Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 1
Kōina Leo: Leading Learners in Ōlelo Hawai’i Using “The Silent Way” Methodology
Jane A. Schumacher Ed.D. and Cody Pueo Pata, Kumu Hula
University of Phoenix
Author Note
The 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.
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 2
Abstract
Political 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
research
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 3
Kōina Leo: Leading Learners in Ōlelo Hawai’i Using “The Silent Way” Methodology
kō.ina. n. Urging, insistence...
KO–I–NA s. See KOI, to force. A pressure; a compulsion; a forcing.
Koina (kŏ'–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; to
speak, make a sound (Retrieved on March 18, 2017 from www.trussel2.com).
kōina leo: an urging–or insistence–of the voice.
Background
This 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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 4
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 ‘Ōlelo Hawai’i (Hawaiian Language)
Brief Overview of the Hawaiian Islands
The 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
www.oahumpo.org.)
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 5
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 (www. http://www.aloha-hawaii.com/hawaii/king-kamehameha/). ‘Ōlelo
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 (www. https://wanderwis dom.com/travel-
destinations/Hawaii-and-Native-Hawaiians-What-You-May-Not-Know), 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.
Ōlelo Hawai’i
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 6
In 1814, Ōpūkaha‘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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 7
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 Ōlelo Hawai’i
Fishman (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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 8
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 Methodology
Gattegno 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’i
Principle Principles in‘Ōlelo Hawai’i Translation of principles
Teacher as leader of learning E hiki mai me ka noʻonoʻo 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 learning
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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 9
the lessons in asupportive and aloha-filled environment.
Student uses own experiences to draw upon
E haʻahaʻa a hāmama ka naʻau.
Remain humble with and open mind and heart. Be open to learning new concepts.
Teacher observes but does not interfere with student learning
E ʻōlelo mai ʻoe ke ʻōlelo ʻia aku wale nō.
Speak only when spoken to. Do not prompt others, or speak on their behalf.
Students need authentic learning experiences
E ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi 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).
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 10
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 11
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).
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 12
Figure 3: Class rules for Koina Leo. 2016-2017.
CLASS RULES:
1. E hiki mai me ka noʻonoʻo 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 haʻahaʻa a hāmama ka naʻau. – 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 a
supportive and aloha-filled environment.
4. E ʻōlelo mai ʻoe ke ʻōlelo ʻia aku wale nō. – Speak only when spoken to.
Do not prompt others, or speak on their behalf.
5. E ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi 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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 13
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 Methodology
A 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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 14
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.
Population
The 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.
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 15
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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 16
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 style
Utley, Kozelski, Smith, and Draper (2002) discussed culturally relevant teaching and
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 17
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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 18
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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 19
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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 20
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
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 21
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”
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 22
instructional method. Finally, students must be individually and collectively engaged in the
learning process and must practice their learning in real-life situations.
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 23
References
Ah Ho, M. (1994). Learning and teaching the hula. Kamehameha Journal of Education, v5. p. 51-58. Fall, 1994.
Āha Pūnanaleo. Retrieved on April 23, 2017. http://www.ahapunanaleo.org/index.php?/about/a_timeline_of_revitalization/
Baker, 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 http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~survey/documents/survey-reports/survey-report-14.07-gardner.pdf
Gattegno, 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 &
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 24
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 http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/ILR/ILR-10.pdf
King, J. Language is life: The worldview of second language speakers of Maōri.
Kozelski, L. Culturally response teaching matters. Retrieved from http://www.equityallianceatasu.org/sites/default/files/Website_files/CulturallyResponsiveTeaching-Matters.pdf 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 http://www.sawyoo.com/post_printable-outline-map-of-
hawaii_653648/
Reyhner, J., Cantoni, G., St. Clair, R.N., & Yazzie, E. Eds. (2005; 1999). Revitalizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northen Arizona University
KŌINA LEO: LEADING LEARNERS IN ŌLELO HAWAI’I 25
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: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586332.
The Silent Way. Retrieved on July 18, 2016 from http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Silent_Way
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 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586443 doi:1
Young, R. Retrieved on July 18, 2016 from http://www.roslyn-young.fr/articles/in-english/caleb-gattegno-s-silent-way/. Caleb Gattegnos ‘silent way: some of the reasons why.
