University of Phoenix Research Hub



Kōina Leo: Leading Learners in ?lelo Hawai’i Using “The Silent Way” MethodologyJane A. Schumacher Ed.D. and Cody Pueo Pata, Kumu HulaUniversity of PhoenixAuthor NoteThe authors would like to thank all of the cultural practitioners in the five hula halaū who graciously and humbly allowed us to learn from them. Readers of this document are hereby granted permission to use this document for learning purposes, granted that acknowledgment of both authors of this study/document are listed in written form with any use. You may not sell this document either by itself or in combination with any other products or services. AbstractPolitical activists, university faculty, and kumu hula have become more and more engaged in teaching ‘ōlelo Hawai’i (Hawaiian language) in efforts to revitalize an indigenous language that was close to extinction. This participatory participatory action research study examines the roles of leaders of ‘ōlelo Hawai’i instruction and the impact of direct instruction on learners, through the use of “The Silent Way” methodology (Gattegno, 2010; Gattegno, 1972; Gattegno, 1963) in both face to face and online teaching and learning. Research objectives were (1) examination of leadership strategies for attraction and retention of ōlelo Hawai’i instruction; (2) exploration of the impact on leaders of “The Silent Way” methodology; and (3) exploration of the impact on learners of “The Silent Way” methodology in face to face and online learning. This study address a gap in the current literature regarding the use of “The Silent Way” methodology in teaching and learning ōlelo Hawai’i. Additionally, the resurgence and revitalizaiton of ōlelo Hawai’i was explored through participant observation, individual interviews, and researcher field notes to explore the changing roles of leaders and learners of ‘ōlelo Hawai’i language instruction. Keywords: leaders, Hawaiian language, Hawaiian culture, “The Silent Way”, participatory action researchKōina Leo: Leading Learners in ?lelo Hawai’i Using “The Silent Way” Methodologykō.ina. n. Urging, insistence...KO–I–NA s. See KOI, to force. A pressure; a compulsion; a forcing.Koina (k?'–ī'–na), n. 1. A pressure; a compulsion; a forcing. 2. A requisition; something required...leo. nvt. Voice, tone, tune, melody, command, advice, syllable, plea, verbal message; tospeak, make a sound (Retrieved on March 18, 2017 from ).kōina leo: an urging–or insistence–of the voice.BackgroundThis participatory action research study was conducted as a result of Kumu Pueo Pata’s experiences in teaching ‘ōlelo Hawai’i through the use of an instructional methodology called, “The Silent Way” (Gattegno, 1973) and by Jane Schumacher’s work as a qualitative researcher and her commitment to becoming a Hawaiian cultural practitioner. A strong personal and professional relationship between Pata and Schumacher began in 2007 and resulted Pata’s interest in and acceptance of Schumacher as a kama`aina (resident of Hawai’I but not born in the Hawaiian Islands) and as a Hawaiian cultural learner. There is a paucity of current literature about the use of “The Silent Way” instructional methodology with `oleleo Hawai’i learners in the community and with members of hula halaū (hula and cultural schools), in order to deepen the understanding of and commitment to becoming Hawaiian cultural practitioners. This study was designed to address this gap and could benefit other leaders, students, and researchers interested in enhancing their own experiences in using this instructional method to learn `olelo Hawai’ and to further their own knowledge as cultural practitioners in an indigenous culture. The use of ōlelo Hawai’i post instruction using “The Silent Way” instructional methodology across student learning communities and hula halaū in Hawai’i and Japan, is anticipated to expand and extend participant learning and confidence as cultural practitioners.Hawaiian Culture and ‘?lelo Hawai’i (Hawaiian Language)Brief Overview of the Hawaiian IslandsThe Hawaiian Islands have been inhabited since the 9th century when wa’a (voyaging canoes) brought the first explorers and settlers from Polynesia. These Polynesians brought with them stories of their origin, the Kumulipo, which ordered their lives and the relationships between themselves, plants, ‘aina (land) , and kai (sea). These very relationships form the way that indigenous Hawaiians who descended from their ancestors see the world and how they live in it. Hawai’i, prior to colonization, was a sovereign nation ruled by ali’i (royalty) since the 9th century. Seven separate islands, (Ni’ihaū, Kaua’i, O’ahu, Molokai, Maui, Kaho’olawe, and Hawai’i) make up the Hawaiian island chain (Retrieved on April 12, 