

This procedure contains what to do and the timing of each step of the task. It serves as a guide not only for students to go through the activity but also for

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 126

10/12/2013 09:04



Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

127

the teacher to keep track of what goes on within the time available. Another value for doing so is to save talking time for students and energy for the teacher. The mistake described above was also skilfully avoided. Arguably, both verbal and written reinforcement appeared to be essential tools in monitoring oneself during teaching.

Unpacking challenging lesson content Students’ ability and response to teaching are elements that could support pedagogical performance, especially when new items or topics are introduced. As a reinforcing tool, illustrations helps teachers to ease students’ anxiety, lend support and activate students’ background knowledge when learning new knowledge. Vicky demonstrated this when she discussed prefixes and suffixes. Resting on the belief that students had learned prefixes and suffixes during their primary schooling, she decided to simply present the topic without any prior discussion of it, as narrated in the anecdote below. On one of the days, the lesson began with a review of vocabulary taught in the previous lesson, which was about how words are spelled and how some of them tricked our eyes. Vicky wrote 10 words on the board and asked the students to judge the accuracy of their spelling. Noticing that students struggled with the spelling of the word ‘unparalleled’ and failed to recognize its meaning, she decided to discuss how a word can be expanded using prefixes and suffixes, which was not part of the original lesson plan. The plan changed when Vicky realized how her students’ learning needs were developing further. The students felt happy when the teacher helped them review the words, connect them with previous knowledge and expand their understanding of language structures. In the end, the teacher decided to drop the spelling task to focus on both the form and the meaning of words. Arguably, student responses play a role in shaping these teaching decisions. Without students’ verbal and nonverbal expressions, teachers’ jobs would be multiple times more difficult. Instead, teachers’ internal voices are supported by students’ public voices and vice versa. While student talk provides information for appropriate pedagogy by enabling teachers to think of what to do next and why, teacher talk provides students with information and enables them to decide what to learn and how to connect learning points together.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 127

10/12/2013 09:04

128

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Factors influencing inner speech Four major factors influence teachers’ inner speech, including teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, strategies and experiences, out of which beliefs seem to predominate. This awareness goes well with Smith (1996), who emphasizes that beliefs play a vital role in a teacher’s approach to instruction. As Leilani suggests, instruction needs to be clear so that students can follow the learning process with ease. Based on this ideology, she often announces the next item to be learned to help the students follow the flow of the lesson. Her utterance ‘now we are going to discuss …’ was for the students to prepare for the transition in the lesson, and at the same time, served as her mental preparation for the next part of the lesson. Teachers’ knowledge exerts influence over self-talk as a monitoring skill. Whereas teachers’ knowledge includes subject content of the lesson and teaching methodologies, it does not isolate other pertinent information such as students’ proficiency level, background knowledge and needs. Teaching strategies play a major part, while inner speech is employed to deviate the lesson in desirable directions. All three teachers resort to skills such as rephrasing questions, rewording instructions, using body language and providing illustrations when they are confronted with students’ reactions denoting dissatisfaction, incomprehension and resistance. Such concrete actions are outcomes of their silent monitoring of pedagogical resources. Ruani explains that coming up with a solution to unexpected circumstances in class is an instinctive process: I thought of an alternative so as to continue the discussion by giving them examples orally instead of writing on the whiteboard. I hoped they were able to see the different structures of the sentence I was illustrating through gestures, which is another tool in teaching. At that time, I was appealing to their imagination, which I hoped would work.

It seems that through silent monitoring of teaching and through connecting with learner responses, the teacher is able to expand his pedagogical repertoire to optimum efficiency. In this way, teachers’ accumulated past experiences in handling classroom interaction and dynamics play a part in explaining their self-talk during teaching. Furthermore, experiences of teaching the same lesson to another group of students and reflecting on students’ various reactions can serve as opportunity for comparing what works best with each group. A task may work well to various degrees while being conducted in different classes, or

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 128

10/12/2013 09:04



Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

129

even fail to work, depending on learners’ mood, classroom atmosphere, peer relationship, teacher–student rapport, discussion content, learner response and teachers’ spontaneous behaviour at the time of teaching. For example, as Vicky improvises an idea which provokes enthusiastic responses from one group of students, she feels inspired and considers reusing the same idea with the next group. A class which shows dissatisfaction with an activity, on the contrary, prompts her to rethink how to improve the same task for the next class. She reflects on one such incident: I was somewhat frustrated with my students’ lack of responsiveness. I would have expected more from them as I had thought I knew their interest and ability well, but I was wrong. Perhaps they became lethargic as the end of the class was near. I was thinking that it [the topic] would provoke an emotional outburst from the female class members, which unfortunately did not take place. Now I must think of better ways to bring up this issue in the next class. Maybe I will change the timing by transferring it to the beginning of the lesson and see how that works.

Conclusion The project demonstrates the fact that teachers’ inner speech helps to strike a balance between teaching knowledge and its application in the actual classroom, especially in dealing with unexpected classroom events. Taken together, such practice is subject to teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, strategies, teaching experience and students’ responses as influential factors. Being exercised in silence and occasionally in words, teachers’ self-talk serves to mediate the lesson plan and additional actions. The importance of understanding such a voice as a self-monitoring tool, self-evaluation and pedagogical decisions cannot be overemphasized. The reality that a small portion of inner speech is verbalized and much of it is hidden in silence, makes this experience not different from learner silence which may vary from complete silence to whispering to peers. This understanding suggests that silence is not an absolute construct but has a relative meaning in classroom interaction. In other words, silence is not independent from talk but is connected to the latter by way of mediating, preparing, and responding to it. Critical incidents, which are characterized by unexpected classroom events, provide the researcher with the opportunity to investigate the content of teachers’ thoughtful silence and discover how teachers consolidate or deviate

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 129

10/12/2013 09:04

130

Understanding Silence and Reticence

from the initial teaching plan. Examples of such moments may include the shortage of time for a detailed discussion, a twist in the lesson plan which changes its direction, students’ unresponsiveness or unreadiness, diversions due to an unexpected question or response from students and other incidents that add more content to the lesson. In this way, every lesson works well as a combination between planned and spontaneous interaction and such practice could be viewed as a way of appropriating methodology. The need to reconcile knowledge with its application requires a certain degree of flexibility and the need for alternative ways of coping with the unexpected. One such example would be writing on the whiteboard as a way of consolidating a point in the lesson and a reminder to the teacher of what to do next. This may also provide time for teachers to think about the next decision to make. Utterance of frustration and impatience from the teacher could be held back within the teacher’s silent practice and this behaviour could save students from feeling intimidated from learning as well as giving the teacher space to practice self-control and think through what to do next. Good monitoring skills could help the teacher to avoid expressing negative emotions which might damage students’ learning enthusiasm. Teacher development implications can be drawn from this project. They might include teachers’ metacognitive skills training, discussion of interactive decisions in the classroom, the awareness of silence as a tool to mediate teaching behaviour and ways of making pedagogical adaptation towards desirable impact. Teacher silence, however, may not function effectively in a vacuum. Instead, teachers’ self-guidance of their own actions would best happen through students’ support such as responsiveness, preparation and feedback. Besides, silence is not completely unreadable but both teacher and learner in silence can be recognized, read, interpreted and worked with to a certain extent. Thoughtful design of teacher and learner training would definitely assist such processes and abilities. There is a relationship between teacher and learner behaviour. While teacher talk stimulates learners’ thinking for deeper learning, learner response guides teachers’ inner speech towards more efficient teaching, both of which would benefit the classroom process. Teachers’ ability to respond to the unexpected with revelvant strategies would contribute greatly to the quality of classroom teaching. Students’ verbal contribution, therefore, not only helps students to rehearse L2 output but also helps the teacher to adjust teaching in ways which maximize the learning impact. A teacher who is skillful at inspiring students’ participation is also someone who knows how to produce information to serve

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 130

10/12/2013 09:04



Philippine Teachers’ Use of Silence

131

self-regulating pedagogy. ‘Critical incidents’ (Richards and Farrell, 2005, p. 113) which prompt teachers’ ‘interactive decisions’ (Richards and Lockhart, 1996, p. 83) to come up with ‘spontaneous learning opportunities’ (Bailey, 1996, p. 18) for learners are precisely what makes learning unpredictable and interesting, as well as what keeps classroom teaching from being static and dull. Such moments need to be documented, evaluated and discussed in teachers’ training programmes to assist teachers in developing pedagogical sensitivities without which knowledge and skills would not take teachers very far. Unexpected moments, such as when discussion develops brilliantly beyond what was prepared or dies prematurely despite a good plan, are situations that a teacher cannot simply ignore because they have potential to provide an opportunity for further learning. For teachers, being able to develop spontaneous ways of practising pedagogy from those instants is a useful, interactive habit that would make a difference. Only through such experiments does teaching become an advanced art in the real-world classroom rather than a set of static principles from a teachers’ training handbook. Data show that teacher silence has two distinctive features which do not exist in learner silence. First, teachers do not question their own ability in the same way as students often question their ability. For example, teachers do not lose confidence, worry about making mistakes or become concerned about losing face. Second, teachers’ silence seems less self-centred than other-oriented as it focuses more on how to help students to learn rather than help teachers to teach. After all, it is important to be aware of the purpose of silence, regarding who it directs attention towards and why. Classroom observation shows that critical incidents took place in the project and upgraded the quality of pedagogy. Such incidents come when students express interest in expanding knowledge of a lesson item, when they show signs of struggle and indicate the need for help, and when they are ready to cooperate with the teacher to build the lesson. All of these magic moments enhance pedagogy in better ways than if the teacher makes decisions through mere prediction of what may be useful. It is these scenarios, rather than the original lesson plan or the teacher’s knowledge, that push learning forward. An incident of unusual character may represent a vibrant learning experience which creates impact and brings learner satisfaction. It can be argued that the value of teaching should not be counted by the hours but rather by the instants when learning indeed happens and learners feel happy to experience it. It is teachers’ thoughtful use of silence, rather than empty talk, that plays a part in this process.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 131

10/12/2013 09:04

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 132

10/12/2013 09:04

7

Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence

Scholarly research on the role of silence in language education in Vietnam remains negligible. Recent educational history shows that not until the 1960s did Vietnamese scholars from the National Linguistics Institute begin to pay attention to second language methodology (Huu, 2002). Such short development in the field somehow has contributed to the lack of well-established methods of L2 pedagogy. For decades, silence in the Vietnamese educational context has been perceived as synonymous to reticence and learning passivity, although this is not always the case. Together with policies by the Vietnamese Ministry of Education, which makes English a compulsory subject in the national curriculum since 2009 (Ministry of Education and Training, 2008), a number of efforts have been made to achieve this task. The communicative approach has been advocated as the key guiding principle (Barnard and Nguyen, 2010) with great emphasis on intercultural competence (Ho, 2009, 2011), teachers are encouraged to teach both linguistic and content knowledge (Nguyen, 2007), and autonomy is given to higher education institutes to determine their own teaching resources (Hayden and Lam, 2007). Such appeal and autonomy, however, do not lay a firm foundation to make appropriate and creative pedagogy happen. In the traditional Vietnamese classroom it is the teacher who decides who talks, when to talk, what to say, how to say it and when to stop talking. This model makes students believe that the teacher is the centre of knowledge, ideas and information. The situation prompts scholars and educators to consider more systematic, empirical studies into the real, everyday classroom where students and teachers are organized to voice their thoughts about verbal interaction. Academic discussions among Vietnamese educators, as well as appeals from policy makers at ministerial and metropolitan levels in the 2000s show that the aspiration to move students away from silence has become of strong research interest for educational

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 133

10/12/2013 09:04

134

Understanding Silence and Reticence

development in the country. Instead of giving attention to how students employ silence as a mode of learning, academics have expressed more concern in how students can be more verbally active in educational settings. As a result, there remains a huge gap in Vietnamese silence research regarding the nature and use of silence for learning: an area which will be discussed in this chapter through empirical research. One reason why silence is becoming a significant research focus in Vietnam is because developing L2 communication skills in this country has been viewed as a great challenge. Speaking skills began to draw attention from Vietnamese policy makers and English language teaching professionals in the early 1990s when communicative language teaching was introduced from Western Englishspeaking countries and expected to replace the traditional approaches of instruction (Hoang, 2011; Bui, 2012). Although students are encouraged to develop communication abilities through role-plays, discussions and debates (Pham, 2005), meaningful interaction rarely happens in the everyday classroom where pedagogy remains form-focused in order to prepare students for graduation and university entrance examinations (Le and Barnard, 2009; Nunan, 2003; Hoang, 2010). As a result, students who enter higher education programmes, even in English major classes, have limited speaking skills despite advanced knowledge of vocabulary and syntax. Vietnamese students’ learning styles are characterized as heavily dependent on teachers’ knowledge (Khoa, 2008; Hoang, 2010). Teachers, in the meantime, have mastered declarative knowledge yet lack confidence in sociocultural competence due to what they believe to be limited exposure to communication in English-speaking cultures (Le, 2000; Hoang, 2010). Although Vietnamese university teachers often show positive attitudes towards the communicative approach (Le, 2000) and make efforts to localize and personalize the materials for their own students (Nguyen, 2011), outside the classroom, Vietnamese students suffer from both the lack of L2 exposure and L2 communication needs (Le and Barnard, 2009; Pham, 2007). Furthermore, organizing communicative activities in the classroom is recognized as difficult and time-consuming due to limited materials and facilities (Phan, 2008) as well as large class size and multiple levels of proficiency in the same class (Kam, 2002; Pham, 2005; Le and Barnard, 2009).

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 134

10/12/2013 09:04



Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence

135

Vietnamese discourse on silence It is believed that traditional Vietnamese society taught children to obey adults and advised citizens to respect authority through silence, viewing such behaviour as a reflection of good conduct and education (Shapiro, 2002). Despite a long history of prizing silence over the spoken word, there has recently been a tendency to advocate oral communication in education as a necessity in today’s globalized context where travel, international business and overseas studies are becoming more accessible to the public. A study by Yates and Trang (2012) on Vietnamese students’ perception of verbal discussion in the Australian classroom shows participants’ inclination to adapt to new ways of teaching by speaking out more, perceiving talk as a way to solve problems, building a vibrant learning climate and appreciating the international learning experience. Compared to other East Asian contexts, silence in Vietnam is hardly cherished in educational settings. There has been a strong tendency to problematize Vietnamese students’ lack of verbal learning styles in many classrooms (Bui, 2006; Pham, 1999), viewing it as an impediment to successful L2 development. The general attitude among many scholars towards silence is of a negative rather than welcoming nature (Hoang and Le, 2002; Bui, 2004; Mach, 2011). In the everyday English classroom, getting learners to voluntarily voice their own thoughts or raise their own questions proves to be a real challenge. Many Vietnamese teachers’ favourite technique of helping students to speak is by mostly directing questions. Some local linguists, however, believe that focusing on questioning methods to increase verbal responses is helpful but not sufficient. A number of educational scholars have highlighted the need for increasing learners’ emotional involvement as well as the need for linking discussion content to students’ daily concerns (Le, 2002). Arguably, to involve students emotionally requires a high degree of cultural sensitivity and linking discussion content to students’ concerns calls for a deep level of tacit knowledge about everyday life in the country. In a recent report from Hue University, Tran (2008) highlighted the need to move Vietnamese classrooms to two teaching modes: interpretive and generative. Interpretive teaching values the social aspect of learning by asking fewer testing questions than genuine and provoking questions in order to increase opportunities for classroom interaction and discussion. The generative teaching mode emphasizes the need for student participation, interpretation and negotiation of meanings, with instruction being enquiry-driven. Through this process teachers respond to students by stimulating further discussion, such as probing,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 135

10/12/2013 09:04

136

Understanding Silence and Reticence

giving feedback, commenting and redirecting questions. Generative teaching also means that key beliefs are not anticipated but teachers need to question their own practices and revise their own knowledge while exploring and constructing ideas with their students. By and large, creating more profound conditions for students to develop vigorous involvement in the learning process is the burning question in Vietnamese education today (Bui, 2004). The concept of active involvement is understood by Vietnamese scholars as the act of sharing curiosity and the ability to raise new questions. Such needs should be demonstrated through some degree of talk and being reticent arguably would restrict them. Teachers’ classroom styles have been viewed as a major cause of learner silence. According to Tran (2008), Vietnamese teachers’ responses to students’ contributions in many classrooms are often evaluative and the content of such feedback is heavily driven by textbooks with considerable concern for following a pre-determined syllabus. Teacher training workshops conducted by international experts have not led to any fundamental change in the Vietnamese classroom because, while talking skilfully about the learner-centeredness, the experts failed to position it within the country’s educational and cultural context with all its physical constraints, limited resources, large classes, teachers’ traditional beliefs, hierarchical values, among other multifarious forces that local teachers need to work with. A survey conducted by Bao (2002) on Vietnamese students at the Foreign Language Centre of the National University of Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City reveals a striking mismatch between what the students assume they should do and how they actually behave during classroom events. In their perception, good students should be able to raise questions with the teacher (53 per cent say this), participate in class discussion (64 per cent) and interpret silence as a weakness that should be overcome (72 per cent). Despite these thoughts, the majority of students in the survey, being asked about their actual classroom behaviour, admit that they rarely contribute to discussion (46.6 per cent), seldom raise any question to the teacher (89 per cent), and experience difficulty when the teacher nominates them to speak up (93.3 per cent). This tremendous gap between students’ ideal roles and practised roles suggests that the awareness that interaction is essential for learning does not seem powerful enough to lead them to actually do so. Ever since Vietnam’s Economic Reform in 1986, which opened the door to a wider range of foreign-invested businesses, the country has hoped for a gradual shift to new dimensions in educational reform as well. As a matter of fact, having

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 136

10/12/2013 09:04



Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence

137

made significant economic progress in its efforts (with a remarkable growth rate of 8.4 per cent per annum) to accelerate its integration into the global economy, the war-torn nation achieved its new economic position by joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) and gaining Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status. Such development increased demands on the Vietnamese education system, with brainpower serving as a major factor in the nation’s development. Although economic achievements are evident, they cannot be persistent unless the country develops a more dynamic, creative and skilled workforce. Arguably, such changes have to begin in the educational system and need to start from the foundation of the everyday learning conditions. In the classroom, Vietnamese students’ culture of learning can be described as heavily dependent on many teachers’ pedagogical tendency to transmit knowledge about the subject content. According to Bui (2004, p. 242) the interactive pattern often found in Vietnamese classrooms is ‘teacher initiates – learner responds – teacher comments’. This model restricts learning because it is the teacher who has the final say or makes the concluding evaluation. Bui (2004) argues that if the learner takes the initiative to complete the interaction, so that the pattern becomes ‘teacher initiates – learner responds – teacher comments – learner responds again’, the nature of the discussion will change fundamentally. The last step, ‘learner responds again’, rarely takes place in the Vietnamese classroom because it is likely to be perceived by some teachers as an act of challenging their authority, which seems to undermine many values in the traditional teacher–student relationship. In order for learners to perform this step, they have to know that it is accepted and well received by the teacher. If the teacher wants this to happen, he or she needs to build rapport with students and allow them to see that since hierarchy has become a barrier to an open discussion, it can step back for a positive learning relationship in the classroom. The existing mode of learning fails to reflect and respond to the need for complex discourse required by the increasing demand of business negotiation, educational exchange and international communication happening in Vietnamese daily life. Many students remain deeply reticent during classroom discussion and conduct themselves according to models long acquired from their lecturing-mode experiences. Although appropriate in many sociocultural situations, their reticent behaviour often clashes with the need for a classroom environment which may require more verbal interaction, sharing of problemsolving skills and self-motivated debates. These actions are recommended by Vietnamese scholars such as Hoang (2000) and Bui (2004) as ways to expand the

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 137

10/12/2013 09:04

138

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Vietnamese learning repertoire in response to the country’s changing economic and educational contexts. In a study by Bao (2013) of 65 secondary school students in Vietnam on their perception of classroom participation, the majority of participants (87.69 per cent) believe that a good classroom should be characterized by verbal interaction rather than by silent listening and observation, viewing this behaviour as productive response to the teacher’s performance, a stimulus to the thinking process and contribution to a vibrant classroom atmosphere. Such ideology, however, has not become a reality in many classrooms, for such reasons as restraints on class management skills, uninspiring pedagogy and teachers’ lack of receptivity towards spontaneous talk as well as other physical and timing constraints. Only a small number of students (12.31 per cent) feel that they are happy to learn in silence and some of them argue that respecting students’ behaviour is respecting their autonomy. Another project conducted by Tomlinson and Bao (2004) on 300 university students in Vietnam discovers that many Vietnamese teachers tend to underestimate learner competence. Some refuse to believe in learners’ willingness to participate and potential to express themselves fluently in English; these teachers form self-fulfilling beliefs about their students’ incompetence that lead to acceptance of learner reticence and prevention of change. The project also learns that many students enter the classroom with a desire towards a sociable atmosphere, and a learning climate which not only stimulates discussion but also helps them to deal with negative conception of the learning process. A number of scholars relate to traditional values to explain Vietnamese silence, including influence from Confucianism (Canh, 2000), obedience towards authority (Nguyen, 1988), social order (Loveday, 1982) and manifestation of wisdom (Scollon, 1999). Others investigate factors in the everyday classroom as sources of discouragement to Vietnamese students’ desire towards verbal participation. Such factors include teachers’ poor pedagogical performance (Trang and Baldauf, 2007), misperception about students’ passivity (Tomlinson and Bao, 2004), strict classroom discipline (Dang, 2010), students’ concentration on passing examinations (Warden and Lin, 2000), low confidence (Nguyen, 2004), foreign language anxiety (Trang et al., 2012) and lack of verbal skills in the language (Yates and Nguyen, 2012). A survey conducted by Nguyen (2002) on 230 Vietnamese students demonstrates a strong connection between performance anxiety and low L2 proficiency, both of which explain their reluctance in verbal participation. In a word, Vietnamese silence tends to be perceived by teachers and academics as reticence rather than a learning

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 138

10/12/2013 09:04



Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence

139

mode in itself. Since such inclination seems to reflect a partial dimension of the phenomenon, this study has attempted to investigate silence in both connotations: silence as reticence and silence as a learning mode.

The study Research questions The interpretive case study is based on grounded theory and a bottom-up approach in which data mainly come from the experiences of participants rather than from the researcher’s knowledge and perception. The main research questions include the following: 1. How is silence employed as a mode of learning among the Vietnamese students? 2. In the students’ perceptions what seem to be the strengths and weaknesses of silence? 3. How differently do silence and talk allow the students to control their learning process? 4. What are some potential factors that influence their decision to verbalize or remain silent? 5. What are the conditions under which silence no longer serves as a learning mode but becomes reticence?

The researcher’s position Having worked in both secondary and tertiary education in Vietnam, I have formed some knowledge and understanding of this context. On the one hand, this familiarity allows me to empathize with participants’ experience in a deep way. On the other hand, such insider stance might affect how I can interpret the ongoing, changing reality in the most distant, objective view possible. I am acutely aware of the need to refrain from assuming that my knowledge about this context and these people is already good enough. Following suggestions made by scholars about the need to abandon prior knowledge (Minichiello et al., 2008), to maintain neutral judgement, and to resist impressionistic and personal interpretation (Bryman, 2008; Denzin and Lincoln, 2011), I made great efforts to be as loyal as possible to what I listen to, an attitude which is essential in qualitative inquiry (Creswell, 2007).

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 139

10/12/2013 09:04

140

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Research focus and participants’ profiles The project is designed to investigate Vietnamese students’ perceptions, attitudes and experiences in relation to the use of silence in the classroom whether as an academic learning mode or as an inherent social behaviour. Interviews were conducted in which Vietnamese students expressed their opinions regarding their mental and intellectual processes of developing English knowledge and skills through silence and speech, their feeling and thinking towards peer interaction and the overall academic environment, factors influencing their choice to be quiet or verbal as well as their preferences for the best timing and conditions for each mode. Participants in the projects include ten Vietnamese students with language learning experience in higher educational institutes in both Vietnam and overseas. Except one participant who is male (Van), the remaining nine are female (Quy, Trang, Thanh, Ngan, Hien, Huong, Phuong, Mai, and Khanh). Their age varies between 24 and 35 years old; most of them are pursuing their Masters degrees in various fields including English language teaching. The participants’ experience in English learning varies from 14 to 23 years in the contexts of Australia, the United States and Vietnam.

Data collection method The only research tool employed in the project was interview to record in-depth elaboration of participants’ views and experience related to silence. The interview was conducted mainly in English because most participants are fluent enough in the language to feel comfortable in expressing their views, having spent an extended period of time using English in English-speaking countries. The responses of participants to the researcher’s questions are of an individual, experiential and subjective nature. The significance of such experiences and opinions has been recognized by Knigge and Cope (2006) as an essential part of qualitative case-study research. The project was conducted with sensitivity to the culture and learning circumstances of participants as well as the works of other scholars that might be linked to data. Trustworthiness is built through conscious attempts to be loyal to the words of participants. The potential limitations of this project are that it is not suitable for large-scale generalisation and that the ways in which data are analysed might be construed through the researcher’s expert knowledge and experiences with the use of silence.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 140

10/12/2013 09:04



Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence

141

Data analysis Data analysis pays attention to participants’ in-depth voices rather than the factual, verbatim word. Such methods are highlighted by Wellington (2000) and Bryman (2004) as thoughtful ways to decode themes and meanings in empirical data. To explain participants’ perceptions, transcriptions of their responses to interview questions are processed through content analysis in which their words are categorized, termed, and interpreted so as to capture thoughts, behaviour and viewpoints. Such procedure of categorization combined with interpretation to produce research outcome is well supported by Cohen et al. (2011), Creswell (2008), Hess-Biber and Leavy (2004) and Maxwell (2005). This investigative approach reflects features of interpretative phenomenological analysis (Husserl, 1970; Moran, 2000), a tradition often found in psychological qualitative research.

