Today we each taught, in groups of three, using the Silent Way. I taught Spanish, and since my Spanish has reverted to an infantile stage it was, in itself, a stretch. The lesson in that — which was pointed out to me in the critique after I finished — was that I needed more confidence in myself and my subject. My lack made it difficult for my students to follow me with assurance.
When I taught, I used one rod to represent a woman (una mujer) and then I assembled several others to make a car, with headlights and wheels so that its direction was clear. I went back and forth between these two for a while: mujer and automovil. Then I introduced the first of four relationship adverbs: inside. I put the woman inside the car and repeated the word. Then I gave the woman and had them do the same. I tried not to talk, and when I could I pointed to one or the other who was remember or saying the word correctly. I think I always gave them the chance to produce it first, before I stepped in with the missing word. Then I put the woman outside the car, in front of it and behind it. At one point I asked them (breaking the rules) if we should move on or stick with what we were doing. They told me they needed more review.
Thoughts about my teaching: I don’t like this method — at least not in its strong form. I find it rigid, with little room for spontaneity. I’m sure I’m missing a lot about it — or about the world of teaching in general — but I felt confined to pursuing a pre-established path and not to tailor the lesson to the mood of the moment. I was observant, however, of the progress of my students. But even when I thought they still needed more time, I felt I was being boring and needed to move forward: thus my question about whether I should move on or stay put. It felt very unnatural to me, and stilted. I have nothing against playing with blocks but playing with blocks should be more fun. I appreciate that this method could be really good for some students, but I’m not sure which ones. Creative ones like me are likely to be as frustrated with the rigidity of the exercise. Maybe if they could build something and then name it, rather than just play with grammar and relationships and vocabulary in a repetitious but not necessarily “sticky” way, they would enjoy it more. Who WOULD the ideal learners be for the Silent Way? I don’t know. I can see its value most when it comes to learning phonetics. Is it better suited for new learners or more experienced ones? My sense is that it could work best if you have a foundation in the language. Large groups or small? In my group of eight with Beverly my affective filter went way up as I fell, very publicly, further behind. Yet in our groups of three this morning, there wasn’t enough peer support to make the work viable.
In my group Sua taught Korean. I liked her manner. She said things again and again and again. But she wasn’t supposed to. That’s not the silent way. But I WANTED her to do that. I wanted to hear a native accent, rather than to parrot another learner. With both of my “teachers” (David and Sua) I couldn’t tell if I was getting the accent right unless they spoke. I didn’t know, when I said something and they didn’t comment, if I was getting it right or if they just gave up on the finer points of pronunciation.
In summary of our lesson today: as a teacher I found it frustrating and uninspiring, and I didn’t feel that my students took away much. That could be because of my lack of confidence or an error in my approach, or because they didn’t have enough of a foundation in Spanish to make it stick, or because their learning styles weren’t suited to this method. As a student I found that, while I would remember something as long as it was the latest thing we said, I would forget it the second we went on to the next word. Both David and Sua were more successful than I in recall. Particularly David, who went on to form original sentences with what he’d heard.
This critique aside, I think there are aspects of The Silent Way that I could incorporate into my teaching. Without the rods (with or without the Fidel chart) it’s a useful tool for fine-tuning pronunciation. I don’t think I’d use it for teaching grammar or verb forms. Manipulatives in general are good for describing spatial relationships, and possibly the Silent Way, with intermediate students, would be a good way to build on that. I don’t disagree with the idea that students need the opportunity to create and process their own speech without teacher interference: that’s a principle that’s useful. But the Silent Way seems such an extreme form of it. Instead, I can see myself building short exercises of ten or so minutes around a peer-correcting, independent exercise that I kicked off and then stepped back from. I don’t yet know what that would be, but I’d like to keep it in my arsenal.
To return to the original template…
Subject Matter
Objective View
Vocabulary. Spatial relationships. Numbers. Simple commands. Colors.
Subjective View
I think the Silent Way, in a “weak” form, is a potentially effective way to work with spatial relationships because of the tangible nature of the manipulatives. For certain basic vocabulary it could be okay, but at that point you’re using the rods to represent an abstraction, unless you’re talking about color and number and size: things that the rods actually are, properties that the rods actually have.
Language
Objective View
What does it teach about language? As above, very simple sentence structure in the present tense, and usually the command form. “Making meaning perceptible.”
Subjective View
I still don’t see it as a great tool for teaching language beyond the simple sentence level, though all the materials written by Caleb and others advocate for its usefulness in that respect. Part of my reason for saying this is that what is taught, in my case, flees the mind with haste, not dwelling long enough to sink in and “make meaning perceptible.” I’m basing this on having had one lesson in three languages and giving one lesson. It may be that multiple lessons would lead to more success in language acquisition.
