







































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197  188 

                                                   http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index        eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id 

How silence facilitates verbal participation 

Dat Bao a,1,*, Nguyen Thanh-My b,2 

a Monash University, Wellington Rd, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia 
b Ho Chi Minh Open University, 97 Võ Văn Tần, Phường 6, Quận 3, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh 700000, Vietnam 
1 dat.bao@monash.edu.au*; 2 my.t.nguyen112@gmail.com  

* corresponding author 

 

1. Introduction 

This article, which draws upon research evidence, argues that language teachers should not 
simply promote learner talk by discouraging learner silence. We believe that doing this would 
represent a serious misunderstanding of how silence works because, without productive mental 
processing, talk either cannot happen or happens in poor quality. We would like to challenge the 
scholarly view, such as one advocated by Canary and MacGregor (2008), that ideal students are 
those who participate in classroom discussion and less ideal students are those who remain silent. 
Justified by that view, many intervention projects have been conducted to ‘rescue’ learners from 
silence. For instance, a study by Smith et al., (2005) was designed to put introverted students 
through pedagogical therapy with remedies for articulation. Such an experiment would produce 
temporary results rather than long-term educational impact because it treats students as if they were 
patients in the hospital. In other words, those treatments might help lessen the symptoms of being 
quiet but barely remove silence completely when it comes to introverted students’ personality. This 
is only one example of research of this type among others, including classroom experiments by 
Boniecki and Moore (2003), Canary and MacGregor (2008), Dallimore et al., (2004), Weaver and 
Qi (2005), to cite a few. 

Classroom intervention sometimes oversimplifies silence and ignores the fact that many learners 
employ silence to incubate thoughts and rehearse internal performance. Once such preparation 
brings readiness, these students would speak out and contribute to the lesson at their best. Any 
attempt to cut off silence from talk would mean to stop this productive process from happening and 
cause damage to students’ learning mechanisms. To support our argument, we collected evidence 
about how learners use silence to prepare for talk. We hypothesise that although there may be 

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT  

 

 

Article history 

Received 28 October 2020 

Revised 10 December 2020 

Accepted 14 December 2020 

 The article reports a qualitative-quantitative case study of 239 
Vietnamese university students’ perspectives on the effects of their 
silence on the formulation and quality of their talk. It presents 
participants’ voices with regards to whether and how their silent 
thinking influences verbal communication in the English language 
classroom and discusses the dynamics of productive learning strategies 
that would benefit the quality of speech. Data from an open-ended 
questionnaire reveal insights into students’ silent and verbal learning 
with a focus on the logical relationship between the two modes. Three 
findings coming out of this project include different nuances of the 
silent learning behaviour, the frequency of success in producing speech 
after mental processing practice, and a range of practical strategies that 
helps turn thoughts into verbal output. The study unpacks the 
importance of silence as autonomous learning and proposes relevant 
classroom activities for more rewarding outcomes. 

 

 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 

Keywords 

silence 

talk 

learner perception 

learning experience 

 

http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:dat.bao@monash.edu.au
mailto:my.t.nguyen112@gmail.com
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 189 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

students who may use silence passively to relax and switch off from classroom discussion, there 
might be others who thoughtfully employ silent processing to build talk and hope to participate once 
they are ready to do so. 

With this in mind, the study investigated Vietnamese university students’ perspectives on the 
effects of their silence on the formulation and quality of their talk. Without pre-conceived evaluation 
of the value of learner silence in this community, the study is open to participants’ voices with 
regards to whether and how their silent thinking influences verbal communication in the English 
language classroom, which can be either negative or positive, or both. In the case where positive use 
of silence is noted, the project looks further into the dynamics of such productive moments for 
learning strategies that would benefit the quality of speech.  