Data discussion and main findings The need for both verbal and silent modes of learning Most participants feel that silence is their conscious choice rather than inherent passive behaviour. However, silence is not the only learning mode that they employ. Except one person who prefers talk (Phuong) and two who prefer silence (Mai and Trang) as their major modes of learning, the remaining seven participants express preference for balance between the two learning modes. They claim to engage in both talk and silence, finding them equally useful as they are applicable to different learning aims and situations. To most participants, silence is helpful for processing target language structures, engaging with challenging concepts, connecting new and previous knowledge, and organizing ideas. Talk, in the meanwhile, is useful when there is conflict or a problem to be resolved, when an important message needs to be delivered, and when the nature of lesson topic inspires in everyone the desire to debate. Quy shares her view: Although silence gives me the space to gather my thought, this thought needs to interact with ideas from others so that everyone can benefit.

Trang, who prefers silence before she switches to the talking mode, feels that being silent allows her to practise critical thinking. She explains: In the learning process, I question myself before I question others. If I fail to answer a question by myself, I’ll direct it to others. Because of this habit, I’m

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 141

10/12/2013 09:04

142

Understanding Silence and Reticence

normally quiet for a while before I speak. Another reason for being silent is that I observe better when I’m not talking.

One way of participating which is neither silent nor verbal is to whisper. Phuong feels that sometimes she is not confident enough to speak out to the teacher and the class; yet she does not wish to remain silent either. What she finds useful and safe in that scenario is to turn to a classmate and speak softly to share her view with that person. This strategy works well with many students who wish to interact within a safe zone without having to intrude into class time. This phenomenon goes well with a study conducted by Tong (2010) on 181 Hong Kong secondary students, which discovers that whispering to peers is a habit and an effort that should be taken into account as class participation. Silence can be used to enhance the quality of talk. Mai feels comfortable with silence because she is characteristically careful with words and enjoys constructing thoughts in the mind. However, there are situations where she could open up and contribute, especially when the topic is stimulating and can be connected to her background knowledge and experience. Although she feels that talk improves classroom relationships better than silence, Mai needs silent rehearsal to maintain the quality of her contribution and to function well in class discussion. Similar to her, other participants do not wish to be the first person who speaks when a topic is initiated but rather observe and wait to see their peers’ viewpoints first. Due to this shared caution, it is often a challenge to initiate class discussion but the teacher’s innovative skills are required to activate it. Any teacher who steps into the classroom with the assumption that students will naturally join class discussion would naturally fail to make it happen. Van shares his thoughts regarding this delay in speech: I won’t start talking until I have a good idea to express. Otherwise I would prefer to listen to people with more worthwhile things to discuss. If everybody does this, i.e., expressing only meaningful, original thoughts, the quality of class talk will be very good. I do not advocate saying anything that crosses your mind. It’s a waste of time for others.

For Van, to generate interesting ideas, the topic of discussion has to have certain qualities, not just any topic, and the teacher should be able to select the kind of content that leads to such moments. Good topics are controversial, inspiring, practical, complex and related to everybody’s concern. These features have the power of making students think hard and think differently from one another. It is agreed among most participants that silence should not be the end

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 142

10/12/2013 09:04



Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence

143

of a learning procedure but should serve as a basis for a dynamic discussion. After all, a major part of learning a language is to interact with others and it would be absurd to not try and practise communication. Unlike learning mathematics or philosophy, language learning has a social nature that requires a concentration on the external world rather than the mind alone. One needs to pronounce words, articulate sentences, make oneself understood and learn collaboratively.

The situational nature of silence For most participants, silence rarely functions by itself but adapts and responds to classroom dynamics. Such dynamics include discussion content, interlocutors, classroom culture and teacher styles. Many are aware that their silence might make classroom atmosphere stressful, keep the teacher waiting, and make other classmates feel uncomfortable if the class situation requires a discussion. When this tension occurs, they often make a conscious effort to contribute to the lesson. Ngan reflects: My verbal or silent habit tends to balance with peers’ learning habits, so that talking time and silent time are shared among everyone. It is not right if you talk all the time and leave little time for others to share their ideas. Likewise, you can’t simply keep quiet all the time and let others work hard to help you learn. If I talk too much or stay quiet too long, classmates might not feel good about me.

Thanh believes that her silence or talking habit has to do with the dominant group in the class. When other students are eloquent and contribute moderately, she might join them; but if they seem boastful she then prefers to keep quiet. Along this line, other participants are also aware that excessive contribution will deprive others of the opportunities to share their views. Those who speak too much often cannot control themselves and do not care about others. They hold on to their opinion, talk aimlessly, move away from the topic, make everybody else tired and occupy time which could otherwise be used for more meaningful activities. In that sense, the verbal performance of someone can prevent the learning of others. Eventually, it is not talk or silence alone that creates a good sense of harmony in a classroom relationship but rather the balance between these two constructs that does.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 143

10/12/2013 09:04

144

Understanding Silence and Reticence

The need to respond to silence To merely accept silence would signify a passive pedagogy, but teachers need to be proactive towards silence. They need to be sensitized towards the meaning of each silent moment and respond well to it so that learning can take place. Several students admit that they do not feel their teachers understand their silence and help them enough, either to use silence for learning or to overcome it. They say silence can be a sign to indicate that help is needed. The student may have something to say and wait for encouragement; the student may be inhibited by a challenging learning point and need support to resolve it. It is the teacher’s job to find out either by asking students or simply by using experience to sense such needs. Respecting student silence by leaving students alone is not sufficient to make learning happen but teachers should take a more enthusiastic stance towards the silent learner. Unfortunately many teachers are more responsive to talk than silence. They interact with eloquent students and disregard quieter peers. Ngan describes her experience in which a mature student in the class refrained from speaking because he did not want to appear less competent than many younger learners. Since the young learners were more verbally active, the teacher communicated with them while leaving the mature class members alone. This behaviour made the latter feel uncomfortable, as if the teachers discriminated against students on the basis of their age, and as a result they found it hard to enjoy learning in that class.

The need to support the teacher In participants’ beliefs, being able to answer teachers’ questions is a very important responsibility because this shows how well and willingly they cope with the lesson content. Some feel that getting the answer wrong does not really matter because improvement can always come through interaction with peers and with the teacher. If the teacher is able to openly acknowledge this rule of participation, students will feel comfortable to make their contribution. As data speak for themselves, verbal learners give a good impression to the teacher, attract teacher attention, make the teaching job easy and help create a lively classroom atmosphere. Quiet students, meanwhile, confuse the teacher and create the impression that the teaching performance is not inspiring enough. Some teachers feel that they might leave students to experience the silent period and students will speak when they are ready. However, the silent

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 144

10/12/2013 09:04



Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence

145

period will not last forever; instead students’ silent behaviour needs to move to the next step where they try participating when possible. Most participants feel that a good, healthy, interesting, inspiring and humorous classroom climate could help students overcome many learning difficulties. Although such an environment needs to be co-created by both teachers and students, it is the teacher who has the power to take the initiative and make it happen. What is worth concern is that until recently the student-teacher relationship in Vietnamese classroom practice is often of a hierarchical and teacher-centred nature (Canh, 2000), which seems to make it hard for learners’ spontaneous discourse to happen.

Silence and the danger of silencing In several participants’ experience with classroom debate, it is assumed that many classmates who feel comfortable with their English tend to speak frequently and sometimes more than necessary. This behaviour, however, does not mean that the quality of their talk is superior to the contribution of others who participate in discussion less often. Believe it or not, the verbal dominance of certain peers may happen to play the role of silencing others and this behaviour has a political impact on classroom learning. It is the teacher’s job to bridge power differences by managing class participation in a way that might discourage such control as it may be detrimental to a positive climate. It particularly affects students who need time for thinking before participating. Some feel that without quiet processing of language in the mind to make wording accurate and succinct, they would not be able to say it out in a clear and fluent manner. Khanh reflects on this preparation process: There is a talkative person in my class who does not know how to collaborate with others. When working in groups, she talks too much and rarely listens. Her ideas are often extreme because she refuses to consider other people’s views. What makes it worse is that her English is fluent; she speaks really fast, but her wording sometimes does not make sense. I think it would be better if she was more accurate and moderate.

Most participants perceive talk and silence as two useful learning modes which should be well distributed among all the students so that everyone can experience a balance in learning styles. Some feel that while silent thinking engages students intellectually, verbalization engages them socially. Both intellectual and social engagement is important to make communication meaningful.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 145

10/12/2013 09:04

146

Understanding Silence and Reticence

How students’ silence affects the learning of others Silence can be self-directed or it can be other-directed. The former means thinking alone for yourself while the latter means paying attention to others and listening to their talk. Although silence helps individuals learn, the silence of one student may not motivate his or her peers in the same way as talk does. This understanding suggests that after one has processed information for selflearning, it would be useful to help others to learn as well. The awareness for such a balance will promote learning. It has been agreed that it is not either silence or talk that maintains classroom harmony but the moderate use of each mode will contribute to a pleasant, harmonious classroom relationship. Most participants prefer to work with peers who are neither too talkative nor too quiet; who listen attentively and respond relevantly to others rather than aggressively insist on their own opinion. Van comments: How can a classmate become cooperative through always keeping silent? One must know when and how to respond. A helpful peer will keep quiet and listen to you when you talk but later they need to speak to you as well, giving feedback and sharing opinions with you.

Mai, Khanh and Trang feel that it is hard to say whether silent or verbal classmates are better learning partners. Both can be either pleasant or difficult to work with. For them, the ideal peer is one who knows when to talk and when to keep silent, and is sensitive towards how much to talk and to listen.

Conclusion Silence is not inherently productive but one needs to learn how to make it work. Most participants in the study advocate a kind of silence which eventually leads to language output and which supports the quality of that output. Silence in this way is not only self-directed but also actively serves the whole classroom process. It is worth highlighting that the intellectual maturity of the participants in this project is fairly advanced, and they reflect on the use of silence in a critical and responsible manner. Unlike many students who sometimes blame teachers for not knowing how to make interaction happen, this group does not criticize teachers but tends to look at classroom processes in a more inclusive manner and suggests ways for communication to be more successful. They feel that it is the students themselves who should be first responsible for understanding and

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 146

10/12/2013 09:04



Vietnamese Perspectives on Silence

147

using their own silence; while the teacher’s task is to support not silence itself but the process in which silence is applied to produce meaningful speech. Both silence and talk have their own gains. While silence serves to rehearse linguistic accuracy, talk supports the development of fluency. Besides, both modes of learning need the right conditions to operate. The choice towards talk or silence often takes place in combination with students’ judgement of the socio-educational surroundings. Students tend to keep quiet when they feel that speaking out is academically unhelpful or socially unpleasant. Peers and teachers with interesting, accepting attitudes could inspire interaction while ‘talkaholic’ and unsupportive class members might ruin students’ social mood and make them withdraw into reticence. The relationship between individuals and the class plays a major role in whether and how students participate. Each student’s personality and the culture of the class are interrelated in the sense that the individual student could co-create or resist the class culture, which in turn will affect that student’s behaviour either as a member or as a non-member. If students internalize a strong sense of group membership, they might wish to demonstrate their membership by making contribution to class events. On the contrary, if students feel like outsiders, they might act consistently with their outsider status by keeping interaction to a minimum. Data in this study acknowledge a clear relationship between productive use of silence and the quality of speech. Silence supports the monitoring of language use, connects new information with learners’ previous experiences and allows observation of peers’ discussion. Once these preparations have been made, students should be willing to contribute to classroom discussion and let one another benefit from the silence that everyone agrees to undertake. In many cases, challenge occurs when not everyone who prepares for verbal performance actually makes verbal contribution to benefit classroom learning. For a meaningful, open conversation to happen, the teacher is required to know how to invite and stimulate interaction, select the right discussion content, be clear about rules of interaction, and demonstrate the right attitude towards learner talk. In other words, for students to employ silence to prepare for talk may be insufficient but teachers need to help them link such preparation to a dynamic classroom discussion. Successful learning, after all, remains a shared responsibility of everybody in the class: teachers and students alike. Participants in this project have demonstrated a clear understanding of how they utilize silence and why they proceed to talk. Taken together, talking to others and listening attentively to others are both acts of attempting to engage in

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 147

10/12/2013 09:04

148

Understanding Silence and Reticence

the learning process. Both can be evidence of learner response to teacher performance. Teaching is a job that comes from the heart and if students perceive such passion for teaching in the teacher, they will be likely to develop their love for learning also. It is the learning vigour that supports silence and talk, which exhibits more values than silence or talk itself. Once students genuinely appreciate the classroom process, whether they engage in one mode or the other they are likely to do so with a learning intention in mind. When this happens, the teacher no longer needs to look at talk or silence respectively as evidence of learning or the lack of it. At that moment, which mode to use is no longer important because learning is taking place anyway. Among the findings from this project, the following three outcomes stand out as original and have rarely been discussed in the research literature on silence. They emphasize the connection between silence and speech quality, the social, dynamic nature of silence, and the responsibility towards silence. First, there is the need to engage in both verbal and silent modes of learning since both have their own benefits and both may come from students’ conscious choice rather than inherent passive behaviour. Besides, a clear relationship emerges between productive use of silence and the quality of speech, that is, silence can be used to enhance the quality of talk. In addition, talk and silence should be well distributed among all the students so that everyone can experience a balance in learning styles. Second, silence has a social nature, in the sense that it not only serves selfdirected learning but can also be other-directed – in the sense that silence among some students may affect the learning of their peers; the dominant talking role of some students may have the danger of silencing other classmates; the relationship between individuals and the class also plays a major role in whether and how students participate. Finally, both teachers and students should be responsible towards the implementation of silence as a learning resource. In particular, teachers should not merely respect silence by leaving silent students alone but need to develop strategies to maximize the productive potential of silence. In the meantime, students need to understand that silence is not inherently useful but one needs to learn how to make it work. Silence should be employed in productive ways not only to serve learning but also to support teacher performance.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 148

10/12/2013 09:04

8

Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

This chapter analyses the comparative perspectives on silence as drawn from the six empirical projects. Although each case study may not represent the learners’ typical culture of learning, a synthesis of all these views would be worthwhile and interesting, considering the diverse backgrounds and rich experiences of the participants. The studies are interpreted towards theorization and implications of silence for second language acquisition and for classroom pedagogy, respectively. The analysis covers seven broad agendas: an overview of participants’ voices, the roles of silence, the relationships between silence and other constructs, re-examination of related theoretical concepts, the need for silence literacy acquisition, educational and ethical implications of silence, and recommendations for future research. Below is the specific argumentative character of each section. The discussion, first of all, collates the voices of six participant groups in terms of their different and common views on silence, perceptions of silent peers and circumstances when silence turns into reticence. Second, the roles of silence are discussed including silence as an L2 processing tool, psychomotor awareness, affective domain, conscious choice, participation and non-participation. Third, several relationships between silence and other related constructs, such as L2 output and peer collaboration, are highlighted. Following these, the discussion takes on a more critical stance towards the relevant discourse. The fourth agenda revisits a number of theoretical concepts in the field, which includes rethinking silence in East Asian and Anglo-Western cultures, and rethinking some characteristics of the silent period. Fifth, there is the need for communicative competence to embrace silence literacy acquisition besides language acquisition, considering the fact that effective communication covers not only appropriate speech but also appropriate silence. Silence literacy is a term which I coined to refer to the ability to employ and understand silence appropriately in context. In a word, these sections attempt to network silence with a number of SLA constructs.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 149

10/12/2013 09:04

150

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Based on the above understanding, the chapter considers incorporating productive silence in learner and teacher development programmes. The educational implications of silence will be made more concrete by the proposal of a classroom methodology, namely silent engagement pedagogy (SED), which will be demonstrated by a proposed learning model and classroom activity, namely ‘experiencing the senses’. The activity has been piloted in several L2 classroom settings and a reflection on how it has worked will also be discussed. The last section of the chapter is a look to the future. It interprets silence as a political struggle which should be addressed to move classroom teaching towards more equitable practice; recommends research on teacher and learner perceptions of silence as well as how personal factors influence silence. Recognizing the differences and common ground across the case studies, the book does not wish to place the groups of participants in their national culture compartments, but keeps in mind the diversity among cultures and within each culture, taking great care not to make generalizations. As will be evident in the chapter, empirical data lead the discussion to some reconsideration of existing theories and this does not necessarily mean that this research has found more truth than other research but simply points to supplementary areas of scholarly attention.

Different and common views on silence The hierarchy between silence and talk is not the same in participants’ perceptions. While such hierarchy does not seem to exist among the Japanese students, in the Chinese and Korean students’ views talk is superior to silence as a language learning tool. To the Australian and Vietnamese students, silence and talk take turns becoming important depending on classroom situations and teachers’ ways of handling the activity. As far as cultural backgrounds are concerned, there is no clear dividing line between the Anglo-Australian students and their Asian counterparts in terms of how silence is perceived and employed. The only feature that makes the Australians seem different from other participants is the diversity and individuality in their responses while others tend to mutually agree more within their respective group. The Japanese students are aware that the functions of silence help them to control learning and stay connected with the class. They feel that talk might disturb learners’ thinking process and damage learning more than silence. The Chinese and Korean learners, on the contrary, are deeply critical of silence and express a strong preference for talk. Although silence is acknowledged to have

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 150

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

151

positive values (such as self-protection, care, turn taking, among others), most of them rationalize talk as a more direct route to L2 development. This view seems dissimilar to part of the academic discourse which indicates that Chinese and Koreans practise silence because they highly appreciate its value. The Australian and Vietnamese students, in the meantime, favour a more balanced view by justifying both modes. On the one hand, they praise talk for building L2 competence and silence for its L2 processing, reflective, and developmental values. On the other hand, they critique both modes of learning for their respective undesirable features, especially when they are employed excessively or irrelevantly. What most participants seem to share is the belief that listening to lecturers alone is insufficient for L2 learning; and that silence does not equal idleness but can be packed with a wide range of invisible learning functions. Those functions include, for example, mental processing, communicating a message, monitoring to avoid premature performance, resisting lectures’ ineffective pedagogies and caring about the learning of others. Inner speech is recognized as an alternative form of silence, which refers to both an inaudible internal voice and an audible whisper. Inner speech has the benefit of supplementing the insufficient total talking time in the classroom. Although various groups express different degrees of acceptance towards silence and talk, none of them favour an excessively talkative class and it is unanimously agreed that verbal contribution from each learner should be moderate. The Philippine group, which represents the educational view, contributes the understanding that it is realistic and possible for learner silence to be recognized, understood and responded to by teachers; and that teachers with experiences in silence literacy do not have to feel intimidated about learner silence as a mystery to teaching and an obstacle to learning. Further insights into this point will come later in the discussions on teacher development and silent engagement pedagogy.

Perceptions of silent peers Only a small number of participants (in the Australian and Korean groups) claim to enjoy working with highly verbal peers, while the majority express caution towards talkative learners and perceive them as unpleasant individuals. The main reason for this resistance has to do with limited class time availability, minimal space for talk and mental processing, and learners’ preference for working with considerately collaborative and verbally moderate classmates.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 151

10/12/2013 09:04

152

Understanding Silence and Reticence

The Filipino participants seem receptive to both verbal and less verbal students. In the role of teachers, there seems to be no difficulty in working with highly verbal students as their contribution apparently makes it easy for the lesson to proceed. From a learner perspective, however, talkative peers can be intimidating since their participation may intrude into others’ space, time and personal styles. For this reason, some learners (in the Vietnamese group) choose to whisper to peers to avoid using everyone else’s class time. Besides, since eloquent learners may not represent the abilities and preferences of the whole class, pedagogy responsive only to this group may not suit the learning needs of others. Silence of the self and silence of others may be perceived differently depending on who evaluates silence or whose silence is being evaluated. Most participants in the study are capable of understanding their own silence and self-approving it, but fail to show favour towards peer silence, which they hardly understand. This is because it seems easy for individuals to learn from their quiet thinking practice but is impossible to learn from similar practice by others.

Characteristics of silence Silence as reticence Silence turns into reticence when it is not intended for learning but becomes undesirable as a result of learners’ lack of preparation, incapability and resistance to ineffective pedagogy as well as other intimidation factors. Many Australian, Chinese and Korean participants in the study admit having experienced some degree of reticence, while the Japanese and Vietnamese do not seem to perceive their silence as an imposed behaviour. Arguably, learners develop ownership of silence if they are in control of when to employ silence and when to break it. On the contrary, they lose grip of that ownership when the teacher, peers and the situation take over and make all the decisions. When silence is constrained, resulting from inhibition and the control of others, it is reduced to reticence, which restricts learners’ ability to stay connected with learning objectives. While silence is self-decided and natural, reticence is not and thus puts a burden on the learner. The most important nature of silence is that it rarely functions independently but seems highly adaptable and negotiable in response to classroom dynamics. It is when such negotiation fails that learners withdraw into reticence. Unfortunately, the difference between silence and reticence may not be highly perceptible to the teacher. To confuse deliberate silence with reticence would

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 152

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

153

be the same as confusing productive behaviour with poor behaviour, which is detrimental to the practice of appropriate pedagogy.

Silence as an L2 processing tool As learned from the projects, silence serves as storage of information, a networking zone for knowledge, a processing ground for talk, and a tool for imagining conversation. It is realistic to expect a certain degree of silent time during the classroom process considering learners’ need to reflect, practise critical thinking skills (Chinese participants), and handle a large amount of new linguistic data in the mind (Australian participants). Silence is regarded as a stage preceding speech, invisible ways to connect with the class (Japanese participants); space for engagement with challenging concepts, connection between new and previous knowledge (Vietnamese participants), condition for dialogue rehearsal (Korean participants), as well as cognitive and metacognitive self-monitoring guides towards premium performance (Filipino participants). Several Korean students also believe that silence can be packed with more information than speech and therefore can enhance the speed of linguistic processing more effectively than talk. For many, silence is so essential that without saying things quietly to themselves, learners would never be able to speak the language at all. It seems that many participants in the studies attribute silence to the operation of the mind, which to achieve the optimum learning effect has to be the silent mind.

Silence as psychomotor awareness The use of silence involves a certain degree of psychomotor awareness when learners claim, during classroom events, to articulate sounds in their minds, foresee conversation, internally rehearse talk, and apply that rehearsal to actual verbalization. Such ability seems strong among the Filipino participants, who are skilful in turning thoughts into verbalization and who treat the boundary between unverbalized and verbalized practice as insignificant. Some Japanese and Vietnamese participants perceive talk and silence as an interrelated tool for learning, reasoning that flawed thinking would result in flawed talk. A number of Australian and Korean students also have knowledge of what should be done to associate between thinking and speaking, which suggests that L2 processing skills have a close connection with actual communication ability. As a matter of fact, the potential of the psychomotor domain, which involves cognitive, associative and autonomic skills, has been well recognized in improving the

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 153

10/12/2013 09:04

154

Understanding Silence and Reticence

quality of education (Simpson, 1972; Romiszowski, 1999), language instruction (Hewitt, 2011), and language acquisition (Jaakko, 1978). Not all participants, however, believe in their ability to connect the mind with verbal communication. Despite good intentions to build language skills, many learners find it is a real challenge to transfer from L2 processing in the mind to actual verbalization. Some Japanese participants admit being able to hear their own voice talking inside their heads, yet in many cases there is no strong urge to make that voice audible to others through talk. Without the above ability and awareness, silence has the weakness of delaying speech and restricting communication. Although the mind can process complex linguistic systems, it may not be able to replace the practice of sound production. Some learners are capable of silently processing elements of speech delivery such as pronunciation, intonation and stress: others simply cannot do so. To facilitate L2 acquisition, mental processing requires effective associative skills, that is, the ability to visualize conversation before making articulation happen. Unfortunately, not all learners claim to be capable of doing this.

Silence as an affective domain Silence represents not only cognitive space in the mind but also an expression of emotion, which reflects a range of pleasant and unpleasant feelings towards others. In participants’ experiences silence can denote contentment, considerateness and a supportive relationship; it is also internalized as reservedness, dissatisfaction, indifference and disapproval. While the Japanese students feel that silence brings about a concordant social surrounding, several Australian students find silence distressing when an open discussion is required and the whole class refrain from sharing their thoughts. Lingling and Biyun (Chinese students) employ silence as a shield for self-protection, resistance to boredom, shyness from class discussion, and a caring act to avoid disagreement which may damage others’ feelings. Mai (Vietnamese student) enjoys constructing thoughts in her mind and feels relaxed in her own silence. Hye-in (Korean student), on the contrary, resorts to silence when she is dissatisfied with the learning environment. Some of the major functions of silence as revealed by data, namely processing L2 in the mind, expressing emotions and preparing for participation, happen to resemble an educational model proposed by Bloom (1956). According to Bloom’s taxonomy of learning, there are three mutually inclusive domains of learning. The cognitive domain serves recall, analysis and problem solving; the psychomotor domain refers to actions such as pronunciation, discussion, facial expression and hand gestures; and the affective domain indicates how

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 154

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

155

one feels about the learning process. These domains are not mutually exclusive but can be combined to yield an optimum impact. In coping with second language learning, students not only need to learn its syntactic rules to put a sentence together (cognitive domain) but also have to produce sounds, say the sentence aloud and communicate it with others (psychomotor domain). In the meantime, they might want to enjoy conversation and appreciate its content (affective domain). Although Bloom’s model was originally created in educational psychology rather than in language learning, it seems highly relevant in explaining the main functions of talk and the major roles of silence.

