The Tyranny of Talk: The Multiple Functions of Silence in Teaching and Learning

by

Dr Dolly MacKinnon
Academy of the Arts - Music, Queensland University of Technology

Purpose of this study

This study is funded by a Queensland University of Technology Teaching and Learning Small Grant (1999-2000). Given the increasingly diverse student cohort (indigenous students, international students, mature age students, students with disabilities et al) now studying in tertiary institutions, and the increasing move towards on-line, as well as face to face teaching, the aim of this project was to focus on what role silence played in individual student learning experiences. This paper aims to dispel the myth of silence as an automatic indicator of the symptomatic failure of lectures, seminars and large tutorial based study groups to provide the most effective learning environment for students.

Rather, it seeks to address the following questions:

What assumptions do we have about silence in teaching and learning ?

Is silence an indication of passive learning (the notion of a student as an empty vessel who has knowledge poured into them by the lecturer) ?

Is silence an indication of active learning (the student listens, but is involved in a private critical appraisal of the information being put forward by the lecturer)?

Is silence indicative of no learning (the student thinks about all and sundry)?

 

Participants:

This action research project commenced in second semester 1999, and is based on a qualitative study of a first year compulsory unit, Core Musicianship 1 comprising 55 students in the Academy of the Arts - Music at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The project spans a cycle of twelve weeks, during which time three surveys are completed: two paper based surveys, and one on-line survey.

The study is based on the voluntary written responses by students, with the aims being as follows:

 

• To determine how individual students assess their own silences, and the silences of their peers in lectures, seminars and tutorials
• To question the assumption that silence in a classroom is bad, and talk is good.
• To consider how silence and learning functions within the physical and mental environment of the classroom.

 

The first two paper based surveys were anonymous, and set out in a multiple choice format with provision for additional comments, while the third survey, which will be on-line, is yet to be completed. The first student survey focussed on six aspects of teaching and learning in Core-Musicianship 1: the physical environment; student confidence; student preparation; student comprehension; perceptions of silence; and past learning experience. The second survey focussed on students' perceptions of silence in their QUT teaching and learning experiences, as well as their past teaching and learning experiences. Interestingly, the second survey contained the following question to gauge student attitudes towards on-line activities:

If this survey had been sent out by e-mail, would you have completed it ? The vast majority of students said 'maybe' or 'no'.

 

What is silence ?

By and large, silence is considered an absence either by consent or by complicity. The negative connotations associated with silence abound, and are centred around four key functions: silence as passive, inactive, quiet, and still; silence as uncommunicative or mute, not participating; people, animals, machines, or noises that are silenced; and silence by omission or oversight (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, The Macquarie Dictionary, 1991, The Oxford Thesaurus 1991). Silence is not automatically associated with activities such as listening, thinking, or learning.

In addition, from a western perspective, the automatic assumption associated with silence is that of 'withholding' or 'controlling' something. Our society uses silence as a means of defining social space and also as a means of social control amongst strangers. (Muriel Saville-Troike,1985, Pearson, 1990). Silence before speech can also be seen as indicative of preparing to tell a lie (Walker, 1985).

In the classroom silence is automatically equated with an absence of student talk. Silence is not considered in terms of its own multiple functions of communication. However, the notion of silence as an absence is interesting, because it confirms the notion of talk as indicative of learning (Lanham, 1991). Yet as Dr David Scott, the American astronaut has observed in another context 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' (Interview, 1994). Therefore, an alternate view of silence is needed if we are to understand its function within lectures, seminars and tutorials. The language we speak and the music we listen to are all peppered with eloquent silences that define our individual cultural identities. These silences are not empty spaces.

Silence is like a map 'where the nationality of a cartographer is clear from the nation [she or] he puts in the middle of the world'(Barley, 1990). In speech, the silence of our native language is implicit, as well as explicit in any additional languages we may speak. (Basso, 1975, Muriel Saville-Troike 1985).

Therefore the existing paradigm, which places silence as subservient to speech, must be inverted. If we take the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'talk' as 'to perform the act of speech' (1989), and replace the notion of subservience with activity, then a silence or lacuna, is no longer an absence of talk, but rather, a performance of silence.