Learner silence has gained a great deal of scholarly attention due to the challenge to both the 
understanding of silent behaviour and the use of silence in learning. To many teachers, quiet learners 
who seldom verbally contribute to the lessons are underestimated as being passive and 
unenthusiastic (Kalamaras, 1994). Silence is often viewed as a cultural phenomenon. Over the years, 
students’ quietness in many East-Asian educational settings is construed as the demonstration of its 
unique culture. As Ramirez (1989) asserts, cultural factors and early experiences often direct 
learning styles; students from different backgrounds might develop divergent thinking, learning, and 
behaving. Studies into the relationship between socio-cultural aspects and learning habits (see, for 
example, Abede & Deneke, 2015; Bista, 2012; Santosa & Mardiana, 2018) have pointed to learner 
background of Confucian and Collectivist society to explain silence. Common characteristics 
associated with these philosophy systems are the appreciation of mercy, social order, responsibility, 
and interdependency. A study by Bao (2014) however, discovered that many East-Asian students 
who have studied in Australia do not believe in Confucianism as the explanation of their behaviour. 
Instead, they admit having adapted and modified their learning styles to a great extent to suit the 
new academic culture. Because of this, to hold on to students’ cultural origins and deny students’ 
ability to be flexible learners represents narrow-mindedness. It is unhelpful to develop research 
designs based on stereotypical thinking.  

In Confucian and collectivist societies, students often refrain from impulsive talk as a way of 
maintaining social harmony. Arguments and critique are not highly recommended in these 
educational contexts; thus, the communication between teachers and students in the classroom is 
usually one-way, initiated by teachers in most cases (Wursten & Jacobs, 2013). Some students speak 
only when being called by teachers to show respect to status. Talking less or keeping quiet also 
serves to refrain from negative behaviour during a conversation when one feels upset. In many 
international settings, when learners behave within such cultural reasoning, they may be perceived 
as uncooperative and over-dependent on knowledge transmission (Nguyen, A. T. H., 2002; Nguyen, 
H. T., 2002; Tran, 2013). While each culture embraces its values, it seems to be senseless to 
determine which is more rational without consideration of the social context of learning.  

 While becoming too busy looking into cultures to explain silence as a problem, many forget 
that silence is laden with important cognitive values, which contain preconditions for composing 
thoughts that can become verbal participation. For example, in the context of a law-school setting, 
the fast pace of high-pressure discussion where both the accuracy and fluency in speaking contribute 
to the persuasiveness of a speech seems to be required of eloquent students. A silent pause provided 
during such discussion may encourage silent learners to express their voices and join a debate. 
Silence allows less verbal students to think and break eloquent peers’ verbal dominance when 
needed (Roberts, 2010). Silence can be a preparatory step for verbal involvement after learners have 
sufficiently employed their personal space for attentive listening and proactive thinking.  

The internalization of language input usually occurs in silence when the stimulus domain in the 
learner’s brain turns on a more conscious mode. As Krashen's distinction (1981) between acquisition 
and learning indicates, simple data are stored in explicit knowledge source and the more challenging 
abstract rules are stored in implicit knowledge source. Simply put, when the mind struggles with 
complex data, learners need more thinking time to boost the creative ideas and problem-solving 
skills (Nijstad et al., 2010).  Besides ideas, mental processing also benefits language rehearsal. If in 
actual conversation, linguistic self-repair is constructed through pauses, hesitation, tracks, and 
corrections such as ‘ah’, ‘well’, ‘I mean’, in the mind, such repair manifests in silence (Goodwin, 
1981; Tannen, 1993). According to Guerrero (1991), many learners practice self-talking, a kind of 
metatalk or inner speech, consecutively over the years before the time an accurate and meaningful 



190 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

utterance is officially produced. Thus, the quality of language output can be improved thanks to the 
adequate amount of time devoted to thoughtful participation. 

There are also other circumstances under which silence is advisable. For instance, silence is 
preferably observed in libraries for its favourable earning conditions (Ollin, 2008; Zembylas & 
Michaelides, 2004). Silence serves as disciplinary classroom management and precondition for 
studying (Bista, 2012), especially when excessive talk turns into chaotic noise and distraction. 
Although many teachers are acutely aware of this, when it comes to academic performance, some 
disvalue the use of silence and regard it as inferior to speech. The current study challenges this 
common perception and presents a more truthful picture of learning by collecting students’ voices. 
These voices will help justify the nature of their use of silence as well as how such silence supports 
or fails to support verbal participation in the English language classroom. After all, learners 
themselves must be given the opportunity to explain their own behaviour instead of scholars or 
teachers always speaking for them on the basis of presumption. 