Silence as a conscious choice For many participants, silence is a matter of autonomous decision in response to the practical requirement of learning situations. Five out of 10 Australians in the study (Eddie, Emily, Lisa, Helen and Paul) are aware that they can control learning better through silent observation while simultaneously talking and observing might pose a greater challenge. Fifteen participants in the Chinese study, furthermore, feel that the nature of learning is inherently individualistic as everyone learns differently from others. How learning takes place within the mind is matter of a personal choice and students will keep studying at their own pace regardless of the teacher’s intention and control. Being deliberately quiet is a self-control act. Lingling feels that silence makes her feel safe and helps her maintain good relationship with others, especially when she strongly disagrees with peers and might lose her temper. Likewise, some Korean students opt for silence as their conscious choice when the teacher does not seem to receive learner participation with warmth and patience. For the Vietnamese students, the choice towards talk or silence often takes place in response to their judgment of the socio-educational surroundings. Silence becomes the option when students feel that speaking out is academically unhelpful or socially unpleasant. As demonstrated, both verbal and silent modes of communication exist in everyone’s repertoire and which one is to be used more often is in many cases a matter of personal decision with a clear rationale in mind rather than a mere lack of ability or inherent passive behaviour. Generally, the choice to remain quiet results from learners’ social, linguistic, cognitive and emotional needs. Although conversations are a common part of language classroom practice, many students decide to keep silent until they have gathered sufficient linguistic data, formed ideas to contribute or

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 155

10/12/2013 09:04

156

Understanding Silence and Reticence

begin to feel comfortable using the language. The fact that many learners are conscious of their individual styles and act upon them as relevant ways to learn somehow reflects Roger’s (1969) view of education. Carl Roger (1902–87), who is considered the father of the humanistic and experiential approach to learning, emphasizes that learning needs to be ‘relevant to the whole person’ (p. 34). He maintains that a meaningful learning process embraces five elements namely personal involvement, self-initiation, difference making, satisfaction of needs and meaning built into the whole experience. For Roger, learning can be so subtle that in many cases it is impossible to be measured but one can only be aware that it is happening. Perhaps among the most important tenets of Roger’s philosophy is the fact that true education involves a change in selforganization: learning is maximized when learners have the freedom to select their own direction, formulate their own problems, discover the solution for themselves and are responsible for such choices. The fact that learner silence comprises three dimensions – thinking, behaviour and emotion as discussed above – means that silence is a tool rich enough to represent the whole person. According to Roger, when the self of the learner is reduced, learning will be minimized.

Silence as participation and non-participation Due to learner differences in behaviour, preferences, perceptions and classroom situations, definitions of participation may vary. If it is agreeable, as most dictionaries indicate, that its broad meaning is to have a share with others, participation can happen through talk and through other means such as making preparations for the next step, taking notes and looking for resources, among others. In fact, the concept of silence as a form of participation has been well acknowledged in the discourse (Schultz, 2009; Granger, 2013; Sokolov, 1972; Tatar, 2005a; Remedios et al., 2008), especially when the silent behaviour indicates the evidence of learning, such as exchanging written notes or processing the answer to a question. Keeping silent is participating also because thanks to the silent individuals, others have the opportunity to speak and those who are prone to verbal styles will be able to learn. In that sense, silence is a form of sharing being connected to a larger picture of interaction, participation and contribution. As Schultz (2009) believes, since classroom discourse is formed by the alternation of talk and silence, both of these should been seen as components of participation. It is important that teachers broaden the understanding of what silence and talk mean in classroom interaction. If talk is always assigned or agreed by

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 156

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

157

the teacher, it may not be authentic communication but can only mean ‘allowed talk’. Sometimes, if the teacher finds the act of whispering among peers, which could be learning-related, as disruptive to the lesson, such narrow interpretation may create a false assumption about students’ learning style and ability, which continues to result in misleading pedagogical decisions. Despite the above understanding, data from the studies show that not all learners perceive their own silence as participation. Instead they differ dramatically regarding this issue. Almost all the Australian, Chinese and Vietnamese participants do not perceive silence as participation, which they feel can only be real through actual verbal attempts. Some Japanese and Korean students, on the contrary, perceive silence as a form of participation. As explained by the Japanese students, if the speaker can see that the listener is attentively listening, that speaker will be contented and accept the listening act as a way of conversational collaboration. Hyung-won (Korean student) elaborates further that the willingness to change one’s mind is a result of mindful listening and such sensible reasoning is already a form of participation. Apart from the awareness of silence as shared space for talk, the construct of silent participation has a self-serving implication, referring to how the learners utilize the interaction of the class in order to learn for themselves. The Interaction Hypothesis (Gass, 1997; Long, 1996) indicates that verbal interaction can lead to feedback which prompts learners to notice the aspect of L2 that needs improvement. As data from the studies show, some participants claim that they do not need to interact with others to receive feedback but can actually observe others’ interaction and obtain feedback through vicarious means. On this foundation, every silent individual can notice desirable language features from listening to peers and based on that information make efforts to improve his or her own speech. Silent participation, therefore, involves using the practice of others to benefit one’s own learning rather than providing practice to contribute to the learning of others. Another feature of silent interaction is that it is related to the role of consciousness in SLA. Participants recall many moments in which they pay attention to language features in the input and process them in the mind either in silence or through talk. For example, describing how he learned French, Michael (Australian student) believes that the best way to notice language is to verbally participate otherwise he cannot be fully engaged with new knowledge and develop new skills. On the contrary, Hyung-won and Gyu-bo (Korean students) believe in the ability to achieve language successfully through not talking much but through attentive exposure to input. In this way, learner

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 157

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

158

consciousness of L2 features may happen both in silence and through verbal practice. Whether adopting the quiet or verbal modes, the students share one important reflection, that is, input processing works best and they engage with L2 most effectively when given the conditions they need in order to notice and process language input. The role of attentional processing, which again refers to the act of engaging in selected information, is highlighted by SLA experts as essential path to L2 acquisition (Schmidt, 1994; Tomlin and Villa, 1994; VanPatten, 1996).

Potential transfer from inner speech to verbal output Participants’ reflections show evidence of how inner speech (when learners form utterances in their heads) or private speech (when learners whisper to themselves) can expand to L2 output (when they verbalize that rehearsal). Both conscious processing and verbal interaction, which are important routes to L2 acquisition, need to be sufficiently mediated as mutual support. While some theorists believe that the main route that facilitates L2 acquisition is communicative face-to-face interaction (Krashen, 1981a, 1981b; Long, 1996), others highlight attention and noticing as the focal point where learners’ internal factors and classroom external factors come together to support L2 acquisition (Baars, 1988, 1997; Schmidt, 1995, 2010). The link between mental rehearsal and actual L2 performance has actually been investigated through SLA research (Saville-Troike, 1988; de Guerrero, 1999; Lantolf, 2000). As learned from the data, what enhances L2 learning is not only the above relationship but also the complex dynamics of inner speech within itself. The practice of mental processing as described by the Australian students includes articulating sounds, developing thoughts, formulating responses, rehearsing imagined interaction and considering verbal participation. The Korean and Vietnamese students, meanwhile, view inner speech as a time saver to make up for insufficient class time allocated to verbal discussion. According to these participants, the difference between inner speech and output lies in the larger information quantity and reprocessing capacity of the former compared to the latter. Although most participants find themselves lingering at the level of potential rather than actual contribution, their practice of inner speech generates a great deal of resources for selective use in verbal contribution. Such effort, which comes from observing social interaction and which involves more cognitive practice than the verbal contribution itself, is likely to stimulate L2 development.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 158

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

159

It may be hard to assess the quality of L2 processing in systematic ways but one can appreciate its worth by describing what happens. As Roger (1969) highlights, although some aspects of learning cannot be measured, they can actually be sensed by students and such internalization has its own credibility. This hypothesis is concretely supported by the data in the projects. Many participants in the studies feel that their internal processing ability is just as useful to them as verbal communication ability is useful to other students. Such inner speech sometimes occurs in the form of a vicarious response when they quietly attempt to answer a question directed to another peer, complete a classmate’s utterance or correct someone else’s error. Private speech has been acknowledged as common practice among many learners (Ohta, 2001) and as a useful cognitive tool to mediate L2 learning (Lantolf, 1997). For some participants, there is no need to distinguish between inner speech and verbal contribution as they claim to earn the same learning benefit from practising each of these.

Silence in peer relationship This section argues that there is a difference between silence for self-learning and silence for social learning. While keeping silent (or engaging in self-talk) may help one learn efficiently, keeping silent towards others may become a problematic issue. It seems fine if someone’s silence has a social meaning, a communicative intention, or a learning function understood by others. However, if a learner is quiet towards peers in a collaborative arrangement where all members are supposed to share learning efforts, then that silence can be cryptic and painful. This is a great concern among many participants in the studies. Silence becomes inadequate when it fails to play a role in social learning; that is, failing to assist the learning of one another. Data show that being with silent classmates is difficult because of not knowing what they think, how they feel, what to learn from them, and how one should behave towards them. In the Australian and Chinese studies, silent peers are perceived by others (including other silent students) as lacking in communication efforts, being unfair to those who work hard to contribute, not sharing ideas, making communication stressful, showing little collaboration, being unenthusiastic, not being responsive, hiding emotions and being selfish for not letting classmates benefit from them. Taken together, this critical view shows that every individual has a dual responsibility not only towards his or her own learning but also towards the learning of their community.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 159

10/12/2013 09:04

160

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Several Japanese participants, nevertheless, have developed a slightly different attitude. They express tolerance and appreciation towards the silence of others, especially when they are aware that the silent partner is listening, concentrating on what is being said, processing information, taking notes and perhaps raising questions. In the students’ view, interlocutors should be given space to reflect on ideas, and it is entirely up to them to speak out if later they have thoughts to share. If not, there is no difficulty in waiting for the next opportunity. This perception demonstrates a high degree of patience and understanding towards the silence of others, based on the understanding that learning does not happen by forcing people to speak when they are not ready, and that if one employs his or her internal space for learning, it would be fair to also respect the quiet space of others. Some Korean and Vietnamese students, in the meantime, demonstrate a balanced view of the issue. Their appreciation of peers’ silence, first of all, depends on the nature of classroom relationship. The silence of others can be both pleasant and unpleasant depending on what it seems to communicate to the rest of the class. In particular, silence can be neutral when one has nothing in particular to say to others; positive when resulting from mutual understanding without the need for explanation; and negative when silence prevents cooperation and understanding. Second, the appreciation depends on the moderateness of peers’ silence; that is to say, knowing when and how long to keep quiet so that silent time is shared as much as talking time. Third, the silence of peers can signify mutual understanding especially after sufficient verbal contributions have been exchanged and some reflection time may be desirable. In a word, this situational view about peer silence suggests that shared silence is positive when it is moderate, motivating, undisruptive, time-saving and sensitive towards the feelings of others. It becomes intriguing to notice how the perceptions of the Chinese, Japanese and Korean students separate in three distinctive directions, considering the fact that the learning behaviours of these groups are often categorized by some scholars as resting on similar cultural foundations; whereas the Australian and Chinese students share a strikingly similar standpoint despite their apparently dissimilar cultures of learning. Until today, learners’ views about the silence of others have hardly been a theme of interest in language education. Although it is sometimes highlighted that failing to understand the values of others represents a kind of silence towards knowledge and cultural interchange (Dieterich, 1973), the way learners feel about quiet classmates tends to be overlooked while the way teachers feel about quiet students is

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 160

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

161

often overdramatized. Arguably, peers’ mutual perception is an area worthy of attention since L2 education is a collaborative undertaking that requires students to behave sensibly towards one another as much as they need to behave sensibly towards the teacher. Silence can be heavily context-dependent, which means that its value varies depending on situations, perspectives, and the bond with learning partners. Data from the studies indicate that although learners perceive their own silence as a valuable mode of learning, many do not recognize the silence of others as helpful to them. While silence may be a pleasant feature of a person who does not tend to bother others, it can easily become a negative feature of a peer who does not demonstrate sufficient collaboration skills. Along this line, empirical research conducted by Jaworski (1993) also shows that silence is perceived in a positive light as a personal trait, yet when it comes to an academic trait silence becomes characterized in a negative light. In a word, there seems to be a clear distinction between silence for self-learning and silence for social learning, so that while serving the former, silence may damage the latter.

Rethinking silence in East Asian and Anglo-Western cultures The perspectives of silence among the East Asian and Australian participants in these studies do not seem to conform to a number of scholarly views about these groups. As far as the East Asian groups are concerned, what is often remarked on is how the Chinese, Japanese and Korean students’ silence, as inherited from Confucian tradition, seems to be distant from what the students say about themselves. Hardly any of them make a connection between silence and their national culture or tradition as a source of influence. Instead most participants seem more interested in explaining the dynamics of the everyday classroom factors that govern their behaviour. Arguably, assuming silence primarily as the product of inherited values is to treat silence out of context and regard learners as passive, powerless, and dependent beings. Holding on to cultural background to explain the present-day classroom behaviour may also risk disempowering students’ autonomy and denying the role of individuals’ learning resources. As learned from the studies, some of the most significant motives for silence include sharing contribution space with others, respecting speaking turns (Korean students), caring about the quality of verbal contribution, the inclination to consider others’ viewpoints, saving class time by whispering to peers (Vietnamese students), the need for

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 161

10/12/2013 09:04

162

Understanding Silence and Reticence

mental processing, dissatisfaction with pedagogical styles (Australian students), frustration with the poor quality of peer contribution (Chinese students), the need for attentive listening and the ability to connect with others in silence (Japanese students). As far as the Australian group is concerned, what is often said about AngloWestern students, as being prone to talk and resisting silence, seems dissimilar to the view expressed in the study. In a discussion on how silence serves as a learning strategy in a middle school classroom in America, Hall (2007) connects silence to students’ learning disability and underperformance. In Hall’s report, some American students who mainly employed silence as a way of learning to read had to go against the natural talking norm and suffered from being misunderstood as passive learners. While recognizing the learning value of silence to some extent, the report highlights silent American students as those with weaker abilities than others: they struggle and hold on to silence as if holding on to a crutch. The Australians in the study, on the contrary, experience proactive silence within themselves in a culture of learning different from what seems common and that does not represent typical values and interaction styles among many Australian universities. In particular, they weigh silence as a significant L2 processing tool. Some of them employ silence in ways that may be unknown to the teacher, such as internalizing it as cognitive thinking, intellectual maturity, and learning engagement. This view is far from some of the Anglo educational discourse which often treats silence as a foreign behaviour. As a matter of fact, the belief that talk naturally benefits learning more than silence often places constraint on students’ ability to learn a second language (Olivo, 2003).

Evidence of a proactive silent period Learners vary in their abilities and preferences in carrying out language tasks either collaboratively in groups or silently on their own. Some prefer to respond to others and learn through assistance; others function comfortably by themselves. Individual differences in views, behaviour, values, styles and preferences influence how learners approach silence regarding reason, timing and manner. Australian students such as Candace and Helen admit that their silent period, which was supposed to occur at the initial stage of their L2 learning, in fact has persisted for many years as they studied French and Japanese mostly

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 162

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

163

through silent engagement with written work, processing learning resources and formulating mental responses. Silence, according to data from the projects, is employed in two different ways. One way resembles what is often characterized as the silent period, in which learners attempt to understand L2 input and practise mechanical speech such as imitation, repetition, memorization, comprehension and translation. The other way engages with creative speech such as combining words, formulating new sentences, and experimenting with new ways of using language. As discussed in Chapter 1, while the nature of the silent period is often restricted within comprehension and brief imitations without the presence of creative speech in it, the use of silence beyond that period can be highly complex, stretching indefinitely over a lifetime and embracing a wide array of learning functions. Many participants recall employing silence alternatingly with talk since the early stage of their L2 learning in response to their changing moods, needs, and learning conditions, without experiencing the two clear-cut phases as sometimes indicated by the silent period theorists. This experience suggests that for these students, the silent period simply does not exist. Data indicate that various learners use silence differently for different purposes, with different aspects of the target language, in different lengths of time, and on different learning occasions. For Shane (Australian student), the silent period lasted four years and during that time he rarely spoke in the L2 classroom. The first time he began to use the target language was when he went to live in Korea. Thinking about the silent time in the classroom, Shane admitted that he actually engaged with creative speech, alternating between imitation and making new combinations using his limited L2 knowledge. For him, language data did not go from the interlocutor into his mind, but were interacted among peers before he selected some and committed them to his system. In other words, what happened during his silent period was a quiet but creative attempt to mentally judge and experiment with the language. This behaviour is dissimilar to what scholars have characterized the silent period to be, which seems simplistic compared to what Shane’s silent period has produced so that he later became fluent in Korean. As Shane puts it, he sometimes had a ‘debate’ in his head in L2. Had his silent processing been restricted to comprehension and brief imitations, Shane would not have been able to ‘revolutionize’ his L2 to advanced proficiency. Lisa, Helen, Eddie, Emily and Paul (Australian students) also admit that they have learned L2 in silence through listening to others and formulating responses in their mind. For them, it is hard to separate the silent period with

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 163

10/12/2013 09:04

164

Understanding Silence and Reticence

the ‘talk’ period as there seems to be no such distinction. At an early stage of L2 learning they attempted to speak a little and remained silent most of the time. Over the years they found themselves behaving in the same fashion; that is, speaking less than listening while their L2 competence was improving. The fact that they have achieved some degree of verbal L2 competency does not mean that the silent period has ended, nor does it suggest that the stage lingers on. In a word, there is hardly any reflection from participants which admits that their early silent stage was restricted to mere comprehension and imitation of the target language. This understanding reflects Tomlinson’s (2001) recognition that an L2 inner voice can actually be developed during the silent period that benefits L2 development. Joo-sung’s (Korean student) conscious decision to remain silent is heavily influenced by external social conditions and this happens both at the early stage of learning and during advanced classroom processes. Some examples of such factors include topics unrelated to his interest and the presence of many talkative classmates in the class. For Kaiyi and Xincheng (Chinese students), being silent during an early stage of L2 learning is not only related to language issues but more importantly, early silence can be the consequence of less desirable relationship with the teachers and peers. This early silence has less to do with language incompetence than with affective issues. In other words, connecting the silent period with language input and comprehension reflects only a portion of what complex L2 learning is really about. In the meantime, Daichi, Yusuke and Yurie (Japanese students) reveal that their silence during the early stage of L2 learning serves to follow classroom rules of attentive listening and to meet the teacher’s expectations of minimal participation. Such silent time also reflects the need to observe other students’ behaviour before one tries to speak the language, much of which is about respecting the shared learning environment and demonstrating conscious deference towards the broader social norm. Since much of the early silent stage is deeply related to learners’ social needs and cultural expectations, attaching mere linguistic features to the nature of the silent period seems to narrow down the dynamics of L2 development process in which learners’ choice reflects how linguistic processing happens largely through perception of the social sphere. The silent period theory rests on the conception that language comprehension often precedes language production. Once the learner begins to speak the target language, this muteness stage, which according to scholars may last from a few hours to a year, ends its course. Natural as this route of language development may seem, to define the initial stage of learning as silent is

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 164

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

165

inaccurate because learners and babies alike hardly stay silent when they first get exposed to the surrounding linguistic world but tend to whisper to themselves (self-talk) or speak a little (rehearsing imitation). Besides, to assume that the silent period will be characteristically followed by the successive period of speech production also seems imprecise because many language learners do not end their silence then start talking one day but might alternate between talking and silence throughout their lifetime. The implication of the silent period in teaching may have a problematic nature. On the one hand, teachers may respect learners’ silence rather than impose on them the urgency to talk when they are not ready. On the other hand, some teachers may take for granted that this period contains in it the evidence of learning, that this phase will pass and that learners will eventually gather sufficient linguistic data to speak the target language. Relying on this perception might prevent teachers from making pedagogical efforts to assist students in their L2 acquisition. Because of this, a number of L2 learners have suffered from the silent period as it seems to last forever and they are never able to speak their L2. This observation goes well with Gibbons (2006), who in a recent discussion provides the warning that the initial silence is not necessarily a desirable behaviour, and that the prolonged silent period in many cases signifies withdrawal rather than the language acquisition process.

The flexible dynamics of silence Participants experiences and perceptions of silence in various contexts have constituted ways of understanding its multiple cognitive, affective and sociocultural functions. It is interesting to note that not all members of a culture display behaviour commonly recognized of that culture, as in the case of the Anglo-Australian participants who genuinely prefer the silent learning mode despite their international counterparts’ belief that Australians only love to talk. Even within one group, the value of silence is contradictorily perceived, as in the case of the two Korean students who enjoy learning in silence while other Koreans in the study express strong preference for verbal participation. In today’s globalized context where learning influences are frequently exchanged, it increasingly becomes hard to assume what cultural group will prefer which learning mode. No matter how useful talk and silence may be, there will be moments when each of these behaviours may become awkward. In the everyday classroom, many teachers have experienced instants when they desperately

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 165

10/12/2013 09:04

166

Understanding Silence and Reticence

want their students to speak up; as well as moments when they desperately want their students to ‘shut up’. Silence can be unpredictable in its quality. It can be purposeful or aimless, planned or impulsive, relaxed or strained, sophisticated or superficial, selfdirected or other-oriented. The quality of silence is as important as the quality of talk. Silence is of high quality when it is well-timed, leaves necessary space for others to speak, has a communicative intention, serves mental processing, and helps to prepare for further interaction. On the contrary, its quality can be low if silence happens as a result of absent-mindedness, is imposed by others, and comes from undesirable emotions such as fear, shyness or dissatisfaction. Vigorous evidence in the data suggests that silence is far from being a permanent attribute of participants. This seems clear when learners make conscious efforts to move in and out of silence in various needs to modify the ways in which they communicate. It is through efforts to break the silent routine or to refrain from a chatting desire that learners’ experiences become enriched, new skills are piloted and their comfort zone is challenged. On the whole, both talk and silence have ‘merits and demerits’ in students’ learning (Agyekum, 2002, p. 49). While silence allows space for reflection on talk, talk helps one to test the outcome of silence; in this way, one mode functions effectively thanks to the other. For example, participants in these studies practise observing their silence by talking openly about it through interviews. Some participants who could not find conditions for a face-to-face interview would prefer to sit at home, perhaps in silence, and write their answers. Both oral and written interviews went well and both produced the richness of data which informed this book.

Silence as autonomy Silence and talk represent two modes of communication which exist in everyone’s repertoire and which one is to be used in what context should be the matter of personal choice rather than of lack of ability. According to Dolya (2010), both internalized monologue and thinking aloud forms the basic speech structures of human thoughts. Which mode to resort to, however, is to a great extent dependent upon one’s sociocultural experience. Because of this, the success or failure of language learning cannot be understood simply by looking at pedagogy, but one needs to consider many social, cultural, political, historical and economic forces where learning takes place. Every

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 166

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

167

learner, whether consciously or subconsciously, is bound by these factors which constantly play their roles in the educational process. Classroom preference and acceptance towards learning styles are examples of these forces. Many silent students feel intimidated when sensing how eloquent peers tend to hold themselves above others. Open-minded pedagogy could be a tool for social inclusion, considering the fact that verbal involvement has been used as a way to exclude classroom members who are not prone to spontaneous verbal discourse. Educational processes will be most meaningful when the teacher is aware of how talk and silence, respectively or collectively, can help students learn and overcome difficulty. When complex ideas cannot be put into words, some participants put them in silent space where people do not judge. In doing so, they assume the right to make choices of how to most comfortably learn. This individual capacity to self-regulate classroom performance is often considered as learner agency (Wright, 2012; Duff, 2012); assuming supreme ways of teaching and learning, then imposing them on learners without consulting them would amount to the act of erasing such agency. Learners should have the right and responsibility to resist what is unsuited without having to feel that this act denotes passivity. Passivity is often defined as the routine of rejecting new ideas being offered. However, in many cases if the new way is irrelevant to learners’ needs, not accepting it could mean that learners are proactively taking control of their own development. Agency as defined and understood by Pavlenko and Lantoff (2000, p.169) is the foundation on which ‘ultimate attainment’ in L2 learning is built. Forcing learners to reflect silently when they wish to speak or making them verbally participate when they need quiet reflection would cause damage to their L2 development system. Having said that, one also needs to be cautious about the belief that all kinds of silence can represent learner choice; neither is silence synonymous to the internal voice. In some cases, there is even the need to silence the internal voice in order to make learning more effective. One example of this would be learner development of speed reading whereby the act of thinking in words may represent intrusive thoughts that slow down the reading process. Sometimes there is the need to view silence and talk with less focus on them as separate internal and external domains but as integrated, cohesive abilities without a clear-cut boundary in between. Silence can be seen as the beginning of talk and a portion of talk, so that to think and to talk might not be fundamentally different. As Ridgway (2009, p. 49) observes, ‘thinking in a language provides practice which is arguably as good as speaking it. Processes as important as automatisation continue to operate and one’s proficiency continues to develop.’