2017 from .) Figure 1. Map of Hawaiian Islands.Each island was ruled by its own ali’i (royalty) until all of the islands were unified under King Kamehameha in 1810 ( ). ‘?lelo Hawai’i (Hawaiian language) was an integral component of commonality throughout the islands and while spoken language was a part of that oral communication system, so were facial expressions, hand gestures, music, chant, and hula. These components of ‘`ōlelo Hawai’i are still present and are passed from generation to generation, often in hula halaū (schools of hula and culture). Before colonization by Europeans (Caucasians), the indigenous population of native language speakers numbered between 400,000 and 500,00 ( ), which continued to decline as wave after wave of Caucasian explorers, missionaries, and whalers continued to impact the decline of the indigenous population and ‘ōlelo Hawai’i. Sugar cane and pineapple industries imported workers from Portugal, Puerto Rico, China, Japan, Philipines, and other countries further diluting the use of the ‘ōlelo Hawai’i. ?lelo Hawai’iIn 1814, ?pūkaha‘ia, a Hawaiian man, began writing a book and dictionary to document and translate ōlelo Hawai’i, an oral language, into a written language (Ahapunanoleo, 2013). King Liholiho, the sovereign king of the nation of Hawai’i, oversaw the establishment of traditional hula hālau (hula and cultural schools) that served Hawaiian haumana (students) at the same time that missionaries from New England were working on crafting the Hawaiian alphabet with vowels and consonants from 1822-1841 (Ahapunanaleo, 2013). King Kamehameha III, the now sovereign king of the nation of Hawai’i, incorporated these Hawaiian language and culture schools into a formalized system of public education that still continues (Hawaiian Department of Education, 2017). This action helped to make Hawai’i one of the most fully literate countries in the world.In 1842, private schools such as Punahou, ‘Ionlani, and St. Andrew’s Priory on O`ahu, were established by the missionaries to ensure that English speaking missionary children would not be influenced by the Hawaiian culture and language. The speaking, reading, or writing of Hawaiian language was forbidden in these private schools. When the sugar cane industry became a major industry in Hawai’i in the early 1850s, workers from Japan, China, the Philipines, Portugal, and other nations arrived in Hawai’i to live and work. Oral and written communication was challenging between and among these diverse cultural groups and a “…form of broken Hawaiian called ōlelo pa’i’ai (pidgin) was used (but not Hawaiian language)…”(Ahapunanaleo, 2013). Students and teachers in the public education system, although not using English in their daily lives, were forced to use a mixture of Hawaiian and English that was similar to ōlelo pa’i’ai (pidgin) that was used by the plantation immigrants. Pidgin became a language of frustration and resistance, inserting identity challenges between Pidgin speaking children and their Hawaiian speaking families in both home and in academic settings. By 1984, only a few indigenous native ōlelo Hawai’i speakers, including less than 50 children under age 18, were left in the Hawaiian Islands and they all lived on the isolated island of Ni’ihau. The decline of the use of traditional ōlelo Hawai’i is the result of the history of the Hawaiian Islands and another indigenous language was and yet is today, lost to many.Resurgence of Interest in ?lelo Hawai’iFishman (2000) explained that “…Reversing language shift is basically not about language, certainly not just about language; it about adhering to a notion of a complete, not necessarily unchanging, self defining way of life…” (p. 14). Ethnic and/or cultural groups such as Hawaiian hula halaū have become venues for a trend researched by Fishman (2001; 1991; 1990) and entitled “reversing language shift”. Fishman’s explanation of this phenomena indicated that a renewal effort of these groups to reclaim and use their native language attempts to counteract colonialism and a use of English as a predominant language. While the terms “renewal” and “revival” are often used to describe the efforts of ethnic and cultural groups to broaden the use of their native language, Hohepa (2000) used the term “regeneration” to describe this process. Tremendous growth in the revitalization of ōlelo Hawai’i has occurred since the late 1980s in the public schools in Hawai’i. Punana Leo (Hawaiiam immersion schools) are now found on Ka’uai, O’ahu, Maui, and Hawai’i Island. The University of Hawai’i offers four year programs in Hawaiian Language and Culture as well as offering graduate and doctoral programs in the same fields. Hula hālau have seen a resurgence of interest