2. Research Method 

This case study was conducted at a tertiary school located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam in 
2020. The choice of research location has to do with the researchers’ professional network and travel 
practicality. Students from various bachelor year levels in a wide range of discipline majors were 
recruited on the foundation of voluntary participation in the project. Their English proficiency 
ranged from basic (A2) to upper-intermediate (B2) in the Common European Framework of 
Reference for Languages (CEFR), as identified by the name of their current English classes reported 
in a questionnaire. Data on learner reflection were collected to explore both silent and verbal 
learning with a focus on the relationship between the two modes.  More specifically, the 
questionnaire including eight open-ended questions was developed to seek data in response to four 
research questions: 

1. Do students prefer silence or talk in their everyday learning? 

2. Why do they make such choices? 

3. How much silence can turn into talk? 

4. What strategies enable that to happen? 

The reason for open-ended questioning has to do with the need to foster free thoughts and 
encourage participants’ voice, a philosophy inspired by Johnson and Christensen (2017). The open 
nature of this questionnaire acts simultaneously as a qualitative and quantitative tool of data 
collection. It is qualitative in the sense that participants can write their thoughts in free-styled 
reflection; it is quantitative in the sense that it yields statistical data to show the proportion of 
different inclinations in the use of classroom silence. Thanks to this mixed-method exploration, the 
outcome of the project will be presented both statistically and insightfully. 

3. Findings and Discussion 

This section presents students’ favourite learning behaviour with regards to silent and verbal 
learning. In this regard, participants stated how much they enjoy talking, cherish silence, prefer to 
think then talk, or prefer to talk then think. These four varieties were created to tap into the nuances 
of learning behaviour as we do not want silence and talk to be the only choices of behaviour. 
Research conducted by Bao (2014) on international students has demonstrated that between speech 
and silence there are often a variety of learning modes that are in-betweens. Below is the breakdown 
of students’ choices. 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 191 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

3.1. Preference for Silence and Talk 

 

Fig. 1. Student Choice of Silence and Talk 

Although the study focuses on silence, talk stands out as the most favourite choice in students’ 
learning modes. The chart above shows the number of students (out of 239 participants) who opt for 
their favourite mode of practicing communicative skills. Talk (coded in orange) takes up the most 
choice among 137 participants (57.9%) as their ultimate aim of classroom learning; while silence 
(blue) represents the preference of a quarter of the participants (60 students) who enjoy practising 
verbal skills quietly (24.9%). Silence first (gray) is the choice of 39 students who wish to incubate 
thoughts and will try to speak (16.3%). Talk first (yellow) is the choice of only 3 students (0.9%) 
who feel the need to speak first and reflect later. The open-ended data reveal four reasons for silence 
and three reasons for talk. 

 

3.2. Four Reasons for Silence 

First, silence benefits speech. Half the number of participants acknowledge that their ultimate 
aim in learning is to speak rather than keep silence. However, without planning on the intended 
performance, that aim would be impossible. For example, some would polish their words in the 
mind until they are ready to speak, elaborating that such autonomous space is important if one 
wishes to exercise control over the quality of speech. Autonomy is sometimes interpreted in the 
discourse as personal freedom (Bosacki & Bosacki, 2005). As one student reflected:  

After formulating the ideas, I will arrange how to speak about it, and check my language to 
be accurate so that my talk has fewer mistakes. 

Second, silence has its value without the need to speak. The remaining students, on the contrary, 
emphasise silence as a learning tool in itself, that is, to serve comprehension and analytical thinking 
without having to finally say that out loud. One explained:  

Not all the time I say aloud helps me understand the lesson. When I keep silent, I understand 
better. I have more time to brainstorm.  

Third, silence plays the role of maintaining communication rules. It occurs in between two 
talking turns, that is, when one person finishes what they need to say, a moment of silence would 
indicate that the turn is now ready to pass on to the next person, turn-giving. Suppose this rule is not 
well observed, everyone might be confused, as one participant reasoned: 

 



192 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

Talking out of turn will cause distraction. The speaker must have a listener. It is very 
common for everyone to take turns to say.  