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 167

10/12/2013 09:04

168

Understanding Silence and Reticence

It remains a matter of managing one’s own resources depending on specific needs and situations. Learning involves the process of controlling talk as well as controlling the mind. In many cases, practising thoughts in the mind can be more challenging than practising talk, as inaccurate talk can get corrected by others while inaccurate thoughts are often left unnoticed. Silence can be the longest or the shortest distance between two people, and so can talk. Both dimensions may reach out to others or may turn away from others. Since talk and silence share surprisingly similar features, the dichotomy between them should be re-evaluated so that these two domains do not have to expel one another but work collaboratively for mutual merits.

The need for silence literacy acquisition The understanding that effective silence is not inherent but needs to be learned (Wardhaugh, 1992) and acquired (Agyekum, 2002) has been occasionally mentioned in scholarly discourse. To refrain from words when the situation requires quietness is an important ability in the development of socializing, acculturative and communicative competences. The skill to construct eloquent silence would be a valuable addition to the ability for articulation, both of which would constitute what Haskins (2010, p. 1) refers to as ‘human wholeness’ rather than single-sided development. Such a prerequisite is evident in the studies when participants express aspiration for high-quality silence, which refers to its appropriate timing and moderate nature, to be considered as a condition for collaborative learning in the classroom. Maho (Japanese student), Kaiyi and Xincheng (Chinese students) advocate a thoughtful balance between talk and silence as necessary behaviour for working effectively with peers. Helen, Michael, Paul (Australian students) and Joo-sung (Korean student) believe that an ideal classmate to pair with is someone who can share a valuable idea and refrains from speaking when there is nothing meaningful to say – rather than someone who talks persistently to fill in the gap. Besides, learners’ untimely silence during verbal discussion can send out the message that the pedagogy or content needs adjustment to become more inspiring. Ngan and Thanh (Vietnamese students) feel that silence does not come from individual learners but is governed by factors in lesson content as well as in teacher and peer behaviour. In many cases, when the desire to express one’s view is not well-timed, that is, when classroom discussion has not provided the right gap for the right

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 168

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

169

contribution, one might consider restraining that desire for a moment. Such delay does not mean that communication is lacking but may imply that the person really knows how to communicate. Blurting out words any time one wishes to do so is not always the best policy. To share meaningful ideas requires preparation to ensure that the message is fully well-versed. If sociocultural competence is perceived as part of communication ability, knowing when and how to keep silent is a socialisation acquisition process alongside language acquisition (Wardhaugh, 1992; Agyekum, 2002). Teachers need to be socioculturally and pedagogically sensitive to facilitate this process rather than ignore or frown on the absence of words as a lack of cooperation. It is the ability to mediate speech and silence in learners’ competence, rather than to produce talkative interlocutors who act the same in all contexts, that can represent productive learning and appropriate pedagogy. Data from the studies show that both silence and talk manifest learning efforts, and that silence does not have to work alone but can function in concordance with talk, both in the classroom and in broader social contexts. The ability to handle these constructs represents great mastery of learners’ own resources. Based on the data, such mastery includes the management of silence and talk for maximized learning potential, the shift between silence and talk as a matter of learner competence, a sensitive balance between silence and talk to contribute to classroom agreement, the prioritization between the two modes within oneself in response to unpredictable learning situations, the awareness that silence and talk can both be bilingual and the compromise between silence and talk in the form of whispers or private speech. To achieve the above abilities would require communicative competence to embrace not only second language acquisition but also silence literacy acquisition (both of which would constitute a pluralistic quality of SLA), considering the fact that verbal and silent skills function together in many real-world social settings. Silence, like talk, should not be employed in the same way all the time, especially in cross-cultural contexts where members of various cultures hold different sociopragmatic values. Even within the same culture, ways of talking and behaving in silence need to be adjusted to reflect communicative intention and social dominance between interlocutors. It is commonly acknowledged that without relevant sociocultural understanding, L2 learners would not be able to vary their message to achieve nuances of meaning (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983; Harlow, 1990). For this reason, only learning how to speak would make interactive skills incomplete but a proficient communicator also needs to learn to refrain from speech in a timely manner to show interpersonal

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 169

10/12/2013 09:04

170

Understanding Silence and Reticence

understanding and maintain a good relationship. To develop such ability entails both learning in the classroom and observing social interaction. From a pedagogical viewpoint, being made to talk when one feels more comfortable with silent thinking would be detrimental to learning (Chalmers and Volet, 1997; Remedios et al., 2008; Moust et al., 1987; Wilson, 2004). Besides, being able to select one’s favourite learning mode and to control how to learn are more important than always following the teacher (Armstrong, 2012). Arguably, the limitation of second language acquisition research lies in its main reliance on the directly observable domain of linguistic utterances, upon which judgement is made and theorisation is developed (Carroll, 2001). Since silence comes in complex variability that can be defined according to its purposes, reasons and situations, it entails as many rules as there are for talk. For example, similar to talk, which requires one to modify the register, tone and quantity of speech to meet the interactional need with the other interlocutor, silence is also subject to code-switching so that, depending on the background, relationship and culture of the person one is communicating with, the amount, intention and meaning of silence may vary. As Hymes (1972a) contends, each individual is a social world with the sociolinguistic need to learn to make the right decisions on the timing, topic, location, manner and interactants for speech to be appropriate and efficient. He argues that without such knowledge of appropriate rules, all the knowledge of vocabulary and grammar rules would be useless. Likewise, silence requires educational and cultural knowledge to convey interpersonal meanings. Although speaking is often regarded as the most complex and demanding skill in second language learning and acquisition (Bailey and Savage, 1994; Folse, 2006; Nation and Newton, 2009; Nunan, 1989), skills to express and interpret silence are equally, if not more, challenging to achieve. Due its inaudibility, appropriate practice of silence requires a good understanding of individual personality, situational clues, social etiquettes, cultural knowledge, and interactional circumstances. In everyone’s communication repertoire, silence and verbalization may happen in subconscious combinations and as interaction proceeds, one person’s talk may overlap with another person’s silence, making it hard to notice whose silence is currently playing what role. It is only when talk ceases that silence becomes more obvious. Talk, as (Picard, 1952) emphasizes, is a virtue when a good explanation saves misunderstanding. Likewise, silence is a virtue when a good pause saves superfluous abuse of meaning. In many cases, silence takes over when language reaches the limit of its expressive capacity. When words fail, it is not emptiness that is left behind but sometimes an imperative space is

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 170

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

171

proposed to build further understanding. In this case, silence does not represent the loss of words but the replacement of words by a more expressive means of message delivery. Silence as situated within the learners’ home country and silence as recontextualized in an overseas academic institution can be practised differently. Research shows that Japanese students in Australia simply do not practise silence in the same way as they would in their classrooms in Japan (Morikawa, 2013). The studies reported in this book continue to indicate that many students internalize the need to modify their behaviour as demanded by new learning situations. Such socio-educational adjustment suggests that the nature of silence is dynamic and unsettled rather than static and largely reliant on home culture. Many international students in Australia have made efforts to adopt new learning and communicative styles which may be distant from their pre-existing behaviour. Difficulty, however, arises when they have to debate with eloquent Australian native users of English. The language barrier, local knowledge and academic culture make it hard to contribute much, resulting in what sometimes gets misjudged as static representation of Confucian behaviour. Many East Asian students in Australia have been resistant to this identifier as an insult to their learning dynamics and individual intelligence. Silence, in fact, is subject to a great degree of repositioning, negotiation and reconstruction as learners shift their academic settings. As Cortazzi and Jin (2002) emphasize, culture of learning, which refers to a learners’ practice, expectation and interpretation, does not have an inert nature but is constantly changing based on both changes in home education and host education. It has been widely acknowledged that students’ educational beliefs, values, and learning styles can become highly modifiable as the exposure to and interaction with international cultures increased (Ryan and Louie, 2007; Zhao and Liu, 2008; Li, 2010; Shi, 2006).

Educational implications: silent engagement pedagogy (SEP) This approach does not aim to promote silence. Silence, as a matter of fact, has already existed in every learner’s repertoire and negating it, neglecting it, or not finding ways to utilize it would amount to a waste of learning resources. The rationale for this discussion derives from several important findings in the studies, which include the fact that students employ silence in classroom learning whether the teacher is aware of such practice or not; many learners attempt to turn silence into speech production; some are concerned that their

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 171

10/12/2013 09:04

172

Understanding Silence and Reticence

teachers have not appreciated silence enough to provide mental and pedagogical support; and, most importantly, learners need concrete classroom processes to strengthen their mental processing ability rather than merely receive teacher sympathy. The proposed pedagogy introduces four principles in response to these specific needs. First, it cares about the effectiveness of L2 learning through maximizing the processing and reflective potential of silence. Second, it recognizes the relationship between silence and talk in the sense that proactive use of silence can support the production of high-quality speech. Third, it appeals to teachers’ open-mindedness, supportive attitudes, and relevant pedagogical strategies to improve task design and allow room for mental rehearsal to reach its optimum. Fourth, the approach promotes relevant practices of silence beyond learning skills in the classroom towards communication skills in the real world. Silence as mental rehearsal provides conditions for self-directed learning which may be either connected to or independent from the teaching. Pedagogically recognized silence can liberate learners from the constraint of having to produce the impulsive, low-quality participation. Silence needs to be managed with acute awareness of why, how, when and how long one needs it to support their own learning and when the verbal mode of learning should take over. Obligatory talk can be frustrating when learners are required to publicize their half-baked thoughts when they are unprepared to do so. Silence training should be organized to include reflectivity, concentration, outcome and avoidance of idle, unproductive moments – the same way as talk that needs to be directed to enhance learning rather than become mere social time in the classroom. The structure of learning will fundamentally change when this knowledge is applied so that learners can employ both silence and talk as learning tools in conscious, informed ways. Many participants agree that if each student in the classroom takes every single opportunity to speak out, that might be considered odd and the person could be disliked by the rest of the class for being too talkative. Rather than saying everything that crosses their mind, learners need to consider selecting only the chances when they have something worthwhile to say. The rest of their time not spent on speaking can be invested in cognitive thinking and building inspiration for further discussion. Some learners can think and talk effectively at the same time; others may find it hard to combine spontaneous talk and cognitive thinking. Effective class management requires the teacher to see how this picture makes sense so as to balance talk and silence in a way that both modes find

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 172

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

173

their deserving places in the learning process. Letting talkative students talk too much and silent students remain silent too long may not be an ideal policy because that kind of permission simply maintains the status quo. Such an attitude would not require any skills from the teacher, nor will it help students improve what they are not good at. As a teacher, it might be helpful to advise students not only to maximize the potential of their favourite learning styles but also to stretch beyond their regular learning habits whenever necessary. For most teachers, to be able to detect the nature of silence, organize it and provide a strategic response to it would be taking one giant step towards more effective pedagogy. Working in educational settings on an everyday basis without being equipped with a good understanding of and some experience in interpreting silence might get teachers to become dramatically deskilled because that could mean having little or no control over students until they choose to engage in talking. The lack of this ability and the bias against silence could bring disaster because every time students decide to switch to the silent learning mode, the teacher would get cut off from communication with them. For the above reason, it is important that teachers are able to negotiate classroom participation structures and ensure that every learning style has a place to operate without forcing students to restrain themselves and without giving the impression of any formulaic learning model as being supreme. According to Yang’s (1994) social orientation theory, for a society to be culturally healthy its members should be involved in the practice of reciprocity, shared responsibility, solidarity and belonging. To apply these principles in educational settings, learners should talk or keep silent not only to serve their own learning but also to benefit the learning of the community. Doing so is to make shared norms productive, build interpersonal acceptance, and work towards the welfare of the group. Words are not to be thrown into the air and become lost but they are meant to be useful substance of learning for others. Classroom time is too limited and valuable to be wasted upon the careless word from the casual mind. If everyone learns to be a considerate partner, every minute of learning will be more efficiently spent; the shared learning environment, instead of being filled with social talk, will be enriched with worthwhile thoughts, good-quality language and well-deserved attention. Teachers might need to be cautious when leaving silent students alone, either for respect or due to dissatisfaction, as this attitude could mean giving up helping students to learn. Silence should be made productive through guidance rather than be treated with another kind of silence. If teachers do not wish to leave their students alone to talk among themselves, one should not do the same

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 173

10/12/2013 09:04

174

Understanding Silence and Reticence

with silence. Respecting silence through neglect implies that the teacher is only responsible for classroom learning when students agree to speak; otherwise they are left on their own. Silence, like talk, should not be used by students in the same way permanently, but the skills in employing the internal space in fact must improve. When a speaker becomes increasingly fluent, he or she might spend less time on internal rehearsal – not because the person has stopped rehearsing, but because many years of experience in rehearsing and using language has made that person so skilful that the rehearsal step happens almost as fast as not happening at all. The same phenomenon occurs when someone practises marksmanship. At first the person aims his or her gun towards the target, which takes a moment. Over the time as practice increases, the aiming takes less and less time until one day, the marksman simply raises his gun and shoots almost without preparation. This, however, does not mean that aiming does not take place but simply suggests that the aiming act has become such a gift that the viewer’s eye cannot detect it any more – although it always happens every time the shot is exercised. Using silence, likewise, should become a gift developed over the years so that it is used in the least time possible. In many cases, although reflection continues to take place, it precedes and merges so well with speech that the listener can hardly notice it. A speaker who, after years of practising internal and external speech, still holds on to long silent pauses might not be considered as an effective communicator. Although, in classroom settings, teachers allow time for silence to operate as a learning tool, learners should eventually reach the point where they employ silent rehearsal skilfully enough to avoid unreasonable delay in real-world communication. While silence can be a thoughtful tool for learning, it should not become a permanent habit of communicating. Although classroom activities involve learners in silent reflection, such reflection must serve the construction of thought and language. One example of such a silent-talking task would be for students to silently work in pairs to, first of all, write a joint conversation and co-edit it. In the next step, without referring to the notes, both students practise that conversation by verbalizing it once or several times, each time with improvised modification. This type of activity would allow SLA-facilitated opportunities such as L2 processing of form and content, collaborative text construction, recycling language, rehearsing speech and improvising spontaneous communication. Learners’ progress would then be measured and learners’ reflection can be analysed regarding both linguistic development and affective impact.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 174

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

175

A proposed learning model Silence can shift its perspectives and become noisy, depending on the question of whose experience we are talking about. While the term ‘silence’ indicates someone’s muteness as viewed by others, inside her mind the silent person may not perceive herself as silent at all as she can hear the articulation of her own voice. In this way, what outsiders perceive as ‘silence’ would be perceived by the insider as a form of thinking engagement. Inspired by this change in standpoints, a practical model is proposed to construct a reflective learning experience. It is called ‘RADAR’, which stands for Review – Aim – Direction – Assessment – Reflection. To perform each of these steps requires the teacher to answer a number of questions which will take the class through a silentengagement activity. In the end students will have gathered ideas and language to share with peers and the options for this sharing could be in written, verbal, or reading aloud form. The model is meant to be applied to teaching practice and task design. Review Are students willing to perform a classroom activity in some degree of silence? Can the teacher think of a task which is cognitively demanding and affectively engaging enough to require some silent processing and reflection? MM

MM

Aim What is the aim of the activity? What skills does the activity teach? How much silent time should students spend on the task? Can they also talk if they like? MM

MM

MM

MM

Direction What role does silence play? In particular, what do students need to process and reflect on? What linguistic, cultural, and experiential resources do students need in order to perform this activity? Can they obtain such resources by themselves or do they need the teacher’s assistance? What should the teacher do to guide students through the task? MM

MM

MM

MM

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 175

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

176

Assessment How does the teacher judge if learner silence is being used productively? What should be done when the silent time ends? What outcome will be produced? How should the outcome be evaluated? Who will evaluate the task, the teacher or students? MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

Reflection What do students learn from the experience? What does the teacher learn from the experience? What are some learning and teaching difficulties? What evidence demonstrates the success of the activity? How do students feel? What should be done differently next time? MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

Suggested activity – experiencing the senses Based on the above framework, the following classroom activity is designed for learners at the intermediate level of a second language, in this case English. Students are informed that today they are going to perform a classroom activity in some degree of silence. Up to this point, students have learned verbs of senses. The activity inspires their playful imagination and creative thinking about senses. The skills to be practised are thinking, reading and writing; although speaking is not the main focus, students can chat among themselves if they wish. The time allocation is approximately one hour. Step 1 – Students are given a worksheet with these questions to write their answers to: What are the five (or six) human senses that you use every day? What sense do you use to learn that your dog’s fur is soft? the lollipop is sweet but also a bit sour? someone really likes you? the snack that your friend eats is very crispy? there is a rainbow in the rain? your apple pie is burning in the oven? Have you ever heard a sound by looking at a picture? What picture was that? Have you ever experienced a taste by holding a fruit? What fruit was that?

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 176

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

177

Have you ever felt somebody or something touch you although that touch wasn’t real? When was that? Have you ever seen an image even when your eyes were closed and that image wasn’t really there? What was it? Are you sometimes able to tell whether somebody is kind or unkind when meeting him/her at first sight and even before talking? What helps you do that? Step 2 – Students are given this poem to read silently (as a stimulus) and recall a memory which can be connected to multiple senses. They can take some notes, which may include paraphrasing the poem in prose, connecting any stanza of the poem with their life experience or observation, making comments, and so on. ‘Talk, travel, hear, touch’ You talk with your eyes so words are not necessary Eyes become words You travel with your mind when distance is purely a matter of geography Minds connect You hear with your heart when silence is the only sound from someone who helps expecting nothing in return You touch with your kindness when no one else cares for the ones you do. (Bao, 2009, p. 34)

Background of the poem: the above reflection captures the writer’s observation and emotional response during a trip to Kathmandu, Nepal. This trip involves teachers and writers who love to travel and share their creative works.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 177

10/12/2013 09:04

178

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Step 3 – Students write about their experiences. Some guiding questions and instructions may include: What was the experience? What senses were involved and how did you use each of them? Write about each sense in a sentence, describing what you did. An alternative way of performing this task is to follow this format, which once completed would lead to a poem: Happiness is …; It feels/sounds/tastes/smells/looks like … Step 4 – Students exchange their writing with peers for pleasure reading and comments. They can chat, peer-edit their work, and draw a picture to illustrate the writing if they wish. Step 5 – Students share their work with a classmate, a group or the whole class by reading it aloud or giving it to others to read. The listeners can make comments. Finally, the teacher invites reflection on the activity regarding how students learn, what part of it is enjoyable and why, and what they suggest for future activities. Both teachers and students can write a journal entry about the experience for sharing next time.

Evaluation of the activity The above activity has been piloted in four classes, including a lower-intermediate ESL classes at Swinburne University of Technology (Australia), an intermediate English class at Boin High School (Korea), an elementary English class at Naruwan Vocation Institute (Pakistan) and a first-year pre-intermediate English class at Hong Bang University (Vietnam). Below are the strengths of the task as collated from comments by the teachers and learners: MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

The activity works with various levels of L2 proficiency as the sub-tasks cover from basic lower-concept ideas to deeper thinking. The activity is cognitively and affectively engaging. It is not only thoughtprovoking but also makes students feel relaxed. Although the students are to focus on writing, there was discussion and laughter. Students could produce written output right from the start of the activity, including sentences such as – ‘you touch with your hands, and feel with your head’. Students show signs of creativity in their writing. Their work samples are provided below this section. Quiet students admit that they can still learn English through not talking

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 178

10/12/2013 09:04



MM

MM

Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

179

much. They enjoy writing creatively about experiences and emotions without feeling time pressure. Many students feel inspired and want to generate additional materials beyond what is provided by the teacher. One student draws a picture to illustrate his writing. Several students employ photos of nature which they found in National Geographic magazine. The activity in the end promotes presenting and sharing skills, which happen in a natural and timely manner and which are not commonly practised in many classrooms where silence dominates.

Except one teacher who thinks that silence did not work in her class (which will be discussed in the section below regarding difficulties), three of the four teachers who conducted the activity felt that the silent time was meaningfully spent because students were able to produce interesting thoughts to share. These poems are from international ESL students in Australia. Some illustrated their work with visual images selected from cyberspace. ‘Winter’ When snow starts to fall Heaven and earth mix in white With the crystal balls ‘Alone’ Standing In mid of life Showing flowers fading Lonely between the day and night Is it an awful dream? Long sigh ‘Mother’ Mom … Where are you I thought you’ll always be with me Mom … Sometimes I hold a phone to talk to you but mom Where are you mom … Whenever I hang out clothes I look at the sky You might be looking at me too aren’t you mom … Many years passed but you always comfort me And wipe my tears … Mom I love you and miss you so much

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 179

10/12/2013 09:04

180

Understanding Silence and Reticence

The following excerpts are from Korean students. I go into PC Bang and I see the lights flashing. I can’t hear any sounds. It is silent. The man takes my money and I sit down. I smell cigarette smoke. It chokes my breath. I touch the mouse, and it is cold. My fingers hit the keys on the keyboard. I see lights on the screen. Then I put my headset on. I hear voices, music and instructions. I am in another place. I could not live without my sight. It is my sight that guides me more than any other sense. What would it be like to be blind?

This poem is written by a Pakistani student: ‘A child’ One day I went to a park I saw there a child playing with flowers ‘Why don’t you swing?’ I asked ‘I cannot’, replied he ‘swing or climb the hill, but beauty of nature I can feel with my inner eyes. I cannot slide because I am blind’

Below are samples of writing from Vietnamese students. I hear the sound of raindrops falling into a bowl. I see a bowl filled with rain beads. That was a time when I was the only passenger in a late night bus. Suddenly, I felt a hand touching my bag and shoulder. I immediately turn around only to realize it was just my imagination. Since then, I decided to never take a bus in the evening. You can smile with your eyes and not with your lips. I have seen happy people do that. ‘I see sadness in your eyes on the day we say goodbye I feel the stillness of your hand and hear wind blowing in my brain’.

The difficulties that occurred during the activity include the following: MM

Depending on learner ability and personality, some scaffolding was

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 180

10/12/2013 09:04



MM

MM

MM

MM

Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

181

required and the teacher’s improvisation skills were needed. To provide support, the Australian teacher guided her class through poem structures such as haiku and cinquain. The Pakistani teacher gave a four-element framework comprising ‘body’, ‘mind’, ‘heart’ and ‘soul’ then invited learners to find evidence of those elements in the poem provided. In his class, students are guided to identify all the verbs and all the senses from the given poem, put them in two columns and start joining them together. The question ‘Do you sometimes feel somebody ...?’ became sensitive and might bring up personal traumatizing, emotional memories as some of the students are immigrants from war-torn countries. This is a common consideration for teaching in the context of Australia. Many students did not make comments on their peers’ writing and the teacher would need strategies to encourage involvement. Although the task was intended for less verbal learners who would work more in the silent mode, the class in Australia treated it as a speaking activity, simply because they felt the need to speak. In the end, the writing being produced was minimal. One teacher feels that the activity needs additional resources, such as showing pictures to learners for discussion of sounds.

The fact that part of the activity became a sensitive issue to some learners suggests that L2 learning materials should be thoughtfully contextualized so that learners can feel comfortable responding to them. What also demonstrates the need for contextualization is the fact that the class in Australia did not end up engaging in the activity in silence but used it for verbal discussion instead. This adaptation reflects the authentic needs where learners’ everyday social context requires verbal interaction. It is interesting to note that this same activity when conducted in Vietnam and Australia involved two different sets of responses. While the Vietnamese class went through the task predominantly in silence, the Australian class performed it mostly in conversations. The Korean lesson, in the meantime, employed silence with a small degree of talk. All these differing responses show that classroom activities may not need to be preconditioned for silence (or talk) to happen from beginning to end because that may not reflect communication in the real world. Instead they need to consider the authentic proportion of both silence and talk; and such integration can only derive from learners and their context. This reality prompts the need for materials developers to consider task design comprising both silent and verbal options, ensuring that verbal and

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 181

10/12/2013 09:04

Understanding Silence and Reticence

182

silent learners (and mixed-type learners) would learn equally well despite their different modes of achieving the same learning objectives.