and offer hula and cultural classes for cultural practitioners. The University of Hawai’i –Manoa and Hilo engaged in use of an instructional methodology created by a mathematician, Caleb Gattegno, with great success, which led to this research interest in using this instructional method of teaching `oleleo Hawai’i within hula hālau.The Silent Way Instructional MethodologyGattegno first introduced “The Silent Way” instructional methodology in his seminal book, “Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way (1963). Five principles made up the foundation of The Silent Way instructional methodology. First, Gattegno believed that teachers needed to redefine their own roles and focus on student learning, rather than emphasizing the role of teacher as the leader of learning. A second principle was that student learning consisted of successes and failures and that students needed to experiment with their learning. A companion belief was that teachers needed to hold back judgment of students’ efforts to learn. Third, Gattegno believed that learners used their own experiences to draw upon as they learn something new. Fourth, the teacher, as such, could not interfere with students’ learning as each student needed to rely upon his/her own experiences to assimilate new learning. Finally, Gattegno learned that students needed to have authentic learning experiences and not the “skill and drill’ instruction common to many instructional practices. Table 1: Principles of “The Silent Way” translated to guidelines for learning ‘ōlelo Hawai’iPrinciplePrinciples in‘?lelo Hawai’i Translation of principlesTeacher as leader of learningE hiki mai me ka no?ono?o kuana he hiki loa nō.Come with a can-do attitude. You can only be successful in this class if you have a positive attitude.Student experimentation with learningE aloha a mālama kekahi i kekahi.Be considerate to–and care for–one another. Allow each person the opportunity to learn from the kumu and/or the lessons in asupportive and aloha-filled environment.Student uses own experiences to draw uponE ha?aha?a a hāmama ka na?au.Remain humble with and open mind and heart. Be open to learning new concepts.Teacher observes but does not interfere with student learningE ?ōlelo mai ?oe ke ?ōlelo ?ia aku wale nō.Speak only when spoken to. Do not prompt others, or speak on their behalf.Students need authentic learning experiencesE ?ōlelo Hawai?i wale nō!Speak only in Hawaiian! Do not use Japanese and/or any other language except for Hawaiian. There are several other components of The Silent Way, based upon the foundational principles, that are critical to understand. Accurate pronunciation of words was a central feature of this instructional method and words were repeated over and over again in the classroom learning process. Sentence structures form the context for the use of vocabulary so that words are not used in isolation, rather, they are used within sentence patterns found in the language being learned. Vocabulary development or the addition of new vocabulary in context was the responsibility of each student. New vocabulary was acquired outside of the classroom and was supplemented by both a private online learning form for practice and a dictionary that is often English to, for example, Hawaiian, and Hawaiian to English. Assessment of student learning was authentic and occurred through real-time observation in each classroom learning session.The Silent Way method of language instruction also involved the use of Cuisenaire Rods as manipulatives in the student learning process. Cuisenaire Rods are wooden rods of various sizes and colors that are used to represent different words or sentence structural patterns in the language being learned. Typically, teachers used a sound-color chart that associates sounds or sentence parts with specific colors as illustrated in the diagram below (see Figure 2). Figure 2. Example of four sentence structures present in ōlelo Hawai’i using Cuisenaire Rods.Role of the Learner in The Silent Way Methodology The student’s role in “The Silent Way” instruction is to bring students’ own learning experiences and inner awarenesses into the process of learning a new language. Students follow the rules (guidelines) posted in the classroom and modeled by the teacher leader. For instance, in this research project, Pata developed and used the following guidelines for student learning (see Figure 2). Figure 3: Class rules for Koina Leo. 2016-2017.CLASS RULES:1. E hiki mai me ka no?ono?o kuana he hiki loa nō. – Come with a can-do attitude.You can only be successful in this class if you have a positive attitude.2. E ha?aha?a a hāmama ka na?au. – Remain humble with and open mind and heart.Be open to learning new concepts.3. E aloha a mālama kekahi i kekahi. – Be considerate to–and care for–one another.Allow each person the opportunity to learn from the kumu and/or the lessons in asupportive and aloha-filled environment.4. E ?