 

Silence and Talk in the classroom:

By and large, tertiary educators (either consciously or unconsciously) measure the relative success or failure of their lectures, seminars, and tutorials by the quantity, and sometimes quality, of their students' talk. The research methods used for analysing and recording levels of classroom interaction and activity are interaction schedules and time sampling.(Kember and Kelly 1993) These two methods focus on assessing the levels of class room activity: the interaction schedule analyses and records 'talk' over time at regular intervals (say every minute); and time sampling records the various types of behaviour every time a particular event occurs. Yet within these procedures, silence is always subservient to speech, and is not discussed as part of the learning process. The reason why levels of discussion in classrooms, as evidence of learning, form the basis of many studies is because it is easier to gather data on talk. (Philips, 1985).

However, if you audio tape or videotape talk you must also by default capture silence. Yet very little educational research has placed 'talk' in the background and looked at silence as a foreground. Even in educational literature that claims to study silence, the need for talk in classrooms is implicit. (Fassinger 1995, Kraft 1985) All of us have lamented those students who, unless we nominate them as group spokesperson, remain silent for the entire semester. Implicit in this informal learning theory is the notion that talk is good and silence is bad. Fassinger (1995) states that student participation either in a lecture or in a discussion seems to nurture critical thinking. By and large student 'talk' is considered the best means by which the process of critical thinking occurs.

However, can we then say that without student talk, there is no participation, and therefore no critical thinking ? With the increasing emphasis on student centred learning, which focuses on student participation, interaction and discussion in tertiary education, we run the risk of overlooking the multiple functions of silence in teaching and learning in our classrooms.

Studies of the eloquence of silence in other cultures reveals the short falls in our own interpretations and analyses of classroom interaction and communication (both verbal and non-verbal gestures) (Nwoye, 1985, Lehtonen & Sajavaara, 1985). Those studies that do consider the functions of silence appear in cross-cultural studies in the theory of communication rather than in education (Tannen & Saville-Troike, 1985). Our own cultural bias towards 'silence' doesnot readily allow us to determine its value in tertiary education.

The need for student talk remains at the forefront of analytical considerations on improving learning. (Kraft, 1985, Chaudron, Loschky & Cook, 1994) Yet, silences are both conscious, and complex performances: silence can be polite or defiant; silence can be interpreted, observed, and inferred as consent or condemnation; and silence can be a cognitive place, or a confused space (Dening 1996, Barley, 1990). Above all, silence is contextual - but it is not simply a boundary to mark speech and critical thinking (Gilmore, 1985).

 

Outcomes thus far

The main perceptions of silence that have emerged from this study so far are as follows:

 

• Students associated silence with thinking, listening, making connections, digesting information, note taking, and in some instances thinking about other things or being bored.
• A clear delineation between the perceived functions of silence in the lecture, as opposed to silence in the tutorial: Staff expected silence in their lectures, while students expected to be silent.
• In the tutorial, staff expected students to break their silence, and students expected this as well, (although students indicated a myriad of reasons why they were not always willing to do so).
• Although students were thinking about the possible answers to questions raised in the lecture/tutorial, they kept silent in order to avoid appearing foolish, or too clever in a public space in front of their peers.
• Students also thought about their lack of confidence with the course material, coupled with a lack of familiarity with the other students and staff which also contributed to their silence.
• Silence indicated for some students a place where they grappled with new concepts in a second language (English).
• The physical layout of our lecture, seminar and tutorial rooms, as well as our academic performances of authority and knowledge confirm these notions of silence (McWilliam, 1996, McWilliam, Forthcomming, Lowman, 1984), and contributes to student silence.
• Furthermore, the very language we use in the classroom determines the performance of silence the students will give us.
• If we force students on-line, they only have text as a means of voicing their opinions.

 

The findings of this study so far provides staff with actual feedback from their students regarding the success or failure of their teaching and learning methods, and indicates the significance of silence as a counterpart to talk in promoting effective learning. The project also highlights that simultaneous perceptions of silences occur in classes, and that silences are interpreted in significantly different ways by students, as well as staff. This study has encouraged students to identify and reflect on the need for, as well as the significance of periods of silence in their teaching and learning experiences.