Implications of silence for learner and teacher development programmes Language teachers are often trained to work with talk, such as organizing discussion, raising questions and responding to ideas. Since it is uncommon for teacher development programmes to explore the use of silence, it often becomes confusing when many teachers encounter this phenomenon in the everyday educational setting and silence easily becomes a hindrance to pedagogy. For this reason, teachers and learners should develop sensitivities for timely talk or silent reflection in response to the changing needs and classroom conditions. As a tool for both learning and communication, silence should be cognitively useful and socially authentic, that is, functioning well in the classroom and making sense in the broader social context of L2 use. Silence requires adaptation practice as one moves to a new cultural setting and communicates with members of that culture. If learners are comfortable with a culture where either silence or talk is dominant, there may be the need to adapt and adjust beyond that norm. Mutual adaptation will ease the challenge of differences and contribute to more sensible cultures of learning and a productive learning environment. This attitude goes well with Hinkel’s (2006, p. 110) review of current pedagogical trends in which he highlights the need for ‘situational relevant pedagogy’, a direction which is deemed more important than the development of any single method. Flexibility and sensibility towards context have become important qualities besides knowledge about learning. The challenging part of this practice may come from the fact that not all learners will need silence in the same activity and not all of those who are prone to silence would use it in the same way. Some may process L2 comprehension in silence; others may formulate inner dialogues. In many cases, one activity might need to fall into multiple sub-tasks so that students can opt for a silent option, a verbal option, or a combined option. As a matter of fact, being able to self-select how to learn will reflect the true meaning of learner-centredness as advocated by Edwards (2001, p. 37), which emphasizes that learners should be ‘able to learn what is relevant for them in ways that are appropriate’ rather than be forced to speak out at any cost because the teacher believes they should. That would be considered as oppression, not learner-centredness.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 182

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

183

To employ silence as a way of learning and a tool to prepare for verbal communication, it is essential that students are aware of how they have engaged in silence so far and what is required to fill in the gap between desirable and undesirable silence. The task of scrutinizing and self-regulating the use of silence for learning requires both awareness and actions. According to many psychologists, no successful self-regulation of behaviour can take place without awareness of what is going on. ‘You cannot change a given behaviour in a desired direction if you are oblivious to the way you act and if you don’t even know how you should behave’ (Morin and Everett, 1990, p. 352).

Silence as political struggle Power hierarchy in the classroom is reinforced through teachers’ attitudes towards silence and talk, as well as teachers’ preferences for certain interaction dynamics, both of which play a role in confirming the dominant structure of values in classroom practice and making students feel included in or excluded from the learning process. Discourse in education indicates that students’ sociocultural identity is constituted by age, gender, social class and racial background, each of which plays a part in how students participate and are received by the teacher. Likewise, students who are underprivileged for choosing to learn in the silent mode may become victims of classroom hierarchy and inequality. This may make verbal students develop more positive emotions towards the learning process than those who are more silent. Such favouritism over talk not only reduces learning enthusiasm but also affects formative assessment processes and may influence students’ future in undesirable ways. Teachers’ talk practice also plays a role in asserting power. Many teachers have an inherent tendency to be repetitive in classroom talk. For example, a teacher might reiterate certain items during lectures and discussions for emphasis or filling time during the thinking process. Classroom power is never balanced: when students are busy thinking, they do not normally talk; but teachers are given the authority to think aloud without being criticized. Because of this, instruction is sometimes rephrased and repeated to the extent of becoming redundant in the teaching process. Silence has been recognized in the projects as a site of disempowerment, which according to the participants is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Treating silence and talk as equal learning tools therefore would contribute to the creation of equality, justice and inclusivity in the educational setting. Unfortunately, students are not inherently in the position of power to challenge

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 183

10/12/2013 09:04

184

Understanding Silence and Reticence

the dominant ideology of what constitutes good learning. It is also important to notice that classroom behaviour is not always controlled by the teacher but can be shaped by the dominant culture of a class. Candace, Eddie and Emily (Australian students) believe that class members who talk eloquently not only assert more authority than quiet counterparts but also hold negative perception towards their silent peers. This attitude can be sensed by quiet students, some of whom easily become intimidated and withdraw further into themselves. Others try harder to speak out hopefully to mend their public image but find classroom as a struggle site where they cannot remain themselves but must behave according to social convention. This situation could become worse if the teacher does not help but seems to favour speech over silence or, as Chunling (Chinese student) observes, seems to have low perception of students’ ability. In a fourth-year course I recently taught at Monash University, most students happened to be Anglo-white except two. During class discussion these two students felt so inhibited by their eloquent Anglo peers that they could not participate much. Despite my efforts to involve these two by connecting discussion with their cultural resources, they simply lost interest in verbal interaction altogether. Halfway through the semester they dropped out of the course. It was not so much the cultural factor but the different histories of educational behaviour that drew a line between the two modes of participation, in the end making these students give up their sense of belonging in the class community. This anecdote shows how classroom hierarchy was subconsciously established not necessarily through pedagogy. As a lecturer who supports both the silent and verbal modes of learning, I held little power to reshape the culture of participation in this class, which reflects important values of Australian higher education in relation to the broader outspoken, democratic society. In many cases, students’ history of and experience with classroom dynamics tend to position students on an unequal sociopolitical footing. To reform this position requires constructing new rules of classroom participation by moderating between talking space and silent space so that the talkative learner can withdraw into reflection and leave room for the reflective learner to attempt speaking out more. When it comes to modifying students’ learning behaviour and expanding their learning mode, breaking silence to promote talk in some students would be just as important as reducing talk to promote silence in some others. This might be a real challenge, however, if the majority of class members are prone to one dominant learning mode. Changing the participation style of a large group of students could be a more demanding task for the teacher than changing that of a few individuals.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 184

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

185

Pedagogical support for classroom silence also needs to be positioned in a broader social context. As educators stress the importance of developing real-world communication competences, which involves the ability to initiate and manipulate conversations, it is essential to challenge students’ capability to move beyond their comfort zone of behaviour. Suppose the value of silence is over-cherished in the classroom, the reflective student who later steps out into the world might experience difficulty in coping with the complex reality of human interaction in which not everybody is able to respect silence as much as the kind-hearted classroom teacher. Education needs to create challenge and push learning beyond where it is, and this should happen in a well-intended and well-informed pedagogical manner without undermining students’ ability to learn. As the globalized world is becoming more tolerant towards a culturally diverse climate, education needs to be more tolerant towards academically diverse styles. Some of these insights agree with the current discourse on silence and disempowerment. Teachers’ negative perceptions of silence and reluctance in inviting reticent students to participate can marginalize them from classroom events (Granger, 2013; Ellwood and Nakane, 2009). When learners sense that the teacher does not have confidence in their ability and contribution, they will feel ‘powerless’, ‘alienated’ (Morita, 2004, p. 589) and tend to withdraw not only from participation but also from the desire to cooperate and learn. In a word, learner reticence can be constituted by the perception, attitude and behaviour of peers, teachers and the reticent students themselves. In other words, classroom behaviour has an interpersonal nature, since the way in which one group perceives others may have an impact on how others act. If the views of this group could be mediated to become more tolerant, accepting and accommodating towards others’ styles, learning effectiveness would definitely be enhanced. Teachers may consider making their role less dominant so as to create a more desirable power balance. The discussion floor, if not well handled, can be a site of the silencing of others (Leander, 2002) as teacher talk and teachers’ frequent nomination of eloquent students might expel less verbal students from their optimum learning practice. As equal members of the classroom society, everyone has the right and responsibility to avoid this form of subjugation from happening as it might cause damage not only to optimal learning conditions but also to a positive classroom relationship. This scenario should be seen beyond a participation problem among students to be recognized as a pedagogical issue in teacher practice.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 185

10/12/2013 09:04

186

Understanding Silence and Reticence

The Filipino teachers in the study demonstrate acute awareness in appropriating pedagogy to meet the changing needs and preferences of their students. This happened through observing students’ reaction, emotion and learning readiness in order to modify teaching. Teachers such as Ruani and Leilani have developed the habit of listening to non-verbal expressions from students, treating them as feedback signs of connection with the teacher and lesson content. As teacher reflection shows, quite a number of decisions made by the teachers rest not only on talk but also on observation of learner silence. Arguably, to be able to read students’ non-verbal behaviour in the classroom, teachers must be good at using non-verbal behaviour themselves. As students move to a different culture of learning, their social practice is subject to institutional control and oppressive acts are likely to take place if there is no facilitating agent to mediate this process. Students may wish to adapt and the institution should provide thoughtful support. Classrooms in the contemporary times in pursuit of diversity in social, cultural and academic ways need to look at education from both pedagogical and learning perspectives and recognize this tension: while silence makes teaching difficult for teachers, low acceptance of silence makes learning difficult for learners.

A look to the future According to Burgoon (1983), complying with the rules, which is part of conventional wisdom, is the key to success in verbal and non-verbal communication, which makes one better received by other social members. Violations of norms may mess with predictability and reduce the chance of being accepted. Based on this understanding, there are arguably two types of silence: norm-based silence and unexpected silence. The former is anticipated and well received while the latter causes miscommunication and thus is less welcome. Even though both types of silence have been exhibited by participants in these research studies, the first type seems to be internalized when students explain that they tend to go with the flow and act in consistency with everybody else. It is sometimes noticed that individuals with high esteem and confidence do not mind behaving more or less independently from norms, whether such behaviour is verbal or non-verbal. For instance, some participants in the Korean project feel that learning has an individualistic nature due to learner differences. Regardless of teacher control of learner behaviour, what happens in the mind is a matter of personal choice that can be occasionally independent from

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 186

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

187

teacher guidance. Besides, participants’ views on silence do not seem to reflect the traditional view towards silence in their respective cultures. Participants’ explanations of their silence, which seem distant from the literature overview of silence related to their countries, denote self-control behaviour and voice concerns in response to the changing needs of the everyday educational contexts. The notion of talk as mentioned in the data also has an extensive nature, which includes well-timed talk and untimely talk, self-talk and public talk, thoughtful talk and empty talk, insufficient talk, excessive talk and moderate talk, self-centred talk and other-oriented talk, self-initiated talk and situationally compelled talk. The diverse range of these talk types suggests that there are many factors in the classroom environment that influence not only the amount of verbalization but also the content and manner of such behaviour. It also indicates that not all types of talk are useful but for the spoken word to be productive for SLA, one needs to consider its motive. Silence, likewise, falls into a similar range of categories depending on the usefulness and factors governing silence. As can be drawn from the projects, factors influencing the nature of silence and talk may include the degree of acquaintance or affiliation with the teacher, atmospheric constraints, degree of formality, familiarity with topics, the agreement with norms, sociocultural information, interpersonal connection with the teacher and peers, the degree of thought stimulation, teacher responsiveness, peer relationship, individual preferences and learner resources. Silence expresses a wide range of messages depending on external contexts and learners’ internal decisions. The interaction between these two domains reflects many behavioural, historical, psychological, educational, political, sociocultural and interpersonal elements that frame students’ classroom performance. Like any other human behaviour, both excessive silence and overuse of talk can drain their impact. This conclusion would like to recommend four areas for future research into silence. They include teacher and learner comparative perspectives on silence, personal factors influencing silence, looking beyond the classroom and into online silence, and research related to silent engagement in materials development, especially in task design with verbal and non-verbal options as well as silent learning assessment. It would be useful to conduct research on teacher and learner perspectives on silence. As demonstrated by the studies in this book, the Filipino teachers’ attempt to consider students’ reaction as foundation for appropriate pedagogy towards more effective learning. The Vietnamese students also express similar interest in how their contribution assists the teacher’s performance. To look at

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 187

10/12/2013 09:04

188

Understanding Silence and Reticence

the same phenomenon from both points of view is an important and exciting way of conducting classroom research. In fact, there is an apparently growing awareness that the learners’ view of the classroom process frequently differs from that of the teachers. A number of empirical studies have discovered the divergence between teacher and learner perceptions towards classroom process (McDonough, 2002; Nunan, 1988; Williams and Burden, 1997; Barkhuizen, 1998; Spratt, 1999), which is related to what Holliday (1994, p. 7) explains: ‘all teachers are outsiders to the cultures of their students’. A great deal of empirical research has demonstrated the need to look at the dual perspectives in many areas and silence research should be one of them. Personal factors influencing silence represent another worthwhile area for scholarly investigation. Silence may vary from person to person depending on factors such as age, gender, disposition, and social class. Data from the Vietnamese study show that a number of students who are more mature than others tend to keep quiet for fear of appearing less competent than younger peers. Regarding social class, it is noticed that the middle-class Anglo-white students in Britain and North America are more prone to a high degree of verbalization while other social groups tend to be more tolerant towards silence (Jaworski and Sachdev, 2004; Brantlinger, 1993; Milroy, 1981). As far as gender is concerned, some scholars observed that in many contexts, male students seem to be more verbal than their female counterparts (see, for example, Schmidt et al, 2011). My experiences teaching education in an Australian university setting, however, indicate a different tendency in which male students seem less verbal. These observations may not be absolute in all situations but vary across national, social and academic sub-cultures. Arguably, how such personal factors influence the use of silence represents interesting areas for further research. Today’s changing globalized contexts may prompt the need to research silence beyond a face-to-face learning mode, that is, online silence. Nowadays as words such as ‘interaction’ and ‘chat’ are placed in Google search, their meanings often take on a digital connotation. Likewise, the concept of ‘silence’ has altered its meaning as the nature of communication in the digital age constantly changes. As much as the concepts of social presence and social interaction have been modified (Gunawardena et al., 2001; Leh, 2001), silence can also refer to the state of being quiet from writing rather than from talking (Zembylas and Vrasidas, 2007). When someone is not making written comments during engagement with online discussion, the person is considered as keeping quiet. Silence in this sense indicates social and psychological

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 188

10/12/2013 09:04



Implications of Silence for SLA and Pedagogy

189

distance between humans, that is, the lack of attentiveness, engagement, responsiveness and participation. The need to understand the nature of and reasons for such types of silence should be studied alongside the need to improve online learning and communication. Historically, theorization which affects L2 pedagogy also transfers implications to L2 materials development. For this reason, it is important to develop language learning materials which take silence into consideration, guided by knowledge about the multiple roles of silence in context. Classroom tasks should involve productive use of silence, with clear rationale related to why, how and how long to practice silence, as well as arrangement for following up on tasks and assessing learner performance. The implementation of such tasks may go through reflection and theorization that would benefit SLA. Academic conferences should consider the theme of silence in language learning and acquisition, discuss cross-cultural understandings of silence, share ways to research into silence, develop frameworks for silent engagement in task design, search for approaches to interpret and assess silence, and conduct research in which learners are guided through self-assessing their use of silence as ways of learning. Talk and silence both have a close relationship with words. Not unlike talk which needs related skills such as attentive listening and relevant gestures, silent thinking might need to be supported by tools to really make learning happen and one such closely related tool would be writing. The main reasons for connecting silence with writing is because the cognitive processing function of silence allows it to go well with the need for recording thoughts to keep or use them. As Elbow (1985, p. 299) emphasizes, to ‘write is to rehearse mental events inside our heads before putting them down’. According to Moffett (1982), education serves to direct the mind and it is the teacher’s job to help students expand their inner speech rather than restrict or neglect it. Although a great deal of research has been conducted into the relationship between speech and writing, not many studies have investigated the relationship between silence and writing. Regarding the question whether learners write better when they are talking or when they keep silent, a number of studies have actually pointed to the direction where it is talk that improves writing (Rozin et al., 1971; Zhu, 2007; Hubert, 2011). Despite this, many projects have only compared well organized talk with the mere absence of talk – rather than well organized talk and well organized silence. This is a worthwhile gap in current research which deserves serious attention so as to further our understanding of the role silence played in developing productive language skills.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 189

10/12/2013 09:04

190

Understanding Silence and Reticence

Research on silence in education has developed dynamically over the past decades and will continue to develop further. The diversity of silence is boundless, expanding its uses in as many inexhaustible ways as the human mind can function in relation to the length and purpose of silence, emotions, intentions, subject matters, dispositions, situations, groupings, styles, methods, relationships, cultures and contexts. Silence can be simple or complex, semantically empty or full, excessive or moderate, conventional or peculiar, partial or complete, mono-cultural or intercultural, indifferent or responsive, internal or social, dominant or submissive, productive or detrimental, satisfying or upsetting, with or without non-verbal signals, and equivalent or inequivalent to talk. All of these structures suggest that silence is not the absence of talk but is laden with sociocultural values, communicative meanings, and educational impacts.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 190

10/12/2013 09:04

References Achino-Loeb, M. L. (ed.) (2006), Silence: The Currency of Power. New York: Berghahn Books. Agyekum, K. (2002), ‘The communicative role of silence in Akan’, Pragmatics, 12 (1), 31–51. Akhutina, T. V. (1978), ‘The role of inner speech in the construction of an utterance’, Soviet Psychology, 16 (3), 3–30. Al-Namlah, A. S., Fernyhough, C. and Meins, E. (2006), ‘Sociocultural influences on the development of verbal mediation: Private speech and phonological recoding in Saudi Arabian and British samples’, Development Psychology, 42, 117–31. Allwright, R. L. (1984), ‘The importance of interaction in classroom language learning’, Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 156–71. Alvarez-Caccamo, C. (1998), ‘From “switching code” to “code switching”: towards a reconceptualization of communicative codes’, in P. Auer (ed.), Code-switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction, and Identity. London: Routledge, pp. 29–48. Ames. R. T. and Rosemont, H. (1998), The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Ballantine Books. Armstrong, J. S. (2012), ‘Natural learning in higher education’, in N. M. Seel (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. New York: Springer, pp. 2426–33. Armstrong, S. and Frith, G. (1984), Practical Self-monitoring for Classroom Use. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. Arthur, N. (2004), Counseling International Students: Clients from Around the World. New York: Springer-Verlag. Asher, J. J. (1965), ‘Strategy of the total physical response: An application to learning Russian’, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 3 (4), 291–9. Aubrey, S. (2009), ‘A cross-cultural discussion of Japan and South Korea and how differences are manifested in the ESL/EFL Classroom’, Asian Social Science, 5 (5) May, 34–9. Baars, B. J. (1988), A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —(1997), ‘In the theatre of consciousness: Global workspace theory, a rigorous scientific theory of consciousness’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4 (4), 292–309. Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. (1996), Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bae, D. and Han, J. (1994), The Implications of The 6th English Curriculum. Seoul: Ministry of Education.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 191

10/12/2013 09:04

192 References Behrens, S. and Jablon, A. (2008), ‘Speaker perceptions of communicative effectiveness: Conversational analysis of student-teacher talk’, Journal of College Science Teaching, 37 (3), 40–4. Bailey, K. M. (1996), ‘The best laid plans: Teachers’ in-class decisions to depart from their lesson plans’, in K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (eds), Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–40. Bailey, K. M. and Savage, L. (eds) (1994), New Ways in Teaching Speaking. Alexandria: TESOL. Bakhtin, M. (1986), ‘The problem of speech genres’, in C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds), V. W. McGee (trans.), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 60–102. —(2002), Understanding Reticence: Action Research in Vietnam. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University. —(2009), ‘Talk, travel, hear, touch’, in A. Maley, J. Mukundan and V. S. Rai (eds), Life in Words and Words in Life: Poems and Stories for Asian Students. Kathmandu: Bhundipuan Prakashan. Bao, D. (2013), ‘Voices of the reticent? Getting inside views of Vietnamese secondary students on learning’, in M. Cortazzi and L. Jin (eds), Researching Cultures of Learning: International Perspectives on Language Learning and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 136–54. Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998), ‘Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL class room teaching/ learning activities in a South African context’, TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1), 85–108. Barnard, R. and Nguyen, G. V. (2010), ‘Task-based language teaching (TBLT): A Vietnamese case study, using narrative frames to elicit teachers’ beliefs’, Language Education in Asia, 1 (1), 77–86. Barnes, D. (1976), From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Barnlund, C. D. (1989), Communicative Styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and Realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Basso, K. H. (1970), ‘To give up on words: Silence in Western Apache culture’. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26 (3), 213–30. Belanoff, P. (2001), ‘Silence: Reflection, literacy, learning, and teaching’, College Composition and Communication, 52 (3), 399–428. Bennett, N. and Dunne, E. (1992), Managing Classroom Groups. Hemel Hempstead: Simon and Schuster Education. Berk, L. E. (1986), ‘Private speech: Learning out loud’, Psychology Today, 20 (5), 34–42. Bies, R. J. (2009), ‘Sounds of silence: Identifying new motives and behaviors’, in J. Greenberg and M. S. Edwards (eds), Voices and Silence in Organizations. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group, pp. 157–71. Biggs, J. (1987), Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Hawthorn, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research. —(1990), ‘Asian students’ approaches to learning: Implications for teaching overseas

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 192

10/12/2013 09:04

References

193

students’, paper presented at Australian Tertiary Learning Skills and Language Conference, Brisbane. Biggs, J. and Moore, P. (1993), The Process of Learning (3rd edn). Australia and New York: Merrill Prentice Hall. Bird, L. (2009), Developing Self-Regulated Learning Skills in Young Students. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Melbourne: Deakin University. Bloom, B. S. (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objective, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co. Inc. Bloom, L. A. (2009), Classroom Management: Creating Positive Outcomes for All Students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall/Pearson. Bloom, P. and Keil, F. C. (2001), ‘Thinking through language’, Mind and Language, 16 (4), 351–67. Bosacki, S. L. (2005), The Culture of Classroom Silence. New York: Peter Lang. Brantlinger, E. A. (1993), The Politics of Social Classes in Secondary School: Views of Affluent and Impoverished Youth. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University. Brindley, E. (2011), ‘Individualism in classical Chinese thought. Internet encyclopedia of phylosophy’, A peer-reviewed academic resource, published 21 July 21. http://www.iep.utm.edu/ind-chin/ (accessed 20 August 2012). Briskin, L. (2000), ‘The challenge of classroom silence’, Core: Newsletter of the Centre for Support of Teaching, 10 (1). http://www.yorku.ca/cst/ideas/core/vol10no1/linda. html (accessed 27 October 2013) Britton, J. (1970), Language and Learning. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Brown, H. D. (2002), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th edn). New York: Longman. Brown, S. and Attardo, S. (2000), Understanding Language Structures, Interaction, and Variation – An Introduction to Applied Linguistics and Sociolinguistics for Non-specialists. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Bruneau, T. J. (1973), ‘Communicative silence: Forms and functions’, Journal of Communication, 23 (1), 17–46. Brunschwig, K. (1991), ‘Making connections with whole-class interaction activities’, Hispania, 77 (1), 138–40. Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. —(2008), Social Research Methods (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bui, H. T. M. (2006), ‘Teaching speaking skills at a Vietnamese university and recommendations for using CMC’, The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 14 (2), 1–10. Bui, N. A. (2004), ‘Mot so chien luoc su dung ngon ngu cua giao vien trong viec nang cao tinh tich cuc hoc tap cua hoc sinh [Strategies in teacher talk to boost learner activeness]’, Linguistic Issues, 241–51. Bui, T. K. P. (2012), Evaluating New Taking Out, An EFL Speaking Coursebook for University Students in Vietnam (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Melbourne: Monash University.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 193

10/12/2013 09:04

194 References Burgoon, J. K. (1983), ‘Nonverbal violation of expectations’, in J. M. Wiemann and R. P. Harrison (eds), Nonverbal Interaction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 77–111. Burns, A. and Joyce, H. (1997), Focus on Speaking. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR). Burt, M. K. and Dulay, H. C. (1983), ‘Optimal language learning environment’, in L. W. Oller Jr and P. A. Richard-Amato (eds), Methods that Work – A Smorgasbord of Ideas for Language Teachers. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, pp. 38–48. Buss, A. H. (1984), ‘A conception of shyness’, in J. A. Daly and J. C. McCroskey (eds), Avoiding Communication – Shyness, Reticence, and Communication Apprehension. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 39–49. Byun, J.-H. (2010), Korean EFL Teachers’ Perspectives about Their Participation in an Extensive Reading Program. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Texas: The University of Texas at Austin. Canh, L. V. (2000), ‘Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts’, in J. Shaw, D. Lubeska and M. Noullet (eds) Language Development: Partnership and Interaction. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology, pp. 73–9. Cameron, D. (2000), Good to talk? London: Sage Publications. Campbell, J. and Li, M. (2008), ‘Asian students’ voices: An empirical study of Asian students’ learning experiences at a New Zealand University’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 12 (4), 375–96. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980), ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing’, Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1–47. Caranfa, A. (2004), ‘Silence as the foundation of learning’, Educational Theory, 54 (2), 211–30. Carder, M. (2008), ‘The development of ESL provision in Australia, Canada, the USA and England, with conclusions for second language models in international schools’, Journal of Research in International Education, 7 (2), 205–31. Carroll, S. (2001), Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cazden, C. B. (2001), Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (2nd edn). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Celce-Murcia, M. (l995), ‘The elaboration of sociolinguistic competence: Implications for teacher education’, in J. E. Alatis, C. A. Straehle and M. Ronkin (eds), Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Proceedings of the Georgetown University, Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 2005. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 699–710. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. (1995), ‘A pedagogical framework for communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 5–35.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 194