ōlelo mai ?oe ke ?ōlelo ?ia aku wale nō. – Speak only when spoken to.Do not prompt others, or speak on their behalf.5. E ?ōlelo Hawai?i wale nō! – Speak only in Hawaiian! Do not use any other language except for Hawaiian. This ALSO extends to writing.Role of the Leader in The Silent Way Methodology The teacher's role in “The Silent Way” instructional method is to help students attend to their learning and to create exercises that help students master the new language. As Gattegno stated, "The teacher works with the student; the student works on the language." (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Teachers observe students but provide neither verbal praise or judgment in order to help students develop reliance on their own learning and intrinsic reward.Silence is used as a powerful teaching and learning tool in The Silent Way method. Silence is used to focus student attention on the learning task at hand. The teacher also uses silence to encourage students’ oral participation and to encourage trial and error experimentation in the learning process. Student often self correct their own mistakes during the silent wait times. Teachers do use hand signals, may point to manipulatives or charts in the classroom, or may point to another student to assist with pronunciation. Research MethodologyA qualitative methodology and design of participatory action research (PAR) has been defined as “… jointly producing knowledge with others to produce critical interpretations and readings of the world, which are accessible, understandable to all those involved and actionable. (Chatterton, Fuller & Routledge, 2007). Elements common to various definitions of PAR include the importance of participant engagement, collaborative participation of the investigator and the study participants, deepening of knowledge and understanding, and recommendations (Schumacher, 2001). PAR addresses the stories that are told by participants and the conversations between the investigator and the participants about those stories. Caxaj (2015) investigated storytelling and participatory participatory action research (PAR) and found that the use of these two research designs had potential with indigenous communities, as many indigenous populations had oral histories and communication styles. PAR has been found to be a useful and collaborative tool for use with indigenous communities as the participant investigator is seen as an equal partner in the learning along with the participants (Blodgett et al., 2011) These two research designs, participatory participatory action research (PAR) and storytelling were therefore relevant and appropriate as a revitalization of ‘ōlelo Hawai’i was inherent in this study. Research Questions Research questions for this participatory action research project were derived from initial interests in exploring the impacts of the use of “The Silent Way” instructional methodology on leaders and learners in the revitalization of Hawaiian language within the hula halau. The research questions used for this study were: In what way(s) does the use of “The Silent Way” methodology influence members of hula halau to learn `Olelo Hawai`i? R1: Does a leader’s choice of using “The Silent Way” instructional methodology reflect the indigenous culture’s norms and values? R2: How do a leader’s perspectives on perpetuation of `Olelo Hawai`i become useful in building local community? The research questions were field tested among three other kumu hula in Hawai’i and were refined based upon the feedback of the field test participants. Participant interviews and observations were used to generate a thick and rich description of the cultural patterns and behaviors of each participant and participant group. Interview data were studied through thematic analysis using Nvivo software, a qualitative data analysis program to look for themes and to interpret meanings from the data collected. PopulationThe population selected for this study were members of 5 hula halaū (Hawaiian cultural and hula schools) located on in the state of Hawai’i (Maui and O’ahu) as well as three hula halaū in Japan (Tokyo and Yokohama). Each of these five hula halaū are led by Pata who traveled between Hawai’i and Japan to teach and lead instruction in hula, Hawaiian culture, and ōlelo Hawai’i multiple times during each year of this study. Each halaū included students who are committed to being Hawaiian cultural practitioners through their knowledge and practice of hula, chant, and cultural practices including Hawaiian language