Culture
Objective View
I’ve never heard this mentioned as a feature of the approach, and found it notably absent.
Subjective View
And that’s a significant “con.” Context and culture are absent from what I saw. Though I imagine they could be introduced, it would seem very artificial.
Learners
Objective View
I don’t know how they define their learners, but it seems as though they use this method for a range of abilities and ages.
Subjective View
I fail big time in this approach. I get nervous about the performance and feel rotten that everyone else is getting it faster than me. When David taught today he went over and over and over the same things so that I didn’t feel left behind, but there were only two “students” and we were similarly struggling. What happens when there are more students, some of whom are accelerated? And when Bev taught us in our group of eight, I know I felt awful. The more I fell behind, the more I tuned out.
Learning
Objective View
This is supposed to be a method that allows the student to formulate his or own strategies for learning, to crank the brain into making associations so that s/he can learn without the “clutter” of teacher input. The idea, I think, is to free the brain of “noise” so that it can develop and apply its own learning functions. How much learning takes place? It can be tested (CCQ) over the short term in watching how students remember on the spot, and how certain students are able to recombine (produce) language from the bits they’ve been taught. But I don’t know what longitudinal studies show.
Subjective View
I would really like to know who this works for. As said ad nauseum, it does not work for me. I feel put on the spot. I forget something once we’ve moved on to the next. It doesn’t feel natural to me, and I need props and prompts. I want to scratch out a note for reference. I like having the visual help of a word on a piece of paper. Does that make me rely too much on my eyes and not enough on my brain? Yes, probably. But otherwise I forget.
Interestingly, the day after the Afrikaans session, I didn’t remember a thing. In the next class I heard someone say “staafi” again, though, and now it’s stuck in my brain. So during my Korean and German learning today, staafi, instead of the appropriate Korean and German words (whatever they were), kept popping into my brain.
Teacher
Objective View
The teacher plans the lesson — words or other language to be learned — and then presents it with as little verbal involvement as possible. As mentioned elsewhere and also quoted from the book, the teacher is an astute director who sets the stage and writes the script and then listens and watches very carefully so that s/he can direct only as absolutely necessary.
Subjective View
First of all, that’s very hard to do. When I (and my fellow students) saw people struggle, we wanted to give them the verbal support of repeating the word in question. David did a really good job of gauging exactly where his two students (Sua and I) were in the learning process. I could see him adjusting his plan accordingly, on the fly. He adapted spontaneously to the situation. Sua was slow and patient and encouraging, repeating words again and again. As I said, that wasn’t very silent, but I found it important to hear the words from a native speaker. I thought that, for me as someone who listens for a living, that it would be easier to keep my mouth shut. Sometimes I think I had to leap in, because my two students were floundering. I did a lot with my mouth and eyes, and some with my fingers as instructed (trying to show which syllable needed pronunciation work or needed to be remembered). But other times, in retrospect, I realize that the Silent Way would have had me maintain the silence past a comfortable point, which apparently can lead to some breakthroughs on the part of the student. Uncomfortable with silence and with struggling, I didn’t do well on that part. Again, I think this system would be easier for me if I were working just with pronunciation rather than vocabulary and grammar.
Teaching
Objective View
Oops. I think I’m still not getting the SIT distinction between “teacher” and “teaching,” etc. So I think I already answered this question. The teaching is designed to let the student lead the learning. The teaching is very engaged but very… silent.
Subjective View
I’m being redundant again. I don’t find this approach rewarding as a teacher. I prefer active engagement with students, in exchanges that bring out who they are and who I am. I like the spontaneity of genuine conversation and interaction rather than formalized ritual. I’ve never been good at staying within rigid boundaries, which is why I think that, if I use this approach at all, it will be pieces of it in “weak” form. Because I do think elements — the manipulatives, the repetition in something other than choral form, and the activation of the students’ learning brain — are valuable.
Educational Outcomes
Objective View
I definitely addressed this early. I don’t know what they say are the outcomes. I mean, I know they say the method is effective, but for whom, and after how much time, and in combination with what (if any) other methods, and with which subject matter?
Subjective View
I’d be interested to do an informal survey of my fellow students to see who recalls what. Maybe I will. My outcome, in each of my three attempts, were poor. A failure. While David and Sua did well during my session (despite my garbled Spanish — one really does need to know well and be comfortable wearing one’s subject matter), I don’t know if they recalled it afterwards.
Context
Objective View
The classroom. A intently focused group.
Subjective View
Yup. The classroom. An artificial construct within the classroom.