10/12/2013 09:04

References

195

Chalmers, D. and Volet, S. (1997), ‘Common misconceptions about students from Southeast-Asia studying in Australia’, Higher Education Research and Development, 16 (1), 87–98. Chambers, J. (2007), ‘Silence in SLA research: From personality to identity’. J-Quotes: A Quest for Great Ideas. http://j-quote.blogspot.com.au/2007/12/silence-in-slaresearch-from.html (accessed 24 June 2013). Chan, P. (1997), ‘Same or different: A comparison of the beliefs Australian and Chinese’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 24–28 April. Chan, W. T. (1970), A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. —(2002), ‘The development of English educational materials based upon the 7th National Curriculum of Korea’, The Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 15–28. Chang, B.-M. (2009), ‘Korea’s English education policy innovations to lead the nation into the globalized world’, Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 13 (1), 83–97. Cheeseman, S. (2007), ‘Pedagogical silences in Australian early childhood social policy’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (3), 244–54. Chen, I. M. (1985), ‘Elimination of student’s fear towards English learning’, in C. Chen, H. Huang, L. Hsiao, J. Kuo, M. Chen and G. Wang (eds), Papers from the Second Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: The Grane Publishing, pp. 87–96. Chen, K. H. (2010), Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Cheng, X. T. (2000), ‘Asian students’ reticence revisited’, System, 28 (3), 435–46. Chickering, A. W. (1969), Education and Identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. —(1993), Education and Identity (2nd edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cho, K. S. and Krashen, S. (2001), ‘Sustained silent reading experiences among Korean teachers of English as a foreign language: The effect of a single exposure to interesting, comprehensible reading’, Reading Improvement, 38 (4), 170–4. Cho, W. Y. (2005), Contingency theory of group communication effectiveness in Korean organizations: Influence of fit between organizational structural variables and group relational climate on communication effectiveness. PhD dissertation. Texas: Texas A & M University, August. Choi, B. S. (2008), Deficit Operations of English Villages in Twenty Districts. Seoul: Ohmynews. Choi, Y.-S. (2005), Early Study-abroad, Family, and Wild Goose Father. Seoul, South Korea: Korean Studies Information Co. Chu, G. C. (1979), Communication and Cultural Exchange in China: A Conceptual Framework. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 195

10/12/2013 09:04

196 References Chu, M. P. and Nakamura, T. (2010), ‘A study of Chinese and Japanese college students’ L2 learning styles’, Asian Culture and History, 2 (2), 30–44. Chun, A. and Shamsul, A. B. (2001), ‘Other “routes”: The critical challenge for Asian academia’, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 2 (2), 167–76. Chun, H. C. and Choi, H. S. (2006), Economics of English. CEO Information, No. 578. Samsung Economic Research Institute. Clair, R. P. (1998), Organizing Silence: A World of Possibilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011), Research Methods in Education (7th edn). London: Routledge. Colligan, R. C. (1979), ‘Predictive validity of the Myklebust Pupil Rating Scales: A two-year follow up’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 264–7. Cone, J. K. (1993). ‘Using classroom talk to create community and learning’, English Journal, 82 (6), 30–8. Conlon, S. (2005), ‘Eliciting students’ voices in the Thai context: A routine or a quest?’, ABAC Journal, 25 (1), 33–52. Conway, R. (2005), ‘Encouraging positive interactions’. In P. Foreman (ed.), Inclusion in Action. Southbank: Thomson, 209–58. Copenhaver, J. (2000), ‘Silence in the classroom: Learning to talk about issues of race’, Dragon Lode, 18 (2), 8–16. Corson, D. (2001), Language Diversity and Education. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cortazzi, M. and Jin, L. (2001), ‘Large classes in China: Good teachers and interaction’, in D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds), Teaching the Chinese Learners: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong, pp. 115–34. —(2002), ‘Communication for learning across cultures’, in R. Harris and D. McNamara (eds), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning (3rd edn). New York: Routledge. —(2006a), ‘Asking questions, sharing stories and identity construction: sociocultural issues in narrative research’, in S. Trahar (ed.), Narrative Research on Learning: Comparative and International Perspectives. Oxford: Symposium Books, pp. 25–43. —(2006b), ‘Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19 (1), 5–20. Cosmay, E. (2007), ‘A corpus-based look at linguistic variation in classroom interaction: Teacher talk versus student talk in American University classes’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 336–55. Creswell, J. W. (2007), Qualitative Research Design: Choosing among the Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. —(2008), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (3rd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 196

10/12/2013 09:04

References

197

Cross, R. (2011), ‘Troubling literacy: Monolingual assumptions, multilingual contexts, and language teacher expertise’, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17 (4), 467–78. Crystal, D. (1987), Child Language, Learning and Linguistics: An Overview for the Teaching and Therapeutic Professions (2nd edn). London: Edward Arnold. Cutrone, P. (2009), ‘Overcoming Japanese EFL learners’ fear of speaking’, Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 55–63. Damasio, A. R. (1994), Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. London: Picador. Dang, T. T. (2010), ‘Learner autonomy in EFL studies in Vietnam: A discussion from socio-cultural perspective’, English Language Teaching, 3 (2), 3–9. Davison, C. (2001), ‘Identity and ideology: The problem of defining and defending ESL-ness’, in B. Mohan, C. Leung and C. Davison (eds), English as a Second Language in the Mainstream: Teaching, Learning and Identity. Harlow: Longman Pearson, pp. 71–90. Davydov, V. V. (1995), ‘The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research and practice’, Educational Research, 24 (3), 12–21. De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1991), The nature of inner speech in mental rehearsal of the second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. San Juan, PR: Inter American University. —(1999), ‘Inner speech as mental rehearsal: The case of advanced L2 learners’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 10, 27–55. —(2005), Inner speech – L2: Thinking words in a second language. New York: Springer. Decety, J. and Ingvar, D. H. (1990), ‘Brain structures participating in mental simulation of motor behaviour: A neuropsychological interpretation’, Acta Psychologica, 73, 13–34. DeKeyser, R. (2003), ‘Implicit and explicit learning’ in C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 313–48. Delios, A. and Makino, S. (2001), ‘Introducing cases in the Asian classroom: Initiatives in response to the challenges’, Asian Case Research Journal, 5 (1), 121–39. Delpit, L. (1995), Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press. Demick, B. (2002), ‘Some in S. Korea opt for a trim when English trips the tongue’, The Los Angeles Times, 31 March, p. A3. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2011), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DeWitt, J. and Hohenstein, J. (2010), ‘School trips and classroom lessons: An investigation into teacher-student talk in two settings’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 454–73. Dieterich, D. J. (1973), ‘The lessons of silence in the English classroom’, The English Journal, 62 (3), 482–8.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 197

10/12/2013 09:04

198 References Dolya, G. (2010), Vygotsky in Action in the Early Years: The ‘Key to Learning’ Curriculum. London and New York: Routledge. Donahue, R. T. (1998), Japanese Culture and Communication: Critical Cultural Analysis. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Dornyei, Z. (2001), Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Pearson Educational. Duff, P. (2012), ‘Second language socialization’, in A. Duranti, E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds), Handbook of Language Socialization. New York: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 564–86. Dufficy, P. (2005), ‘“Becoming” in classroom talk’, Prospect, 20 (1), 59–81. Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982), Language Two. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, A. D. and Westgate, D. P. G. (1987), Investigating Classroom Talk (1st edn). London: Falmer Press. —(1994), Investigating Classroom Talk (2nd edn). London: Falmer Press. Edwards, R. (2001), ‘Meeting individual learner needs: power, subject, subjection’, in C. Paechter, M. Preedy, D. Scott and J. Soler (eds), Knowledge, Power and Learning. London: Sage Publications, pp. 37–46. Ehrich, J. F. (2006), ‘Vygotskyan inner speech and the reading process’, Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 6, 12–25. Elbow, P. (1985), ‘The shifting relationship between speech and writing’, College Composition and Communication, 36 (3), 283–303. Ellis, N. C. (1999), ‘Cognitive approaches to SLA’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22–42. —(2005). ‘At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–52. Ellis, R. (1994), The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —(2012), Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Ellwood, C. (2009), ‘Uninhabitable identifications: Unpacking the production of racial difference in a TESOL classroom’, in R. Kubota and L. Lin (eds), Race, Culture and Identities in Second Language Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 101–17. Ellwood, C. and Nakane, I. (2009), ‘Privileging of speech in EAP and mainstream university classrooms: A critical evaluation of participation’, TESOL Quarterly, 43 (2), 203–30. Elmore, R., Peterson, P. and McCarthey, S. (1996), Restructuring in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning, and School Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Enriquez, V. G. (1997), ‘Filipino psychology: concepts and methods’, in H. H. R. Kao and D. Sinha (eds), Asian Perspectives on Psychology. London: Sage Publications, pp. 40–53. Evans, M. A. (1987), ‘Discourse characteristics of reticent children’, Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 171–84.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 198

10/12/2013 09:04

References

199

—(1996), ‘Reticent primary grade children and their more talkative peers: Verbal, non-verbal, and self-concept characteristics’, Journal of Education Psychology, 88 (4), 739–49. Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (1986), ‘Strategic competence in foreign language teaching’, in G. Kasper (ed.), Learning, Teaching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 173–93. Fassinger, P. (1995), ‘Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence’, Journal of Higher Education, 66 (1), 82–97. Feshbach, S., Adelman, H. and Fuller, W. W. (1974), ‘Early identification of children with high risk of learning failure’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 49–54. Fielstein, L. and Phelps, P. (2001), Introduction to Teaching: Rewards and Realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Flege, J. E. (1981), ‘The phonological basis of foreign accent’, TESOL Quarterly, 15, 443–55. Flowerdew, J. and Miller, L. (1995), ‘On the notion of culture in second language lectures’, TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 345–73. Folse, K. S. (2006), The Art of Teaching Speaking: Research and Pedagogy for ESL/EFL the Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Foss, K. A. and Reitzel, A. C. (1988), ‘A relational model for managing second language anxiety’, TESOL Quarterly, 22 (3), 437–54. Franks, P. H. (2000), ‘Silence/listening and intercultural differences’. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the International Listening Association, Virginia Beach, VA, March 7–12. Frawley, W. (1997), Vygotsky and Cognitive Science: Language and the Unification of the Social and Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Freeman, D. (1996), ‘Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing new understandings of teaching’, in D. Freeman and J. C. Richards (eds), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–41. Freire, P. (1972), Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Fulgham, A. (1999), ‘Implementing a psychological skills training program in high school volley ball athletes’, National Undergraduate Research Clearing House, 2. http://www.webclearinghouse.net/volume/ (accessed 3 October 2013). Fujishin, R. (1977), The Leader Within. San Francisco, CA: Acada Books. Gao, C. Y. (2007), ‘The effect of hand raising on students’ listening concentration and learning effectiveness in the classroom’ [课堂举手发言对学生听课状态及效率的影响]’, Psychological Health Education, 11, 52. Gass, S. M. (1997), Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gayrama, V. S. and Lee, C. I. (2011), ‘A qualitative study on co-teaching in elementary schools: Based on survey results in Korean public elementary schools’, The Journal of Foreign Studies, 15 (2), 39–68.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 199

10/12/2013 09:04

200 References Gibbons, S. (2006), ‘Nurturing women and the BRCA Genes’, Anthropology and Medicine, 13 (2), 157–71. Gibbons, J. (1985), ‘The silent period: An examination’, Language Learning, 35 (2), 255–67. Giles, H., Coupland, N. and Wiemann, J. M. (1991), ‘Talk is cheap but my word is my bond: Beliefs about talk’, in K. Bolton and H. Kwok (eds), Sociolinguistics Today: Eastern and Western Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 218–43. Gilmore, P. (1985), ‘Silence and sulking: Emotional displays in the classroom’, in D. Tannen and M. Saville-Troike (eds), Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 139–62. Gordon, E. M. and Thomas, A. (1967), ‘Children’s behavioural style and the teacher’s appraisal of their intelligence’, Journal of School Psychology, 5 (4), 292–300. Graff, N. (2009), ‘Classroom talk: co-constructing a “difficult student”’, Educational Research, 51 (4), 439–54. Graham, S. and Harris, K. R. (2000), ‘The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development’, Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12. Granger, C. A. (2004), Silence in Second Language Learning: A Psychoanalytic Reading. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. —(2013), ‘Silence and participation in the language classroom’, in C. A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1–4. Grice, H. P. (1975), ‘Logic and conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3 Speech Act. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58. Groundwater-Smith, S. and Mockler, N. (2003), Learning to Listen: Listening to Learn. Sydney: Faculty of Education, University of Sydney and MLC School. Gürel, N. (2011), ‘Cultural differences in educational practices: The case of a Korean graduate student’, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 7 (1), 87–99. Gu, X. (2005), ‘The influence of Chinese and Americans’ contrastive views about talk on class participation by Chinese and American students’, CELEA Journal, 28 (5), 40–5. Gudykunst, W. B. and Nishida, T. (1994), Bridging Japanese/North American Differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gunawardena, C. N., Nolla, A. C., Wilson, P. L., Lopez Islas, J. R., Ramirez-Angel, N. and Megchun-Alpizar, R. M. (2001), ‘A cross-cultural study of group processes and development in online conferences’, Distance Education: An International Journal, 22 (1), 85–121. Guo, S. (2006), Silence is Golden: Factors that Influence Chinese University Students’ Unwillingness to Speak English. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Melbourne: Monash University. Hall, E. T. (1959), The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday. Hall, J. K. and Walsh, M. (2002), ‘The links between teacher-student interaction and language learning’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 200

10/12/2013 09:04

References

201

Hall, L. A. (2007), ‘Understanding the silence: Struggling readers discuss decisions about reading expository texts’, Journal of Educational Research, 100 (3), 132–41. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985), Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hammond, C. (2007), ‘Culturally responsive teaching in the Japanese classroom: A comparative analysis of cultural teaching and learning styles in Japan and the United States’, Journal of the Faculty of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, 17, 41–50. Han, S. A. (2003), Do South Korean adult learners like native English speaking teachers more than Korean teachers of English? Paper presented at the AARE Conference in Auckland, New Zealand November 30. http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/han03087.pdf (accessed 30 August 2012). —(2005), ‘Good teachers know where to scratch when learners feel itchy: Korean learners’ views of native-speaking teachers of English, Australian Journal of Education, 49 (2), 197–213. Hansen, J. G. (2006), Acquiring a Non-native Phonology: Linguistic Constraints and Social Barriers. London: Continuum. Harder, P. (1980), ‘Discourse as self-expression: On the reduced personality of the second language learner’, Applied Linguistics, 1 (3), 262–70. Harlow, L. (1990), ‘Do they mean what they say?: Sociopragmatic competence and second language learner’, The Modern Language Journal, 74, 328–51. Harmer, J. (1991), The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman. —(2005), The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd edn). Harlow: Longman. Harumi, S. (2011), ‘Classroom silence: Voices from Japanese EFL learners’, ELT Journal, 65 (3), 260–9. Haskins, C. (2010), ‘Integrating silence practices into the classroom. The value of quiet’, ENCOUNTER: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 23 (3), 1–6. Hayden, M. and Lam, Q. T. (2007), ‘Institutional autonomy for higher education in Vietnam’, Higher Education Research and Development, 26 (1), 73–85. Helmstetter, S. (1986), What to Say When You Talk to Yourself. New York: Fine Communications. Hesse-Biber, S. N. and Leavy, P. (eds) (2004), Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Hewitt, E. (2011), The Use of Psychomotor Activities in Teaching Children English as a Foreign Language: Empirical Research into the PEPA Method of Language Instruction. New York: Edwin Mellen Press. Hilleson, M. (1996), ‘I want to talk with them, but I don’t want them to hear: An introspective study of second language anxiety in an English-medium school’, in K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (eds), Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 248–78. Hines, P. L., Stockton, R. and Morran, D. K. (1995), ‘Self-talk of group therapists’, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 242–8.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 201

10/12/2013 09:04

202 References Hinkel, E. (2006), ‘Current perspectives on teaching the four skills’, TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 109–31. Ho, D. Y. F. (1994), ‘Cognitive socialization in Confucian heritage cultures’, in P. M. Greenfield (ed.), Cross-cultural Roots of Minority Child Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 285–314. Ho, S. T. K. (2009), ‘Addressing culture in EFL classrooms: The challenge of shifting from a traditional to an intercultural stance’, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6 (1), 63–76. —(2011), ‘An intercultural perspective on teaching and learning in the Vietnamese EFL classroom’, University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 43–69. Ho, Y. F. D., Peng, S. Q. and Chang, S. F. F. (2001), ‘Authority and learning in Confucianheritage education: A relational methodological analysis’, in C. Y. Chiu, F. Salili and Y. Y. Hong (eds), Multiple Competences and Self-regulated Learning: Implications for Multicultural Education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 215–44. Hoang, C. C. (2000), ‘Cai tien quan ly qua trinh day hoc nham thuc hien viec doi moi Phuong phap day hoc [Improving pedagogy management towards methodological reform]’, Educational Studies, 2, 145–72. Hoang, Q. (2011), Teachers’ and Learners’ Perspectives on an EFL Reading Coursebook. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Melbourne: Monash University. Hoang, T. and Le, X. T. (eds). (2002), Tieng Viet Trong Truong Hoc [The Vietnamese Language in Today’s Schools]. Hanoi: Social Sciences Press. Hoang, V. V. (2010), ‘The current situation and issues of the teaching of English in Vietnam’, Ritsumeikan Studies in Language and Culture, 22 (1), 7–18. Holliday, A. (1994), Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, P. (2005), ‘Ethnic Chinese students’ communication with cultural others in a New Zealand University’, Communication Education, 54 (4), 289–311. Hong, L. (2008), ‘Cross-cultural differences of silence’, Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2, 103–6. Hong, Y. J. (2003), ‘Interactional sociolinguistic analysis of argumentative strategies between Japanese and Korean students’, Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, pp. 98–124. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. and Cope, J. (1986), ‘Foreign language classroom anxiety’, Modern Language Journal, 70 (2), 125–32. Hosoki, Y. (2011), ‘English language education in Japan: Transitions and challenges’, Kokusai Kankeigaku Bulletin, 6 (1), 199–215. http://www.kiu.ac.jp/organization/ library/memoir/img/pdf/kokusai6-1_2-006hosoki.pdf (accessed 27 October 2013) Hsu, C.-F. (2007), A cross-cultural comparison of communication orientations between Americans and Taiwanese, Communication Quarterly, 55, 359–74. Hu, G. W. (2005), ‘CLT is best for China – an untenable absolutist claim’, ELT Journal, 59 (1), 65–8. Hu, Y. and Fell-Eisenkraft, S. (2003), ‘Immigrant Chinese students’ use of silence in

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 202

10/12/2013 09:04

References

203

the language arts classroom: Perceptions, reflections and actions’, Teaching and Learning, 17 (2), 55–65. Huang, I. T. J. (2012), Are international students quiet in class? The influence of teacher confirmation and classroom connectedness on classroom apprehension and willingness to talk among international students. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Wyoming: University of Wyoming. Hubert, M. (2011), ‘The speaking-writing connection: Integrating dialogue into a foreign language writing course’, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8 (2), 170–83. Hui, L. (2005), Chinese cultural schema of education: Implications for communication between Chinese students and Australian educators, Issues in Educational Research, 15, 17–36. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005), ‘Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second language learning’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–40. —(2007), ‘Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition’, EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 191–203. Husserl, E. (1970), Local Investigation. New York: Humanities Press. Huu, D. (2002), Phong Cach Hoc Voi Viec Day Van Trong Nha Truong va Ly Luan Phe Binh Van Hoc [Methodology in the Teaching of Vietnamese Literature and Literature Research]. Hanoi: Hanoi Publisher. Hwang, S. S., Seo, H. S. and Kim, T. Y. (2010), ‘Korean English teacher’s disempowerment in English-only classes: A case study focusing on Korea-specific cultural aspects’, The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea, 18 (1), 105–35. Hymes, D. (1967), ‘Models of the interaction of language and social setting’, Journal of Social Issues, 23 (2), 8–38. —(1972a), ‘Models of the interaction of language and social life’, in J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, pp. 35–71. —(1972b), ‘On communicative competence’, in J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 269–93. Ingram, D., Kono, M., Sasaki, M., Tateyama, E. and O’Neill, S. (2004), ‘Crosscultural attitudes among language students in Australia and Japan’, Babel, 39 (1), 11–19, 38. Innocenti, D. (2002), ‘The mind’s eyes view: teaching students how to sensualize language’, in K. S. Fleckenstein, L. T. Calendrillo and D. A. Worley (eds), Language and Image in the Reading-Writing Classroom: Teaching Vision. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 59–69. Jaakko, S. (1978), ‘The Importance of Psychomotor Training for Language Acquisition’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association World Congress on Reading, 7th Hamburg, West Germany, 1–2 August. Washington, DC: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 203

10/12/2013 09:04

204 References Jackson, J. (2003), ‘Case-based learning and reticence in a bilingual context: Perceptions of business students in Hong Kong’, System, 31 (4), 457–69. —(2004), ‘Case-based teaching in a bilingual context: Perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong’, English for Specific Purposes, 23 (3), 213–32. Jambor, Z. P. (2007), Learner Attitude toward Learner-Centred Education and English as a Foreign Language in the Korean University Classroom. Master’s thesis. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Jaworski, A. (1993), The Power of Silence: Social and Pragmatic Perspectives (Language and Language Behaviours). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Jaworski, A. and Sachdev, I. (1998), ‘Beliefs about silence in the classroom’, Language and Education, 12 (4), 273–92. —(2004), ‘Teachers’ beliefs about students’ talk and silence: Constructing academic success and failure through metapragmatic comments’, in A. Jaworski, N. Coupland, and D. Galasinki (eds), Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 227–44. Jeong, H. Y. (1990), ‘Types of silence and its educational meaning [침묵의 유형과 교육적 의의]’, Korean Speech Association, 43–68. Jeong, Y. K. (2004), ‘A chapter of English teaching in Korea’, English Today 78, 20 (2 ), 40–6. Jia, Y. Y. (2008), ‘Chinese and Western views on silence and English teaching [中西沉默观与英语教学]’, Journal of Chifeng University, 29 (6), 160–2. Jo, S. (2008), ‘English education and teacher education in South Korea’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 34 (4), 371–81. Jodlowiec, M. (2010), ‘The role of relevance theory in SLA studies’, in M. Putz and L. Sicola (eds), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside The Learners’ Mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–66. Johannesen, R. L. (1974), ‘The functions of silence: A plea for communication research’, Western Speech, 38, 25–35. John-Steiner, V. (1992), ‘Private speech among adults’, in R. Diaz and L. Berk (eds), Private Speech: From Social Interaction to Self-Regulation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 285–96. Johnson, M. (2001), The Art of Nonconversation: A Re-examination of the Validity of the Oral Proficiency Interview. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jones, A. (1999), ‘The Asian learner: An overview of approaches to learning’. Working paper. University of Melbourne. http://www.tlu.fbe.unimelb.edu.au/papers/academic_ resources/AsianLearner%20working%20paper.pdf (accessed 30 August 2012). Kachru, B. B. (2005), Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kam, H. W. (2002), ‘English language teaching in East Asia today: An overview’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 22 (2), 1–22. Kao, H. S. R. and Sinha, D. (1997), Asian Perspectives on Psychology. Urbana, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 204

10/12/2013 09:04

References

205

Karmen, M. (2001), Immemorial Silence. New York: State University of New York Press. Kato, M. (2010), ‘Silence as participation: The case of Japanese students’, The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education, 6 (2), 1–18. Kaufman, P. (2008), ‘Teaching note: Gaining voice through silence’, Feminist Teacher, 18 (2), 169–71. Kennedy, P. (2002), ‘Learning culture and learning styles: Myth-understanding about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21 (5), 430–45. Kenny, C. (2011), The Power of Silence: Silent Communication in Daily Life. London: Karnac Books. Khoa, A. V. (2008), ‘Imperialism of communicative language teaching and possible resistance against it from teachers in Vietnam as an English foreign language context’, VNU Journal of Science – Foreign Languages, 24, 167–74. Kim, H. S. and Ko, D. (2010), Culture and self-expression. Unpublished paper. California: University of California Santa Barbara. Kim, J. (2006), ‘Strukturelle Typen und Strategien des Schweigens als kommunikative Handlung [의사소통적 행위로서 침묵의 구조적 유형과 전략]’, Korean German Literature Association, 352–70. Kim, K. H. (1977), ‘Misunderstanding in nonverbal communication: America and Korea’, Paper in Linguistics, 10 (1–2), 1–22. —(1985), ‘Expressions of emotions by Americans and Koreans’, Korean Studies, 9, 38–56. —(2004), ‘An attempt to elucidate notions of lifelong learning: Analects-based analysis of Confucius’s ideas about learning’, Asia Pacific Education Review, 5 (2), 117–26. Kim, K. J. and Bonk, C. J. (2006), ‘Cross-cultural comparison of online collaboration’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8 (1) October 2002. http://jcmc. indiana.edu/vol8/issue1/kimandbonk.html (accessed 25 August 2012). Kim, M. (2006), An Ethnographic Study of The Culture of a Third Grade ESL Class: ESL Education for Whole Child Development. PhD dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Kim, S. J. (2004), ‘Coping with cultural obstacles to speaking English in the Korean secondary school context’, Asian EFL Journal, 6 (3). http://www.asian-efl-journal. com/september_04_ksj.php (accessed 25 August 2012). Kim, Y. (2003), ‘Intercultural personhood: an integration of Eastern and Western perspectives’. In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter (eds), Intercultural Communication. Boston: Wadsworth cengage learning, pp. 436–48. Kleinmann, H. H. (1977), ‘Avoidance behaviour in adult second language acquisition’, Language Learning, 27 (1), 93–107. Klopf, D. W. and Cambra, R. E. (1979), ‘Communication apprehension among colleague students in America, Australia, Japan and Korea’, Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 102 (1), 27–31.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 205