 

Conclusion

The vital role of silence and its multiplicity of meanings for both students and staff in tertiary teaching and learning needs to be examined, in order to better accommodate an increasingly diverse student cohort, and a wider range of learning styles. By enabling both students and staff to reflect effectively on, and make the necessary changes to improve their teaching and learning practices (both face to face and on-line), we will have made a significant contribution to improve teaching and learning at QUT, and which hopefully may have implications across the tertiary sector.

It is not the case that a man [or woman] who is silent says [or does] nothing. Anon. (Basso, 1975)

 

Reference List:

Barley, N. (1990) Native Land. London: Penguin.

Basso, K.H. (1975) 'To give up on words': Silence in Western Apache Culture', in Language and Social Context, ed Pier Paolo Giglioli, Middlesex: Penguin, pp. 67-86.

Chaudron, C., Loschky, L. & Cook, J. (1994) Second language listening comprehension and lecture note-taking. AcademicListening: Research Perspectives, ed John Flowerdew, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75-92.

Dening, G. (1996) Performances. Carlton South: Melbourne University Press.

Fassinger, P.A. (1995) Understanding classroom interaction Student's and Professors' cont ribution to students' silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), pp. 82-96.

Gilmore, P. (1985) Silence and Sulking: Emotional Displays in the Classroom. Perspectives on Silence, eds. Deborah Tannen and Muriel Saville-Troike, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, pp. 139-162.

Halt, K. Empowering Students to Learn: The Process in large Groups. Exploring Tertiary Teaching Papers from TRAC (Teaching, Reflection, and Collaboration) Project, eds. Patricia Weeks and Denise Scott, Queensland University of Technology, Australia: Academic Staff Development Unit, pp. 52-60.

Kember, D. & Kelly, M.(1993) Improving Teaching Through Action Research. HERDSA Green Guide, 14.

Kraft , R. G. (1985) Group-Inquiry Turns Passive Students Active. College Education, 33 (4), pp.150-154.

Lanham, R. H. (1991) A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lewis, M. G. (1993) Without a word Teaching beyond women's silence. New York: Routledge.

Lowman, J. (1984) Mastering the Techniques of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (1991)

The Macquarie Dictionary. Macquarie University, NSW: Macquarie Library.

McWilliam, E. (1996) Admitting Impediments: or things to do with bodies in the classroom. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26( 3), pp. 367-378.

McWilliam, E. (forthcoming) Performing academic authority: the 'enfant terrible' as a body of knowledge. Social Alternatives ,special issue on Sexuality/Desire.

Nwoye, G. (1985) Eloquent silence among the Igbo of Nigeria, Perspectives on Silence, eds. Deborah Tannen and Muriel Saville-Troike, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, pp. 185-192.

(1989) The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

(1991) The Oxford Thesaurus An A-z Dictionary of Synonyms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Pearson, J. (1990) Innovative approaches to teaching a large interpersonal communication class. Unpublished paper.

Philips, S. U. (1985) Interaction Structured Through Talk and Interaction Structured Through 'Silence'. Perspectives on Silence, eds. Deborah Tannen and Muriel Saville-Troike, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, pp. 205-213.

Saville-Troike, M. (1985) The place of silence in an integrated theory of Communication, Perspectives on Silence, eds. Deborah Tannen and Muriel Saville-Troike, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, pp. 3-18.

Dr David Scott (1994), Interviewed by Angela Catterns, Triple J, Australian Broadcasting Commission, 6 September.

Walker, A. G. (1985) The Two Faces of Silence: The effect of witness hesitancy on lawyers' impressions. Perspectives on Silence, eds. Deborah Tannen and Muriel Saville-Troike. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, pp. 55-75.

 

 

Teaching and Educational Development Institute,
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland 4072 Australia
    Phone: +61 (7) 3365 2788
Authorised by: ACE Group, Teaching and Educational Development Institute
Modified: 8 March 2002
© 2002 The University of Queensland