instruction. The leader (teacher) of each language learning group in our study was Pata as he had the ‘ike (knowledge) and mana’o (expertise) of both fluency in ōlelo Hawai’i and in use of “The Silent Way” instructional method for teaching indigenous languages. The student (learner) population under study was specifically engaged in learning to listen to and speak ōlelo Hawai’i with a deep understanding of Hawaiian sentence structures and vocabulary. These language learning groups from the halaū were assigned to groups of no more than 10 students each, as intensive leader / learner engagement was required for use of “The Silent Way” method of instruction. The purpose of studying both the leader and the learners in this participatory action research study was to participate as participant researchers while teaching and learning, to explore how the roles of leader and learner are impacted through use of “The Silent Way” methodology, and to learn from themes that emerged in the study how use of “The Silent Way” method might be used in other hula halaū and in the larger local communities under study. To be eligible for this study, the leader had to be fluent in listening, speaking, reading and writing ōlelo Hawai’i and had to have had experience in using “The Silent Way” method to teach an indigenous language learning group in a local community. Learners had to have been engaged in cultural practitioner training through hula and chant for at least 3 years. Each member of the learner groups under study were contacted by the researchers in face to face meetings with each group of 10 students. Data Collection Data collected for this study included: halau (focus) groups, individual interviews with participants, and a review of a vast archive of documents related to the revitalization of `olelo Hawai’i. Focus group conversations lasted approximately 30-60 minutes in order to pose questions to the group, listen to voices, and translation from language to language. Individual interviews were conducted and took place for 15-30 minutes in order to clarify points or to pose further questions for clarity regarding how the use of “The Silent Way” helped students achieve greater accuracy and self confidence in using `oleleo Hawai’i. Documents relevant to use of ‘The Silent Way” instructional methodology were reviewed and coded thematically. Data Analysis Five major themes relevant to the research questions in this study emerged following the analysis of the data. The themes that emerged through the data analysis process were aligned with the research questions and revealed common themes across the data. These themes were (1) importance of leaders modeling what is expected for student learning experience, (2) learning in a culturally appropriate and reflective style, (3) increased students’ personal engagement in learning to speak `olelo Hawai’i, (4) interconnectedness of learning `olelo Hawai’i to more deeply understand the context of vocabulary, and (5) increased value of collective as well as individual learning. Theme 1: Importance of leaders modeling what is expected for student learning experience. Use of “The Silent Way” instructional method required that the leader and the learners both viewed and used their roles in the instructional process. Stevick (1980, p. 56) defined the leader’s tasks as “…(a) to teach, (b) to test, and (c) to get out of the way.” It is important to note that the leader used silent (nonverbal) cues to instruct each student. Stevick’s concept of testing meannt that student learning was assessed in real time, in other words, silent cues were given to either praise or to correct student learning. Finally, the leader provided clear expectations for student learning and then stepped aside as students engaged in the process. Theme 2: Learning in a culturally appropriate and reflective styleUtley, Kozelski, Smith, and Draper (2002) discussed culturally relevant teaching and learning as being critical in addressing the academic and the social curriculum. Gay (2000) found that culturally responsive teaching was a way to link a student’s own experience with their culture to ways of thinking and learning that give honor to what students know from their own prior experiences in life. Kawai’ae’a (2011) facilitated the development of “Moenaha: A culture based curriculum design and instructional method” that integrated the work of McCarthy’s (1996) 4MAT components. Moenaha utilized four components that make up culturally relevant learning for Indigenous Hawaiian students. These four components were: (1) relationships, (2) relevance, (3) rigor, and (4) responsibility. Culturally relevant instruction and learning as described in Moenaha in this project was evidenced by participant