10/12/2013 09:04

206 References Knapp, K. (2000), ‘Metaphorical and interactional uses of silence’, EESE: Erfurt electronic studies in English, 7. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic20/ knapp/7_2000.html (accessed 23 August 2012). Knibbeler, W. (1989), The Explorative-creative Way – Implementation of a Humanistic Language Teaching Model. Netherlands: Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen. Knigge, L. and Cope, M. (2006), ‘Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization’, Environment and Planning A, 38 (11), 2021–37. Ko, M. (2008), ‘Korean instructors’ and students’ perceptions of NS and NNS English instructors at a University’, Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 1–22. Kociatkiewicz, J. and Kostera, M. (2003), ‘Shadows of silence’, Ephemera, 4 (3), 305–13. Kong, N. H. (1996), ‘The communicative approach to Korean college English’, English Teaching, 51 (1), 97–118. Koziol, S. M. and Burns, P. (1985), ‘Using teachers’ self-reports for monitoring English instruction’, English Education, 17 (2), 113–20. Krashen, S. D. (1981a), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. English Language Teaching Series. London: Prentice Hall. —(1981b), Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. —(1982), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York and Oxford: Pergamon Press. —(1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman —(1995), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Phoenix ELT. —(2003), Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kubota, R. (2002), ‘The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan’, in D. Block and D. Cameron (eds), Globalization and Language Teaching. London: Routledge, pp. 13–28. Kurihara, N. (2006), ‘Classroom anxiety: How does student attitude change in English oral communication class in a Japanese senior high school?’, Accents Asia [Online], 1 (1), 34–68. Ladson-Billings, G. (1996), ‘Silences as weapons: Challenges of a black professor teaching white students’, Theory into Practice, 35 (2), 79–85. Lai, M. L. (1999), ‘Jet and net: A comparison of native-speaking English teachers schemes in Japan and Hong Kong’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12 (3), 215–28. Lantolf, J. P. (1997), ‘The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish’, in W. R. Glass and A. T. Perez-Leroux (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish, Vol 2: Production, Processing and Comprehension. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 3–24. —(2000), ‘Second language learning as a mediated process’, Language Teaching, 33 (2), 79–96. Lantolf, J. P. and Centeno-Cortes, B. (2007), ‘Internalization and language acquisition’,

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 206

10/12/2013 09:04

References

207

in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Language Acquisition and Development – Studies of Learners of First and Other Languages. London: Continuum, pp. 90–106. Lao-Tse (undated), The Analects of Confucius, Chapter 12. The Analects Attributed to Confucius, 551–479 BCE, James Legge (trans.). http://china.usc.edu/%28S%28dbiz kxbvttyi2r45lmstgvay%29A%28QOmliMD_zAEkAAAAZDQ1ZGNjYzgtMjdhMS 00MWJlLTk5N2YtZjdjYWNjOGY4YThi5Lf2hr5s238E-hxxzux98Gyc_jk1%29%29/ ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=366 (accessed 2 October 2013). Lasley, T. and Matczynski, T. (1997), Strategies for Teaching in a Diverse Society: Instructional Models. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Le, P. N. (2002), Day Hoc Tap Doc o Tieu Hoc [Teaching Reading Skills in Vietnamese Primary Classrooms]. Hanoi: The Education Publisher. Le, V. C. (2000), ‘Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts’, in J. Shaw, D. Lubeska and M. Noullet (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology, pp. 73–80. Le, V. C. and Barnard, R. (2009), ‘Curricular innovation behind closed classroom doors: A Vietnam case study’, Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 24 (2), 20–33. Le, X. T. (1995), Boi Duong Hung Thu cua Hoc Sinh doi voi Bo Mon Tieng Viet [Increasing Learner Interest in the Vietnamese Language Classroom]. Hanoi: Social Sciences Press. Leander, K. M. (2002), ‘Silencing in classroom interaction: Producing and relating social spaces’, Discourse Processes, 34 (2), 193–235. Lebra, T. S. (1987), ‘The cultural significance of silence in Japanese communication’, Multilingua, 6 (4), 343–57. Lee, K. S. (2006), ‘Korean college students in the United States: Perceptions of professors and students’, College Student Journal, 40 (2), 442–56. Lee, K. Y. (2009), ‘Treating culture: What 11 high school EFL conversation textbooks in South Korea do’, English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8 (1), 76–96. Lee, S. (2008), Teachers’ Code-switching in Secondary EFL Classrooms in Korea. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses 2008. Lee, S. S. U., Fraser, B. J. and Fisher, D. L. (2003), ‘Teacher-student interaction in Korean high school science classrooms’, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 67–85. Lee, W. M., Wong, F. K. and Mok, E. S. (2004), ‘Problem-based learning: Ancient Chinese educational philosophy reflected in a modern educational methodology’, Nurse Education Today, 24 (2), 136–44. Leech, G. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Leh, A. S. C. (2001), ‘Computer-mediated communication and social presence in a distance learning environment’, International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7, 109–28. Lehtonen, J., Sajavaara, K. and Manninen, S. (1985), ‘Communication apprehension

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 207

10/12/2013 09:04

208 References and attitudes toward a foreign language’. Scandinavian Working Papers on Bilingualism, 5, 53–62. Leontiev, A. A. (1981), Psychology and the Language Learning Process. Oxford: Pergamon. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989), Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Li, B. (2010), The In-Class Silence of the Me Generation in China: An Analysis of Classroom Appropriateness. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Melbourne: Monash University. Li, D. (1998), ‘It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea’, TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4), 677–703. Li, H. (2006), ‘大学生在英语课堂上的沉默 [Students’ silence in college English classes]’, Internet Fortune, 7, 17–18. Li, J. (2003), ‘The core of Confucian learning’, American Psychologist, February, 146–7. Li, J. G. (2010), ‘大学英语课堂学生沉默行为的原因分析及其相关对策 [An analysis of the reasons for learner silence in College English Classrooms and some relevant solutions]’, Journal of Huaihua University, 29 (10), 152–3. Li, T. B. and Wu, W. X. (2010), ‘当前大学生课堂沉默现象分析与对策 [Silence in college classrooms: Analysis and approaches]’, Journal of Ningbo Institute of Education, 12 (4), 24–7. Li, W. (2002), ‘关于大学课堂中的“沉默”症 [On problematic silence in college classroom]’, Journal of Beijing Second Foreign Language Institute, 109, 38–9. Liang, H. (2010), ‘打破“沉默”之道―文化差异与外语教学初探 [An approach to break silence – study on cultural differences and foreign language teaching]’. 时代文学 [Contemporary Literature], 4, 130–1. Liao, X. (2004), ‘The need for communicative language teaching in China’, ELT Journal, 58 (3), 270–3. Lieberman, P. (1984), The Biology and Evolution of Language. London and Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lin, J. C. G. and Yin, J. K. (1997), ‘Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and program suggestions’. College Student Journal, 31, 473–84. Littlewood, W. (2007), ‘Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms’. Language Teaching, 40, 243–9. Littrell, R. F. (2006), ‘Learning styles of students in and from Confucian cultures’, in O. S. Heng, G. Apfeltthaler, K. Hansen and N. Tapachai (eds), Intercultural Communication Competencies in Higher Education Management. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, pp. 1–38. Liu, J. (2002), ‘Negotiating silence in American classrooms: Three Chinese cases’, Language and Intercultural Communication, 2 (1), 37–54. Liu, J. and Zhong, J. (2005), ‘留美中国学生的课堂沉默现象探析 [Exploring the nature of silence of Chinese students in American classrooms]’, Modern Foreign Languages (Quarterly), 28 (4), 393–402.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 208

10/12/2013 09:04

References

209

Liu, N. F. and Littlewood, W. (1997), ‘Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse?’, System, 25 (3), 371–84. Liu, X. Q. (2005), 论课堂沉默 [On classroom silence]. Qufu: Qufu Normal University. Long, M. H. (1990), ‘Maturational constraints on second language development’, Studies on Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–85. —(1996), ‘The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition’, in W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Research on Language Acquisition (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68. Loveday, L. (1982), The Sociolinguistics of Learning and Using a Non-native Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lu, M. J. (2007), ‘大学英语课堂学生沉默行为实证研究默 [An empirical study on Chinese college students’ silence in English classes]’, Journal of Guilin University of Electronic Technology, 27 (2), 161–4. Lu, Y. and Hsu, C.-F. (2008), ‘Willingness to communicate in intercultural interactions between Chinese and Americans’, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 75–88. Ma, L. Y. (2004), ‘英语教学中如何对待学生的沉 [How to treat students’ silence in English teaching]’, Journal of Yanbei Normal University, 3, 63–5. Mach, B. H. (2011), Incorporating Culture in Developing English Speaking Skills for EFL Adult Learners: A Case Study of Vietnamese Teachers’ Voices. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Melbourne: Monash University. Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S. (2006), ‘Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology’, Issues in Educational Research, 16 (2), 193–205. Macnaughton, G. (2001), ‘Silences and subtexts of immigrant and non-immigrant children’, Childhood Education, 78 (1), 30–6. Malamah-Thomas, A. (1987), Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —(1996), Classroom Interaction. 4th edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malinowski, B. (1923), ‘The problem of meaning in primitive languages’, in C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards (eds), The Meaning of Meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 146–52. Manning, B. H. and Payne, B. D. (1996), Self-talk for Teachers and Students: Metacognitive Strategies for Personal and Classroom Use. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Margolis, A. A. (1996a), ‘Philosophy program for children’, Psychological Science in Education, 1, 65–72. —(1996b), ‘A comparison between the philosophy for children approach and the cultural-historical and activity approaches: Psychological and educational foundations’, in M. Lipman (ed.), Natasha Vygotskian Dialogues. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 119–35. Martin, V. S. (2003), ‘Promoting fluency in Korean EFL students through dialogue journals in oral communication classes’, in S. O. Oak and V. Martin (eds.), Teaching English to Koreans. Elizaneth, NJ: Hollym, pp. 13–28.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 209

10/12/2013 09:04

210 References Matthews, B. (2001), ‘The relationship between values and learning’, International Education Journal, 2 (4), 223–32. Maxwell, J. A. (2005), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McCafferty, S. G. (1998), ‘Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech’, Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 73–96. McCroskey, J. C. (1970), ‘Measures of communication-bound anxiety’, Speech Mono-graphs, 37, 269–77. —(1980), ‘Quiet children in the classroom: On helping not hurting’, Communication Education, 29, 239–44. McCroskey, J. C. and Richmond, V. P. (1991), ‘Quiet children and the classroom teacher’. Bloomington, IN: ERIC and Annandale, VA: SCA. McDonough, J. (2002), ‘The teacher as language learner: Worlds of difference?’, ELT Journal, 56 (4), 404–11. McKay, S. L. and Wong, S. L. C. (1996), ‘Multiple discourse, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students’, Harvard Educational Review, 66 (3), 577–608. McLaughlin, B. (1990), ‘Restructuring’, Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 113–28. Mercer, N. (1995), The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Meichenbaum, D., Burland, S., Gruson, L. and Cameron, R. (1985), ‘Metacognitive assessment’, in S. R. Yussen (ed.), The Growth of Reflection in Children. London: Academic Press, pp. 3–30. Meng, F. S. (2009), ‘建构主义学习理论指导下课堂沉默现象预防策略研究 [Exploring ways to remove learners’ verbal inhibition as guided by constructivist learning theory]’, Foreign Language Education, 30 (4), 71–4. Merriam, S. B. (2009), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Millei, Z. and Lee, L. (2007), ‘Smarten up the parents: Whose agendas are we serving? Governing parents and children through the smart population foundation initiatives in Australia’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (3), 208–21. Milroy, J. (1981), Regional Accents of English: Belfast. Belfast: Blackstaff. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R. and Hays, T. N. (2008), In-depth Interviewing: Principles, Techniques and Analysis (3rd edn). Sydney: Pearson Education Australia. Ministry of Education and Training (2008), Quyet dinh ve viec phe duyet de an ‘Day va hoc ngoai ngu trong he thong giao duc quoc dan giai doan 2008–2020’. http://vanban.moet.gov.vn/?page=1.15andscript=viewdocandview=708andopt=b rpage (accessed 19 June 2013). Miranda, M. V. (2008), ‘Increasing class participation of social phobic students’, The Community College Enterprises, 14 (1), 9–23. Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (1998), Second Language Learning Theories. London: Edward Arnold.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 210

10/12/2013 09:04

References

211

Moeller, A. J. and Ishii-Jordan, S. (1996), ‘Teacher efficacy: A model for teacher development and inclusion’, Journal of Behavioural Education, 6 (3): 293–310. Moffett, J. (1982), ‘Writing, inner speech, and meditation’, College English, 44 (3), 231–46. Moll, L. C. (1990), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moon, S. (2011), ‘ Expectation and reality: Korean sojourner families in the UK’, Language and Education, 25 (2), 163–76. Moran, D. (2000), Introduction to Phenomenology. London: Routledge. Morikawa, S. (2013), Japanese University Students’ Perception of Studying at an Australian University. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Melbourne: Monash University. Morin, A. and Everett, J. (1990), ‘Inner speech as a mediator of self-awareness, self-consciousness, and self-knowledge: A hypothesis’, New Ideas in Psychology, 8 (3), 337–56. Morita, N. (2004), ‘Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities’, TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 573–603. Moust, J., Schmidt, H., De Volder, M., Belien, J. and De Grave, W. (1987), ‘Effects of verbal participation in small group discussion’, in J. Richardson and W. Eysenck (eds), Student Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, pp. 147–54. Nakamura, I. (2008), ‘Understanding how teacher and student talk with each other: An exploration of how “repair” displays the co-management of talk-in-interaction’, Language Teaching Research, 12 (2), 265–83. Nakamura, I. (2010), ‘Formulation as evidence of understanding in teacher-student talk’, ELT Journal, 64 (2), 125–34. Nakane, I. (2006), ‘Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars’, Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (11), 1811–35. —(2007), Silence in Intercultural Communication: Perception and Performance in the Classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nam H. H. (2010), The Pedagogy and Its Effectiveness among Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers in the South Korean EFL Context. PhD dissertation. The University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Nation, I. S. P. and Newton, J. (2009), Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge. Nemiroff, G. H. (2000), ‘No language to die’, in K. Ogulnick (ed.), Language Crossings: Negotiating the Self in a Multicultural World. New York and London: Teachers’ College Press, Columbia University, pp. 13–20. Nguyen, M. H. (2004), Foreign Language Anxiety: A Case Study of Vietnamese Students in Australia. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Australia: La Trobe University. Nguyen, T. H. A. (2002), ‘Cultural effects on learning and teaching in Vietnam’, The Language Teacher, 26 (1), 2–6.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 211

10/12/2013 09:04

212 References Nguyen, T. M. H. (2008), ‘Developing EFL learners’ intercultural communicative competence: A gap to be filled?’, Asian EFL Journal, 21, 122–39. Nguyen, T. T. M. (2007), Learning to give feedback and respond to peer-feedback in the L2: The Case of EFL Criticism and Responses to Criticism. Munich: Lincom Europa —(2011), ‘Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence?’, RELC Journal, 42 (1), 17–30. Nguyen, X. T. (1988), ‘Understanding Vietnamese students: A focus on their passive attitude’, The Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 1 (1), 19–25. Ning, B. (2010), ‘礼貌原则与英语课堂沉默策 [Norms of politeness and strategies for dealing with silence in English classrooms]’, Science and Technology Information, 19, 619–79. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974), The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion – Our Social Skin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Nozaki, K. N. (1993), ‘The Japanese student and foreign teacher’, in P. Wadden (ed.), A Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 101–10. Nunan, D. (1988), The Learner-centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —(1989), Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —(2003),‘The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region’, TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 589–613. Nystrand, M. (1997), Opening Dialogue. New York: Teachers College Press. Ohta, A. S. (2001), Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classrooms: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Okabe, R. (1983), ‘Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United States’, in W. B. Gudykunst (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory: Current Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 21–44. Olaniran, B. A. and Stewart, R. A. (1996), ‘Instructional practices and classroom communication apprehension: A cultural explanation’, Communication Report 9, 193–203. Oliver, R. (1971), Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Olivo, W. (2003), ‘“Quit talking and learn English!”: Conflicting language ideologies in an ESL classroom’, Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 34 (1), 50–71. Ollin, R. (2008), ‘Silent pedagogy and rethinking classroom practice: Structuring teaching through silence rather than talk’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 38 (2), 265–80. Ormrod, J. E. (2003), Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 212

10/12/2013 09:04

References

213

Oxford, R. (2001), ‘Language learning styles and strategies’, in M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle, pp. 359–66. Pang, L. (2010),‘Probing into the students’ negative silence in college English classrooms from the perspective of teaching approaches [从教师教法视角探究大 学英语课堂的“消极沉默]’, Overseas English, 8, 453–4. Park, J. K. (2009), ‘English fever’ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms’, English Today 97, 25 (1), 50–7. Pavlenko, A. and Lantoff, J. P. (2000), ‘Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves’, in J. P. Lantoff (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 155–77. Peterson, S. (2003), ‘Making the most of talk in the writing classroom’, English Quarterly, 35 (1), 1–7. Pham, H. H. (1999), The key sociocultural factors that work against success in tertiary English training programs in Vietnam. Unpublished paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development, Tucson, Arizona. —(2005), ‘Imported communicative language teaching: implications for local teachers’, English Teaching Forum, 43 (4), 2–13. —(2007), ‘Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity’, ELT Journal, 61 (3), 193–201. Phan, L. H. (2008), Teaching English as an International Language: Identity, Resistance and Negotiation. Clevedon and Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Phillips, E. M. (1999), ‘Decreasing language anxiety: Practical techniques for oral activities’, in D. J. Young (ed.), Affect in Foreign Language and Second Language Learning – A Practical Guide to Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Atmosphere. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College, pp. 124–43. Phillips, G. M. (1991), Communication Incompetences – A Theory of Training Oral Performance Behaviour. Carbonale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Picard, M. (1948), The World of Silence, 1st edition, S. Godman (trans.). London: The Harvill Press. —(1952), The world of silence, S. Godman (trans.). Chicago: Henry Regnery, p. 15. Pickering, L. (2012), ‘Second language speech production’, in The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 335–48. Ping, W. (2010), ‘A case study of an in-class silent post-graduate Chinese student in London Metropolitan University: A journey of learning’, TESOL Journal, 2, 207–14. Plakans, B. K. (2013), ‘Silence as a teaching tool’, Yoga Journal. http://www.yogajournal. com/for_teachers/2433 (accessed 26 June 2013). Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987), Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage Publications. Pryor, B., Butler, J. and Boehringer, K. (2005), Communication apprehension and cultural context: A comparison of communication apprehension in Japanese and American students, North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 247–52.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 213

10/12/2013 09:04

214 References Putz, M. and Sicola, L. (eds) (2010), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside The Learners’ Mind. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Pyo, K. H. (2008), ‘Where do learners’ needs exist in curriculum development?’, Studies in Foreign Language Education, 22 (1), 253–378. Qiao, C. H. (2010), ‘Learner silence in university English classrooms: A learner perspective [从学生视角看地方高校英语课堂教学中的学生沉默]’, Education and Career, 11, 189–91. Qin, Y. G. and Guo, X. J. (2008), ‘Silence in English classrooms and questioning of teachers [英语课堂学生沉默与教师提问]’, Journal of Anhui University of Technology, 25 (1), 127–8. Rao, Z. (2002), ‘Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and noncommunicative activities in EFL’ , System, 30 (1), 85–105. Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. (1989), The Psychology of Reading. London: Prentice Hall. Reber, A. S. (1967), ‘Implicit learning of artificial grammars’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 6, 855–63. —(1993), Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge: An Essay on the Cognitive Unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Remedios, L., Clark, D. and Hawthorne, L. (2008), ‘The silent participant in small group collaborative learning contexts’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 9 (3), 201–16. Reninger, K. B. and Rehark, L. (2009), ‘Discussions in a fourth-grade classroom: Using exploratory talk to promote children’s dialogic identities’, Language Arts, 86 (4), 268–79. Renshaw, P. and Volet, S. (1995), ‘Southeast-Asian students at Australian universities: A reappraisal of their tutorial participation and approaches to study’, Australian Educational Researcher, 22 (2), 85–106. Rhee, U. (1993), ‘Self‐perceptions of competence and social support in Korean children’, Early Child Development and Care, 85 (1), 56–66. Richards, J. C. (1998), Beyond Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. and Farrell, T. S. C. (2005), Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. and Lockhart, C. (1996), Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ridgway, A. J. (2009), ‘The inner voice’, The International Journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 45. Robinson, P. (1997), ‘Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning’, Language Learning, 47, 45–99. Rogers, C. (1969), Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become (1st edn). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill. Rolfe, G. and Gardner, L. (2006), ‘Do not ask who I am …’: Confession, emancipation, and (self-)management through reflection’, Journal of Nursing Management, 14 (8), 593–600.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 214

10/12/2013 09:04

References

215

Romiszowski, A. (1999), ‘The development of physical skills: Instruction in the psychomotor domain’, in C. M. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 460–82. Rosen, C. and Rosen, H. (1973), The Language of Primary School Children. London: Penguin Education. Rozin, P., Bressman, B. and Taft, M. (1974), ‘Do children understand the basic relationship between speech and writing? The Mow-Motorcycle Testa’, Journal of Reading Behaviour, 6, 327–34. Ruesch, J. and Kees, W. (1956), Nonverbal Communication: Notes on the Visual Perception of Human Relations. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Ryan, E. D. and Simon, J. (1982), ‘Efficacy of mental imagery in enhancing mental rehearsal of motor skills’, Journal of Sport Psychology, 4 (1), 41–51. Ryan, J. and Louie, K. (2007), ‘False dichotomy? “Western” and “Confucian” concepts of scholarship and learning’, Education Philosophy and Theory, 39 (4), 404–17. Sai, Y. (1996), The Eight Core Values of the Japanese Businessman: Toward the Understanding of Japanese Management. New York: International Business Press. Saito, H. (1992), ‘Interactive speech understanding.’ Proceedings of Coling-92, Nantes, 23–8 August 1992. Sale, P. and Carey, D. M. (1995), ‘The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school’, Exceptional Children, 62 (1), 6–19. Sampson, R. J. (2010), ‘Considerations for activity and task selection in Japanese elementary school English communication lessons’, The Language Teacher, 34 (1), 25–9. Unpublished source. http://www.jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/rf1_0. pdf (accessed 13 May 2013). Sasaki, M. (2008), ‘The 150-year history of English language assessment in Japanese education’, Language Teaching, 25 (1), 63–83. Sasaki, Y. (2012), Japanese students’ attitudes toward silence: Preference and practice in the university classroom in Australia. Unpublished MEd thesis. Melbourne: Monash University. Saville-Troike, M. (1985), ‘The places of silence in an integrated theory of communication’, in D. Tannen and M. Saville-Troike (eds), Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 3–18. —(1987), ‘Bilingual discourse: Communication without a common language’, Linguistics, 25, 81–106. —(1988), ‘Private speech: Evidence for language learning strategies during the ‘silent’ period’, Journal of Child Language, 15 (3), 567–90. Schacter, D L., Gilbert, D. T. and Wegner, D. M. (2011), Psychology (2nd edn). New York: Worth Publishers. Schirato, A. and Yell, S. (2000), Communication and Cultural Literacy: An Introduction. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 215

10/12/2013 09:04

216 References Schmidt, J. A., Zaleski, D. J., Shumow, L., Ochoa-Angrino, S. and Hamidova, N. (2011), ‘What are they really doing? A descriptive analysis of science teachers’ instructional practices and verbal interaction with students’, Science-in-the-moment. Northern Illinois University. http://scienceinthemoment.cedu.niu.edu/scienceinthemoment/ reports/SchmidtZaleskiShumowOchoaHamidova2011gender.pdf (accessed 4 October 2013). Schmidt, R. (1990), ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’, Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 129–58. —(1994), ‘Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definition for applied linguistics’, AILA Review, 11, 11–26. —(1995), ‘Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning’ in R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center, pp. 1–63. —(2010), ‘Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning’, in W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan and I. Walker (eds), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore December 2–4. Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies, pp. 721–37. Schultz, K. (2009), Rethinking Classroom Participation: Listening to Silent Voices. New York: Teachers College Press. Scollon, S. (1999), ‘Not to waste words or students: Confucian and Socratic discourse in the tertiary classroom’, in E. Hinkel (ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–17. Segalowitz, N. (2003), ‘Automaticity and second languages’, in C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 382–408. Segalowitz, N. and Trofimovich, P. (2012), ‘Second language processing’, in S. M. Gass and A. Mackey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 179–92. Seng, Q. (2010), ‘打破沉默，激活课堂―大学英语课堂沉默现象探究 [Break silence and activate the classes – Probing into the phenomenon of silence in college English classes]’, Journal of Mudanjiang College of Education, 1, 119–20. Seth, M. J. (2002), Education Fever: Society, Politics, and The Pursuit of Schooling in South Korea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Shapiro, M. (2002), ‘Asian culture brief: Vietnam’, ABC, 2 (5). http://www.ntac.hawaii. edu/downloads/products/briefs/culture/pdf/ACB-Vol2-Iss5-Vietnam.pdf (accessed 22 June 2013). Shi, L. (2006), ‘The successors to Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on Chinese students’ culture of learning English’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19 (1), 122–47. Shimizu, J. (2006), ‘Why are Japanese students reluctant to express their opinions in the classroom?’, The Hiyoshi Review of English Studies, 48, 33–45.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 216

