Автор(-ы):
Golovinova Alina Radolyevna
29 декабря 2023
Научный руководитель
Danilin Sergei Alexandrovich
Секция
Педагогика
Ключевые слова
Аннотация статьи
The present paper is devoted to the question of the Silent Way approach implementation in English language teaching and is aimed to explore whether using the current approach in English lessons leads to primary students’ speaking skills development.
Текст статьи
1. Introduction
No doubt that nowadays the role of the English language in the world is significant. More and more young learners as well as teenagers and adults attend English lessons in order to master their English-speaking skills and become fluent and confident in daily communications. There is a number of different teaching methods and approaches presented and applied in various institutions across the world which aim to speed up the process of acquiring the language and facilitate students’ speaking skills. Some international schools experiment with different methods and techniques to derive an efficient way to teach the language to satisfy students’ requirements.
The current study investigates the implementation of the Silent Way (SW) approach in teaching primary school children and proves their considerable impact on facilitating their speaking skills. Therefore, the hypothesis of the current research is that the implementation and the adaptation of the SW approach in teaching English will improve primary students’ speaking skills.
The SW approach was founded and introduced by the Egyptian mathematician and educator Calleb Gattegno in 1963 in his book “Teaching foreign languages at schools: the Silent Way” [3]. The current approach was developed as a reaction to the Audio-Lingual Approach which was dominant and widely used in teaching foreign languages in the 1950-s. C. Gattegno put forward the following principles of the SW approach [1, 2]:
In accordance with the above-mentioned principles, SW lessons are to be supplemented with a variety of teaching materials, such as rods, pronunciation charts, pictures and real objects in class. Students are encouraged to show initiative and cooperate to discover the TL, find their own mistakes and complete the speaking tasks [1, 2, 5, 7].
2. Method
2.1. Settings, Participants and Materials
The current research was carried out in autumn and winter of 2022 in a private language school called “Linguistic” which is located in Moscow near Nekrasovka metro station. The experiment lasted for three months, including 22 lessons (29.3 academic hours) with the experimental group and 22 lessons (29.3 academic hours) with the control group. The participants of both groups were 1st and 2nd year primary school children with little or no experience in learning English. Both groups had lessons offline, sixty minutes long, twice a week. The participants of both groups studied in the same language school, used the same books and materials and were taught by the same teacher. However, the lessons with the experimental group were supplemented with some extra resources related to the SW techniques (rods and some pronunciation charts).
2.2. Procedure and Results
At the beginning and at the end of the experiment pre- and post-tests as well as regular observations were conducted.
Even though the tests for the control and experimental groups were identical, the post-test slightly differed from the pre-test and included a wider variety of questions. This is due to the fact, that during the three months of the experiment the students worked on some more vocabulary and grammatical structures which they could produce and demonstrate during the post-testing procedure.
Both pre- and post- tests had two parts:
Part 1 was aimed to test students’ ability to comprehend the questions, provide decent answers to them and ask similar questions. For example:
Teacher: What’s your name?
Student: I’m Varvara. What’s your name?
Teacher: I’m Alina. What’s this? (a window)
Student: It’s a window. What’s this? (a rubber)
Teacher: It’s a rubber. Is it a doll? (a ball)
Student: No, it isn’t. Is it a bike? (scooter)
Teacher: No, it isn’t. What colour is it? (yellow)
Student: It’s yellow. What colour is it? (green)
Teacher: It’s green. What’s your favourite colour?
Student: My favourite colour is white. What’s your favourite colour?
The criteria for the assessment of the first part of pre- and post-tests is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1
The criteria for the assessment of the first part of the speaking tests
Points |
Criteria |
---|---|
5 points |
students understand the question, demonstrate their abilities to answer it and ask a similar question confidently without any help of the teacher; students answer the question by giving a full answer with no or a minor mistake. |
4 points |
students understand the question and demonstrate their abilities to answer it and ask a similar question with minimal help of the teacher; students ask and answer the question by giving a full answer with a little hesitation and a potential mistake. |
3 points |
students understand the question and are able to give a short answer or a full answer with more than 1 mistake or / and with some hesitation; students manage to ask a question with some help of the teacher; |
2 points |
students understand the questions but give a short answer with a lot of hesitation; they may attempt to give a full answer with a few mistakes; students ask and answer the question with a great help of the teacher. |
1 point |
students may understand the questions but give a wrong answer (for example, if the teacher shows a ruler and asks what it is, the student answers that it is a rubber) or they may not fully understand the question but still make an attempt to answer it; students ask and answer the questions with a great help of the teacher; |
0 point |
students may understand or may not understand the question but do not make any attempts to answer it. |
As every question in both tests was assessed, the maximum possible score a student could receive for the test was 50 points. The mean score of both experimental and control groups is presented below in Table 2.
Table 2
Mean score of the first part of the speaking test
Mean score | |||
Experimental group |
Control group | ||
Pre-test |
Post-test |
Pre-test |
Post-test |
24,5 |
47 |
28 |
45,3 |
Part 2 of the experiment had been designed in a way that it gave students an opportunity to speak without teacher’s intervention and demonstrate their accuracy (“the state of being exact and correct; the ability to do something with skill and without making mistakes” [4]) and fluency (“continuity of the speech, its speed, pauses, breakdown and repair” [6: 33]) more distinctively. The procedure of this task was the following: the students were shown some flashcards and real objects which they had to use to make phrases with. For example:
Teacher: This is a yellow pencil.
Student: These are three books, these are two pencils, this is a rubber, this is a black scooter, these are eyes, these are shoulders, she’s a housewife, he’s a pilot.
To avoid repetitions, the teacher changed cards for every student.
To measure students’ fluency and accuracy, a recorder as well as a speech rate meter were used during pre- and post-tests. The teacher then listened to students’ responses and analysed their results (words per minute (WPM), mistakes and errors). The mean score of both groups is demonstrated in Figure 1 (fluency) and Figure 2 (accuracy).
Fig. 1. Mean score of speaking fluency
Fig. 2. Mean score of speaking accuracy
For measuring students’ accuracy, the teacher counted the number of phrases produced by the students with a mistake. For example, the phrases This is blue book / This is pencil red / These are train / He’s pupil were considered a mistake. Since the total number of phrases the students could possibly produce was 8, the maximum amount of mistakes was also 8. Taking into account that there were 8 students in each group, the maximum number of mistakes in a group could be 64.
2.3. Interpretation of the findings
While observing the students during the free practice activities the researcher noticed some very important points. By the end of the experiment:
3. Discussion
Furthermore, certain SW techniques (e.g. the use of charts or rods) may also be adopted and further elaborated not only for facilitating students’ speaking skills, but also for developing students’ pronunciation, literacy and reading skills. However, more detailed investigation is needed to see how these skills change if the SW approach is implemented in the learning process.
4. Conclusion
The current paper demonstrates that the implementation of the SW approach in class with primary school children facilitates their speaking skills and may be used as an effective tool to improve both components of speech production: fluency and accuracy. Some of the SW principles and techniques described in Introduction, help teachers hold students’ attention for a longer time, encourage learners to show initiative and become more autonomous and self-dependent in the learning process.
Список литературы
Поделиться
Golovinova A. R. The Silent Way Approach implementation in teaching English speaking skills to primary school learners // Актуальные исследования. 2023. №52 (182). Ч.III.С. 35-39. URL: https://apni.ru/article/8030-the-silent-way-approach-implementation