comments. Participant 9J stated, “Japan has a spirit to words where words mean more than what they immediately say. Words are connected to spirit.” Relevance to learning is evident in this comment as the student linked instruction in `olelo Hawa’i with how she was taught in her native country, Japan. Participant 9M shared, “Japanese students are used to learning word by word.” Since the use of “The Silent Way” method to teach `olelo Hawai’i teaches sentence structure through the use of five Hawaiian sentence patterns, vocabulary was introduced through the students’ own learning. Students found that it was a relevant and rigorous process to both learn five sentence structures I class and then to learn vocabulary through independent study and practice in their own learning to learn to speak `olelo Hawai’i. Participant 9C stated, “In classes, we place meanings in different locations in our hālau [method of loci]. That makes our space feel special, sacred. “This statement reflects the important of the leader teacher relationship and communication of ideas in place based learning as well as relevant learning. Place based learning is culturally relevant to indigenous Hawaiians so the connection of both place and sacred space experienced by participants was reflected in their learning. Participant 9M shared, “So, there were things before that I wasn’t certain about before but he makes it clear that it is my own kuleana (responsibility) to learn what is being taught.” Student engagement in learning and the importance of learning being the student’s responsibility is evidenced here. The Moenaha component of responsibility demands that students understand that learning opportunities are presented by the leader, however, the learning that takes place is the responsibility of the individual and the collective community. Participant 9F stated, “He (Kumu) makes us search for the answers. The more I learn, the more I want to know. Maybe it will never stop.” An online learning community was established to encourage students to learn new vocabulary as well as to practice using the new vocabulary between classes. A private Facebook forum facilitated by Pata gave students an asynchronous way to extend their learning. Students reviewed sentence structures and then were asked to post their own responses to questions asked by Pata in the online learning community. One participant stated, “It was so much harder to learn in the online forum because I didn’t have my hula sisters to practice with and to support me!”. This statement also reinforced the finding that relationships were important to learning as found in the Moenaha framework.Theme 3: increased students’ personal engagement in learning to speak `olelo Hawai’i,Gattegno’s (1972) “The Silent Way” instructional method is predicated on active student engagement in the learning process. Student comments from all five halau included an increase in personal engagement in the learning process as a result of “The Silent Way” instructional method. Students commented, “(I have to)…personally understand words and mo’olelo (stories; chants) both” and “I have to work hard on my own to learn so that I can be the best kumu hula I can be” showed that personal engagement in learning was reflected in each individual student. Comments about the importance of using `olelo Hawai’i in every day circumstances revealed a transfer of classroom to real-life learning. Participant 9J stated, “He (Kumu Pueo) makes us learn on our own. I think this will not stop when class is over.” Participant 6C stated, “I walk down the street and think about how to translate what I see into the sentences and vocabulary I am learning.”.Theme 4: Increased value of collective learning The final theme revealed in the data analysis for this study was that leaders of “The Silent Way” instructional method in teaching `olelo Hawai’i made students aware from the beginning of instruction of what the ground rules and expectations for collective learning in the classroom were and how those guidelines would be monitored.. Both individual and collective learning experiences were enhanced when the guidelines for student learning were made clear and were also posted in writing. Participant 9M referred to the guidelines used in each class session and how it “…set the school style” for each class. Participant 9M continued, “He (Pata) uses the language so well for us to understand...meaning English, Hawaiian, and Japanese all together. Which I didn’t really ever learn that way (before). “ Participant 6D stated, “So there were things before that I wasn’t certain about before (class), but (Pata) makes it so clear so that it is my kuleana (responsibility) to understand for follow perfectly in class.” Adult