10/12/2013 09:04

References

217

Shimizu, K. (1999), Educational Dataland 1999–2000. Tokyo: Jijitsusinsha. Shou, J. T. (2010), ‘On the effect of talk on junior students [浅谈课堂发言对中学生的 影响]’, Education Teaching Research, 16, 234. Sifianou, M. (1997), ‘Silence and politeness in silence: interdisciplinary perspectives’, in A. Jaworski (ed.), Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 10. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 63–84. Simpson, E. J. (1972), The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House. Simpson, M. and Ure, J. (1994), Studies of Differentiation Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools – Interchange Report #30. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education. Smith, D. B. (1996), ‘Teacher decision making in the adult ESL classroom’, in D. Freeman and J. C. Richards (eds), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–216. Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Jonhson, D. and Johnson, R. (2005), ‘Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices’, Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 87–101. Sokolov, A. N. (1972), Inner Speech and Thought. New York: Plenum Press. Sokolowski, R. (2000), Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Song, K. S. (1993), An interactional Sociolinguistic Analysis of Argumentative Strategies in Korean Conversational Disclosure: Negotiating Disagreement and Conflict. PhD dissertation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Song, J. J. (2011), ‘English as an official language in Korea: Global English or social malady?’ Language Problems and Language Planning, 35 (1), 35–55. Song, M. J. (1994), ‘A study on common factors affecting Asian students’ English oral interaction’, English Teaching, 49, 191–219. Soodak, L. C. and Podell, D. M. (1994), ‘Teachers’ thinking about difficult-to-teach students’, Journal of Educational Research, 88 (1), 44–51. Spitzberg, B. H. and Hecht, M. L. (1984), ‘A component model of relational competence. Human Communication Research, 10 (4), 575–99. Spratt, M. (1999), ‘How good are we at knowing what learners like?’, System, 27 (2), 141–55. Sprott, R. (2000), ‘Learning to speak: One woman’s journey’, in K. Ogulnick (ed.), Language Crossings – Negotiating the Self in a Multicultural World. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University, pp. 46–50. Stevenson, H. W., Parker T., Wilkinson, A., Hegion, A. and Fish, E. (1976), ‘Predictive value of teacher ratings with young children’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 507–17. Stevick, W. E. (1989), Success with Foreign Languages: Seven Who Achieved It and What Worked for Them. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 217

10/12/2013 09:04

218 References —(1999), ‘Affect in learning and memory: from alchemy to chemistry’, in J. Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–57. Sullivan, C. C. (2011), ‘Modeling the model: The use of classroom talk in teaching socioconstructivist pedagogy in a social studies teacher education setting’, The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 46 (2), 24–32. Swain, M. (1985), ‘Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development’, in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury House, pp. 235–56. Takeshita, Y. (2010), ‘East Asian Englishes: Japan and Korea’, in A. Kirkpatrick (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 265–81. Tamai, K. and Lee, J. (2002), ‘Confucianism as cultural constraint: A comparison of Confucian values of Japanese and Korean university students’, International Education Journal, 3 (5), 33–49. Tan, J. K. L. and Goh, J. W. P. (2006), ‘Why do they not talk? Towards an understanding of students’ cross-cultural encounters from an individualism/collectivism perspective’, International Education Journal, 7 (5), 651–67. Tannen, D. (1984), ‘The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication’, Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 189–95. —(1985), ‘Silence: Anything but’, in D. Tannen and M. Saville (eds), Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 93–111. —(1995), Talking for 9 to 5. New York: William Morrow. Tannen, D. and Saville-Troike, M. (eds) (1985), Perspectives in Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tao Te Ching (undated) Lao Tzu – Chapter 56, Tao Te Ching Home Page, Gia-fu Feng and Jane English (trans.). http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu56.html (accessed 2 October 2013). Tatar, S. (2005a), ‘Classroom participation by international students: the case of Turkish graduate students’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 9 (4), 337–55. —(2005b), ‘Why keep silent? The classroom participation experiences of non-nativeEnglish-speaking students’, Language and Intercultural Communication, 5 (3 and 4), 284–93. Teng, M. L. (2009), ‘Teacher-related factors influencing silence in college classrooms [大学 生课堂沉默的教师因素]’, Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 4 (180), 146–8. Thomas, J. (1983), ‘Cross-cultural pragmatic failure’, Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 91–112. Thomas, N. J. T. (2010), Supplement to mental imagery. Founders of experimental psychology: Wilhelm Wundt and William James. Standford Encyclopedia of Phylosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-imagery/foundersexperimental-psychology.html (accessed 4 July 2013). Tomlin, R. S. and Villa, V. (1994), ‘Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 218

10/12/2013 09:04

References

219

Tomlinson, B. (2000), ‘Talking to yourself: The role of the inner voice in language learning’, Applied Language Learning, 11 (1), pp. 123–54. —(2001), ‘Inner voice: A critical factor in language learning’, Journal of the Imagination in L2 Learning, 6, 26–33. —(2005), ‘Localising the global: matching materials to the context of learning’, in J. Mukundan (ed.), Readings on ELT Materials II. Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia, pp. 1–16. Tomlinson, B. and Bao, D. (2004), ‘The contribution of Vietnamese learners of English to EFL methodology’, Language Teaching Research, 8 (2), 199–222. Tomlinson, B., Masuhara, H., Heather, B., Islam, C. and Bao, D. (2003), Success with English (8 Vols). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing. Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A. and Reynolds, T. (2003), ‘Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27 (2/3), 119–45. Tomlinson, C., Callahan, C. and Lelli, K. (1997), ‘Challenging expectations: Case studies of high-potential, culturally diverse young children’, Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (12), 5–17. Tong, J. (2010), ‘Some observations of students’ reticent and participatory behaviour in Hong Kong English classrooms’, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7 (2), 239–54. http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v7n22010/tong.pdf (accessed 26 February 2013). Towell, R. and Hawkins, R. (1994), Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Townsend, J. S. (1998), ‘Silent voice: what happens to quiet students during classroom discussion?’, English Journal, 87 (2), 72–80. Tran, V. (2008), ‘Enhancing Classroom Communication to Develop Students’ Mathematical Thinking’, 1–10. http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec/ apec2008/papers/PDF/21.Tran_Vui_Vietnam.pdf (accessed 19 June 2013). Trang, T. T. T. and Baldauf, R. B. (2007), ‘Demotivation: Understanding resistance to English language learning – The case of Vietnamese students’, The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4 (1), 79–105. Trang, T. T. T., Moni, K. and Baldauf, R. B. (2012), ‘Foreign language anxiety and its effect on students’ determination to study English: To abandon or not to abandon?’, TESOL in Context Special Edition S3, 1–14. Tsui, A. B. M. (1995), Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin. —(1996), ‘Reticence and anxiety in second language learning’ in K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (eds), Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–67. VanPatten, B. (1996), Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Vetter, A. (2010), ‘Positioning students as readers and writers through talk in a high school English classroom’, English Education, 43 (1), 33–64.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 219

10/12/2013 09:04

220 References Vygotsky, L. (1934), Thought and Language, E. Hanfmann, G. Vakar and N. Minnick (eds and trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. —(1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. —(1985), Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). ‘Thought and language’, in A. Kozulin (ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. —(1987), The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky (Volume 1): Thinking and Speaking. New York: Plenum Press. —(1988), Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1934.) Waldman, M. and Newberg, A. (2012), ‘Improve your decision making by observing your inner speech’. Praxis Now – The Neuroscience of Maximum Achievement. http://www.praxisnow.com/business/improving-your-decision-making-byobserving-your-inner-speech (accessed 29 June 2013). Walsh, S. (2002), ‘Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom’, Language Teaching Research, 6 (1), 3–23. —(2006), ‘Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom’, ELT Journal, 60 (2), 133–41. Wan, T. Y., Chapman, D. W. and Biggs, D. A. (1992), ‘Academic stress of international students attending US universities’, Research in Higher Education, 33, 607–23. Wang, B. (2006), ‘Classroom reticence: Causes and resolutions [课堂沉默： 原因及对策]’, Educational Practice and Research, 8, 9–10. Wang, J. and Zhang, J. (2008), ‘Analysis and strategies for dealing with silence in college English classrooms’ [大学英语课堂沉默现象的解析与对策]’, China University Teaching, 1, 81–4. Wang, X. (2006), ‘就学生外语课上的沉默与被动谈实现“以学生为中心”的教学 模式。[On student-centred teaching mode – Reflection on students’ silence and passiveness in foreign language classes]’, Forestry Education in China, 5, 64–6. Wang, Y. (2009), ‘Categories of classroom silence and instructional approaches [学生课 堂沉默的分类与引导策略]’, Shanghai Education and Research, 5, 71–2. Wang, Z. J. (2010), ‘Pragmatic perspectives on the descriptive silence in Chinese culture [中国文化背景下的描写性沉默语用观]’, Journal of Zhenjiang College, 23 (3), 26–30. Warden, C. A. and Lin, H. J. (2000), ‘Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting’, Foreign Language Annals, 33 (5), 535–45. Wardhaugh, R. (1985), How Conversation Works. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. —(1992), An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Watkins, D. and Biggs, J. (2001), ‘The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond’, in D. Watkins and J. Biggs (eds), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, pp. 3–23. Watkins, D., Reghi, M. and Astilla, E. (1991), ‘The Asian-learner-as-a-rote-learner: Myth or reality?’, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 11 (1), 21–34.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 220

10/12/2013 09:04

References

221

Wellington, J. (2000), Education Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches. London and New York: Continuum. Wertsch, J. V. (1985), Vygotsky and the Social Formation of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College. Wertsch, J. V. and Toma, C. (1995), ‘Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach’, in L. P. Steffe and J. Gale. (eds), Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. White, L. (1987), ‘Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence’, Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110. Williams, M. and Burden, R. L. (1997), Psychology for Language Teachers – a Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willems, N. (1982), English Intonation from a Dutch Point of View. Dordrecht/ Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris. Wilson, J. L. (2004), Talking beyond the Text: Identifying and Fostering Critical Talk in a Middle-school Classroom. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia. Wilson, S. A. (1995), ‘Conformity, individuality, and the nature of virtue: A classical Confucian contribution to contemporary ethical reflection,’ Journal of Religious Ethics, 23 (2), 263–89. Winch-Dummett, C. (2006), ‘Successful pedagogies for an Australian multicultural classroom’, International Education Journal, 7 (5), 778–89. Winegar, L. (1997), ‘Can internalization be more than a magical phrase? Notes toward the constructive negotiation of this process’, in C. Lightfoot and B. Cox (eds), Sociogenetic Perspectives on Internalization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wong, J. K. K. (2004), ‘Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or contextually based?’, International Education Journal Educational Research Conference 2003 Special Issues, 4 (4), 154–66. Wong, J. L. N. and Tsui, R. B. M. (2007), How do teachers view the effects of schoolbased in-service activities? A case study in China, Journal of Education for Teaching, 33 (4), 457–70. Woolfolk, R. L., Murphy, S. M., Gottesfeld, D. and Aitken, D. (1985), ‘Effects of mental rehearsal of task motor activity and mental depiction of task outcome on motor skill performance’, Journal of Sport Psychology, 7 (2), 191–7. Wright, L. (2012), Second Language Learner and Social Agency. Bristol: Multilingual Matters Wu, Y. H. (1991), ‘Why don’t they speak up? A study of factors that affect classroom participation in English language learning’, in L. Yaofu, H. Huang, H. Jeng, S. Liao, S. Chou, S. Lin and A. Hadzima (eds), Papers from The Seventh Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: The Grane Publishing Co., pp. 159–87. Wu, Z. (2008), ‘Understanding class silence in China: Approach from the perspective of intercultural study’, Sino-US English Teaching, 5 (4), 35–9.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 221

10/12/2013 09:04

222 References Xie, R. R. (2011), ‘A cognitive study on students’ turns: Silence in classroom discourse [课堂话轮沉默的认知解读]’, Journal of Ningbo University, 33, 33–6. Xu, K. and Wang, J. (2011), ‘Classroom silence in college English interactive environment: Causes and solutions [大学英语互动课堂环境中沉默现象的成因及 其对策]’, Journal of Shanxi University of Technology, 29 (2), 86–90. Xue, Z. (trans.) (1997), The Analects. Beijing: People’s Literature Press. Yang, K. S. (1981), ‘Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan’, Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 159–70. —(1994), ‘Chinese social orientation: A social interactional approach’, in K. S. Yang and A. B. Yeu (eds), The Psychological Behaviour of the Chinese. Taipei: Kuei-Kuan (in Chinese), pp. 82–142. Yang, Y. Q. (2006), Analysis of and Resolution to silence in English classes [大学英 语课堂沉默无声现象的分析与对策]’, Journal of Beijing Electronic Science and Technology Institute, 14 (3), 62–4. Yankah, K. (1995), Speaking for the Chief: Okyeame and the Politics of Akan Royal Oratory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Yates, L. and Nguyen, T. (2012), ‘Beyond a discourse of deficit: The meaning of silence in the international classroom’, The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 11 (1), 22–34. Yeh, C. and Inose, M. (2002), ‘Difficulties and coping strategies of Chinese, Japanese and Korean immigrant students’, Adolescence, 37 (145), 69–82. Yin, R. K. (2003), Application of Case Studies Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yoneyama, S. (1999), The Japanese High School – Silence and Resistance. London and New York: Routledge Japanese Studies Series. —(2001), ‘Stress, disempowerment, bullying, and school non-attendance’, The Language Teacher, 25 (1), 17–22. Yoo, O. K. (2005), ‘Discourse of English as an official language in a monolingual society: The case of South Korea’, Second Language Studies, 23 (2), 1–44. Yook, E. L. and Leeahn, B. (1999), ‘Comparison of apprehension about communication between Koreans and Americans’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 161–4. Yoshikawa, M. J. (1987), ‘The double-swing model of intercultural communication between the East and the West’, in D. L. Kincaid (ed.), Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 319–29. Yu, Y. and Wang, B. (2009), ‘A study of language learning strategy use in the context of EFL curriculum and pedagogy reform in China’, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29 (4), 457–68. Yue, Y. and Le, T. (2009), ‘Cultural adaptation of Asian students in Australia’, in the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Proceedings, pp. 1–14. http://www.aare.edu.au/09pap/yue091551.pdf (accessed 27 October 2013).

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 222

10/12/2013 09:04

References

223

Yum, J. (1987), ‘Korean philosophy and communication’, in D. L. Kincaid (ed.), Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives. San Diego, Academic Press, 71–86. Yum, J. O. (2012), ‘Communication competence: Korean perspective’, China Media Research, 8(2), 11–8. Zembylas, M. (2004), ‘The sound of silence in pedagogy’, Educational Theory, 54 (2), 193–210. —(2008), ‘The sound of silence in educational pedagogy,’ Educational Theory, 54 (2), 193–210. Zembylas, M. and Vrasidas, C. (2007), ‘Listening for silence in text-based, online encounters’, Distant Education, 28 (1), 5–24. Zhang, D. W. (2010), ‘Why students are getting silent [为什么学生越来越沉默]’, New Curriculum Study, 8, 149. Zhang, H. Q. and Zhang, K. (2009), ‘On silence in college English classroom [大学英 语课堂沉默现象探究]’, Foreign Language in China, 6 (2), 78–84. Zhang, J. (2009), ‘A survey on silence in college English classroom’, Journal of Zhejiang Shuren University, 9 (5), 108–11. Zhang, X. (2008), ‘Interpretations of silence from intercultural perspective’, Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 6, 5–8. Zhang, Y., Butler, J. and Pryor, B. (1996), ‘Comparison of apprehension about communication in China and the United States’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 1168–70. Zhao, B. (2010), ‘An analysis of negative silence in university English classes: From the perspective of face theory [面子观视角下的大学英语课堂恶性沉默的隐性因素 探析]’, Journal of Changchun University of Science and Technology, 5 (9), 133–4. Zhao, E. and Liu, L. (2008), ‘China’s generation Y: Understanding the work force’. Proceedings of the ICMIT 2008 4th IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology. Singapore: The National University of Singapore, pp. 612–16. Zheng, U., Yao, X. M. and Liao, L. L. (2010), ‘Research on silence in English classrooms in independent colleges [独立学院大学英语课堂沉默现象调查]’, Journal of East China Institute of Technology, 29 (3), 283–6. Zhou, Y. R., Knoke, D. and Sakamoto, I. (2005), ‘Rethinking silence in the classroom: Chinese students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9 (3), 287–311. Zhu, X. H. (2007), ‘What do we know about the relationship between speaking and writing in college-level ESL students?’, US-China Foreign Language, 5, (3), 31–40. Ziglar, Z. (2000), See You at the Top. Louisiana: Pelican.

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 223

10/12/2013 09:04

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 224

10/12/2013 09:04

Index acquisition classroom tasks in SLA 189 cognitive processing and L2 20 of communicative skills 14, 34 conscious processing and L2 157–8 of effective silence 168 implicit learning and L2 21 linguistic acquisition through input 79 linguistic utterances and L2 170 mental processing and L2 24, 154 mental rehearsal and L2 158 negative feedback and L2 21 pedagogy and L2 165 silence and input in SLA 20–1 silence and L2 18–20, 21, 24, 26, 169 research 3, 5, 18–20 silence and output in SLA 22–4 silence and strategy in L2 acquisition research 17 silence literacy 149, 169 silent period and L2 165 speech production and SLA 20, 187 verbal interaction and L2 20, 22, 158 advanced communicator 93 advanced proficiency 35 balance between silence and talk 40 challenge to silence and talk 101 challenging authority 137 classroom relationship 57, 101, 103–5, 109, 147–8, 164, 143, 160, 185 communication avoidance 107 compromise between silence and talk 102 conditions for silence and talk 38–9 connection between talk and silence 129 coordination between talk and silence 68, 80–3 cultural misunderstanding 29 decision towards silence or talk 41, 67, 79, 107

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 225

desire for silence and talk 105 developmental education 8 dichotomy between silence and talk 29, 35 discourse on silence Australian 28–31 Chinese 46–53 Japanese 75–7 Korean 91–4 Vietnamese 135–9 divide between silence and talk 2 explicit knowledge 23 grammar sensitivity 23 harmony classroom 40, 41, 104, 146 group 82, 104 maintaining 83 through silence 11, 42, 47, 83 through talk 82, 143 hierarchy between silence and talk 2, 39, 52, 87 implicit knowledge 23 inner speech vi, 16, 18, 22, 23, 88, 96, 118–19, 121, 128–30, 151, 158–9, 189 inner-speech dynamics 22 inner voice 16, 18, 115, 118, 119, 121–2, 164 input complex 66 comprehensible input 20–1 comprehension of 16 exposure to 157 input-interaction-output model 20 intelligible 79 learning from 87 processing 26, 47, 157–8 providing 94

10/12/2013 09:04

226 Index restricting 99, 106 sufficient 20 teachers’ 66 understanding 163 interaction classroom 90, 122, 128 cultural 88 for learning 20 hypothesis 22, 157 imagined 42, 158 inspiring 147 lack of 90 non-verbal/silent 71, 76, 81, 86, 92, 156–8 observing 158, 170 online 52 opportunities for 135 pattern of 137 peer 83, 122, 140 preparing for 82, 166 social 17, 20, 86, 158, 170, 188 spontaneous 1, 15, 22, 34, 39, 43, 123, 130 verbal 11, 22, 28, 34, 52, 59, 62–3, 88, 109, 138, 158 withdrawal from 88, 162 interactional competence 17 interactionalism 19

viewpoints 62 voices 100 learners articulate/verbal 83, 144 eloquent 37, 152 introverted 59, 83 non-vocal 31 struggling 117 successful 4 talkative 38, 57, 105, 151–2 uncooperative 38 young 144 learning challenge 154 difficulties 22, 75, 117 flexibility 108 opportunities 131 pace/speed 14, 97 readiness 124 strategies 98

learner/learners’ ability 180 autonomy/choice/decision making 88, 108, 156, 167 behaviour 107, 130, 186 centredness 43, 182 control 36 differences 16, 21, 156, 186 distraction 47 experience 96 factor 47 first language 25 needs 67 participation 165 perception 25, 50 proficiency 14, 17, 24–5, 153 responses 128–30, 137 satisfaction 131 talk 127 training 130

output accuracy in 22 audible 20 characteristics of 22 effect of 22 evidence of 20 hindering 117 inner speech and 158 potential 22 practice of 126 preference for output production 97 processing towards 22 producing 90 quality of 101, 146 rehearsing 130 restricting 51 silence and 22 understanding 24 verbal/spoken 24, 25, 158 written 178

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 226

memorization 98 mental events 189 mental responses 163 modesty 93 non-verbal influences 25

10/12/2013 09:04

Index participation alternative mode of 53 classroom 138, 173, 184 culture of 184 learner/student 135 low-quality 172 managing 145 modes of 81, 95, 184 preparation for 154 random 101 reluctance in 138 silence as/interaction 6, 80, 157 silent 30 spontaneous/voluntary 62, 145 untimely 76 verbal 41, 50, 64–5, 75, 90, 158 whisper as 142 willingness of 67, 138 withdrawal from 185 pedagogy appropriate 127, 153, 186 effective 173 form-focused 134 ineffective/poor/unsatisfactory 62, 86, 117, 152 monitoring/self-regulating 115, 131 open-minded 167 passive 144, 148, 173 resistance to 57 responsive 152 silence and/in 51, 116, 118 silent engagement 150–1 situational relevant 182 spontaneous 131 spoon-feeding 48 teacher-centred 91 politeness 98 power 40 asserting 183 balance 185 classroom 126, 183 differences/imbalance 145 disempowerment 94, 161, 183 empowerment 113 hierarchy 183 powerlessness 161, 185 teacher 145 preferences for silence or talk 84

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 227

227

private speech 17, 18–19, 86, 119, 158–9, 169 processing ability 172 active 100 attentional 158 cognitive 20, 33, 98, 116, 189 conscious 158 excessive 96 in pedagogy 116 input 20–1, 47, 53, 158 interlanguage 25 mental 19, 154, 158, 166, 172 metacognitive 116 neurocognitive 20 quality of processing 159 silent 80, 85, 96–7, 145, 153, 163 skills 25, 153 speed 153 time for 75, 98 towards output 22 quality of silence and talk 166 relational competence 93 relationship between inner speech and task performance 118 silence and output 22 silence and pedagogy 51 silence and quality of speech 147–8 silence and talk 100, 146, 172, 189 teacher and learner behaviour 130 teacher and learners 137 verbal and silent participation 81–3, 98, 146 relationship with peers 57, 109, 155, 159 reticence 92, 133, 138, 147 causes of 41–2, 185 learner 138, 185 silence and 13–15, 152–3 silence as 40–2, 152 teacher responsibility for learner 58–60, 138 ways to handle 60–2 rules for silence and talk 88 shift between silence and talk 35 silence and affect 154–5

10/12/2013 09:04

228 Index appropriate/expected 18 as autonomy 166 in classroom relationship 164, 170 excessive 67, 98 as a form of talk 11 functions of 158 gap in silence 52–3 high-order 88 as inferior to talk 28 and L2 input 20–1 and L2 output 22–4 misused 108 nature of 110 as participation 39, 156–7 in pedagogy 116–19 in peer relationship 159–60 quality of 166 as resistance 13 as reticence 40 reticence distinction 13–5 silent period, the 3, 15–16, 144, 149, 163–5 in SLA 18–20, 21, 24, 26, 169 spectrum of 12–13 types of 48–9 as weakness 35–6 silence research/research on silence 18, 31, 46–7, 52, 189 silent learners/students 2, 11, 17, 38, 83, 148, 159, 167, 173, 182–3 silent period, the 3, 15–16, 144, 149, 163–5 space for attentive listening 108 for autonomy 94 for cognitive engagement 153–4 for collaboration 13 for constructing knowledge 1, 6 for creativity 53 inner 86 for learning 21, 107 for mental processing/thinking 11, 67, 151 for observation 81 for others to learn 152 for personalization 12 for problem solving 35 for processing data 21

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 228

for reflection/reflectivity 11, 79, 103, 109, 160, 166 for renewing brain power 10 for response to challenge 48 for self-control 130 for self-protection 1 67 for showing respect 57, 103, 160 for talk 116–17 for understanding 171 for verbal contribution 38, 81, 87, 126, 157, 166 talk academic 101 appropriate 17 classroom 101, 109, 126, 183 collaborative 103 conditions for 106 detrimental 57, 61–2, 103 empty 131 excessive 19, 98 expected 34 high-quality 39 as inferior to action 3 as interference with learning 12 invasive 39 irrelevant 76 management 60 minimal 11 monopolizing 104 nature of 110 as the norm 11 overpowering 40 peer 110 premature 79 for processing information 21 quality of 142, 148, 166 random 67 relative value of 1 self-talk 22, 102, 116–19, 128–9 silent 31, 34 social 101 spontaneous 98, 172 as superior to silence 3 timely 182 types of 187 unusable 37 useful 141 value of 63, 135

10/12/2013 09:04

Index talkativeness 93 teacher influence/role 58, 60, 91, 133, 185 teacher silence 116–17 teacher talk 127, 183 timing of silence and talk 102

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 229

229

translation from inner to external speech 118 from one language to another 98, 102, 163 value of silence and talk 98

10/12/2013 09:04

9781441102706_txt_print.indd 230

10/12/2013 09:04