learners benefited from the leader setting clear and concise expectations for student learning (Marzano, 2003). A critical factor is creating a supportive and encouraging teacher-student relationship is to ensure that both individual learning and collective learning are addressed in each classroom and practice experience (Baker et al., 2008). Additionally, the relationship between leader and student allowed the student to feel secure in the learning environment (Marzano, 2003). Participant 9M stated, “(Pata) He doesn’t just teach. He teaches us why it is important to know.” Pata stated, “It’s simple. I teach. Students learn.” Recommendations for Further Study This research was undertaken to fill a gap in the literature about how the use of “The Silent Way” instructional methodology might impact members of the community and hula halau to learn to speak `olelo Hawai’I and in order to deepen understanding of and commitment to becoming Hawaiian cultural practitioners. Through the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data in this study, four themes emerged that other indigenous Hawaiian language leaders, students, and participant researchers could use in their own instruction of `oleleo Hawai’i. First, future leaders of `olelo Hawai’I instruction must model for students what is expected in student learning. Leaders must be willing to be facilitators of student learning rather than being the center of attention in the learning process. Leaders must be skilled in using silent cues to help students uncover meaning from their learning. Leaders must also set clear expectations for what they expect their students to do in this culture of “silent” learning. Second, future leaders of `olelo Hawai’i must engage in culturally relevant instructional strategies as well as in the use of “The Silent Way” methodology. The instructional framework of Moe`naha suggests that learners move through four phases of learning relevant to cultural practitioners. These four phases, (1) relationships, (2) relevance, (3) rigor, and (4) responsibility should be embedded within the leaders use of “The Silent Way” instructional methodology.Third, students must be willing to engage both personally and collectively in the processing of learning to speak `olelo Hawai’i. Personal commitment in classroom learning and in using what they are learning in “real-life” situations may be enhanced by the close relationships that are formed between the leader and the learners. Collective learning, such as working together in classroom learning; going together on field trips created to enhance “real life” practice of vocabulary and sentence structures in `olelo Hawai’I; and informal learning sessions outside of class such as dinners, social activities, and practices provide opportunities to practice new learning in safe environments.Conclusion This participatory action research study examined the roles of leaders and learners of ‘ōlelo Hawai’i and the impact of direct instruction on learners, through the use of “The Silent Way” methodology (Gattegno, 2010; Gattegno, 1972; Gattegno, 1963) in both face to face and online teaching and learning. This study was undertaken to examine leadership strategies for engaging and retaining students of Hawaiian language, for examining the roles of both leader and student in this instructional methodology, and for exploring the impact of this instructional methodology in face to face and in online learning. Five themes emerged from an analysis of the qualitative data gathered. These four themes were (1) importance of leaders modeling what is expected for student learning experience, (2) learning in a culturally appropriate and reflective style, (3) increased students’ personal engagement in learning to speak `olelo Hawai’i, (4) interconnectedness of learning `olelo Hawai’i to more deeply understand the context of vocabulary, and (5) increased value of collective as well as individual learning. Recommendations for implementation of “The Silent Way” instructional methodology with indigenous language learners as derived from findings in this study are important to note. Leaders must actively model the expectations for learning that they hold for their students. Second, leaders must become facilitators of student learning rather than lecturers of information. Three, culturally relevant instructional practice must be embedded within “The Silent Way” instructional method. Finally, students must be individually and collectively engaged in the learning process and must practice their learning in real-life situations. ReferencesAh Ho, M. (1994). Learning and teaching the hula. Kamehameha Journal of Education, v5. p. 51-58. Fall, 1994. ?ha Pūnanaleo. Retrieved on April 23, 2017. , J. Grant, s., & Morlock, L.(2008). The teacher–student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 3-15.Blodgett, A. T., Schinke, R. J., Smith, B., Peltier, D., & Pheasant, C. (2011). In indigenous words: Exploring vignettes as a narrative strategy for presenting the research voices of Aboriginal community members. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 522–533. Bonwell, C.C., and J. A. Eison, “Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom,” ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, George Washington University, Washington, DC , 1991. Garrick, C., Arago-Kemp,V., Wylie, C., and Hodgen, E. E rerenga a te pirere: A longitudinal study of Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Maori students Purongo Tutatahi phase 1 report. New Zealand Council for Educational Research P O Box 3237, WellingtonNew Zealand.Elliot, J. (2001). Participatory action research for educational change. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Emerson, R. M, Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.).Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.? Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.? Gardner, S. E. B. “Without our language we will cease to exist as a unique people”. Retrieved on July 18, 2016 from HYPERLINK "" , C. (1976-2010). The common sense of teaching foreign languages. New York, NY: Educational Solutions Worldwide. Gattegno, C. (1963-2010). Teaching foreign language in schools: The silent way. New York, NY: Educational Solutions Worldwide. Grenoble, L.A. & Whaley, L.J. (2005). Saving languages: An introduction to language revitalization. London: Cambridge University Press. (King, J. (2001) in (Eds. L. Hinton & Hale, K. 2001). The green book of language revitalization in practice. Brill Online Books and Journals. Pp. 1-18; 75-86; 110-131; 133-146. . Grunert, Judith.?The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach. Bolton, MA:?Anker Publishing Co, Inc, 1997 Hohepa, Pat (2000). Towards 2030 AD: Maori language regeneration: examining Maori language health. Paper presented at the Applied Linguistics Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Polity Press. Ka’awa, M. & Hawkins, E. 1997. Incorporating technology into a Hawaiian language curriculum. Chapter 14, Teaching Indigenous Languages edit. by Jon Reyhner (pp. 151-157). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University Kimura, L., & Counceller, A. Indigenous new words creation prespectives from Alaska and Hawai’i. Retrived on July 18, 2016 from HYPERLINK "" King, J. Language is life: The worldview of second language speakers of Maōri. Kozelski, L. Culturally response teaching matters. Retrieved from on April 15, 2017 Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Teaching Techniques in English as a Second Language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 65. ISBN?978-0-19-435574-2. McCarty, T. L., Romero, M.E., Zepeda, O. (2006). Reclaiming the Gift; Indigenous youth conter-narratives on native langague loss and revitalization. The American Indian Quarterly 30.1 (2006) 28-48. Powell, A. B. (2007). Caleb Gattegno (1911-1988). A famous mathematics educator from Africa. RBHM, Especial no 1, p. 199-209. Prince, M. From J. Reyhner & L. Lockard (eds.). (2009). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Indigenous Language Revitalization: Encouragement, Guidance & Lessons Learned (pp. 97-108). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Retrieved on March 18, 2017 from Reyhner, J., Cantoni, G., St. Clair, R.N., & Yazzie, E. Eds. (2005; 1999). Revitalizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northen Arizona University Richards, J. C. 1984. The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 18, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)DOI: 10.2307/3586332 Stable URL: . The Silent Way. Retrieved on July 18, 2016 from Stiles, D.B. 1997. Four successful indigenous language programs. Chapter 21, Teaching Indigenous Languages, ed. by Jon Reyhner (pp. 148-262). edited by Jon Reyhner (pp. 148-262). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Torbert, W.R. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kohler. Utley, C. A., Kozleski, E. B., Smith, A., Draper, I. (2002). Positive behavioral support: A proactive strategy for minimizing discipline and behavior problems in urban, multicultural youth. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 4, 196-207. Varvel, T. (1979). The Silent Way: Panacea or Pipedream? TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 483-494. doi:1. Retrieved from doi:1 Young, R. Retrieved on July 18, 2016 from . Caleb Gattegnos ‘silent way: some of the reasons why. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download