This way of practicing the silent rule is acknowledged in the relevant discourse as having a 
communicative function (see, for example, Jensen, 1973). 

Fourth, silence allows an internal dialogue between the listener and the speaker. While being 
attentive to someone else’s verbal contribution, the listener not only tries to comprehend the 
message but also quietly interacts with that message. Such interaction, according to the data, 
involves interpreting information, forming an opinion, and planning a response. These ways of 
utilising silence are not mutually independent but rather interrelated. They demonstrate several 
graded ways of thinking, ranging from silence for understanding and thinking to silence for 
supporting the rule and performing. The choice of such a decision would be contingent upon 
classroom situations, personality, and the degree of learning challenge. 

 

3.3. Three Reasons for Talk 

Students who opt for talk as their optimal learning choice also share their rationale. First, the aim 
of talk is to receive feedback. One student explains:  

Even when I know how to pronounce the words and make a sentence; I still want to say it 
aloud so that my teacher can listen and fix my mistakes. Sometimes what you perceive is not 
always correct; therefore, communication is to learn from each other which makes our 
perspectives richer. 

Second, talk serves to build confidence in communication, as one reveals: 

When we share our thoughts, we have a chance to know how good our communication skills 
are. We notice our current level from that awareness and know what gaps in our knowledge 
should be filled. Doing is always harder than thinking. 

Third, talk makes teamwork possible. Silence affects teamwork efficiency since the lack of 
communication among members leading to low performance of roles and responsibilities. One 
participant expresses concern over excessive silence:  

It is great to prepare before speaking but thinking too long will lead to stagnation. A person 
who thinks too carefully cannot give quick responses. Someone who thinks too much may 
forget the initial ideas. 

As data speak, silence can be useful or useless. Although silence proves to be a useful conceptual 
tool to construct ideas and language, excessive silence might turn out to be a negative factor in 
learning. Simply put, thinking about how language works in silence is advantageous; however, it is 
not advisable to remain silent all the time. Learner silence becomes productive when one utilises 
quiet space for thoughts and output, while not properly employing it might also result in low 
learning impacts. 

 

3.4. How Much Silence Transforms into Talk 

This discussion takes a closer look at the productive side of silence in supporting verbal output. 
The finding illuminates the extent to which the students’ mental processing practice yields speech 
performance. It is important to note that not all moments of preparation for verbal participation are 
successful. Sometimes, one thinks hard for a way to participate but might end up producing little or 
nothing to say. In the questionnaire design, we lined up such possibilities in a nuanced frequency 
ranging from the most to the least often when they attempt to use silence works or fails to work as 
planned. 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 193 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

 

Fig. 2. How often Silence become talk 

Figure 2 demonstrates various degrees of student confidence in silent learning or the possibilities 
of how often cognitive processing in silence can lead to immediate verbal participation reported by 
the participants in this case study. It is interesting to see that the percentage mostly distributed in the 
middle of the scale, demonstrating the fair effectiveness of learner silence in preparing the talk.  As 
revealed by the data, is that on average, 18 students (7.5%) disclose that their attempts to turn silent 
thinking into verbal participation always succeed and 45 students (18.8%) remember they frequently 
succeed (as shown in the dark blue and orange columns). That is, one quarter of the 239 participants 
(26.3%) have that confidence that there is a strong connection between mental processing and verbal 
articulation. These are students who feel they have great control over the efficiency of their silent 
learning. One participant internalised: 

 

I usually keep quiet when I need to brainstorm ideas. While my friends are talking, I will 
arrange the ideas in mind, translate my thoughts into English. That approach is much better 
because thinking and talking at the same time is too risky to make mistakes.  

The gray column in the middle shows that nearly half the number of participants are less certain 
about how silence can become talk. That is, 69 students (40.2%) remember that out of ten times they 
try to think for talk, 4 times they might end up talking and 6 times they might remain silent. 
Although this group do not have great control over their mental rehearsal, they do believe in the 
value of silence in forming speech. One of the reasons for silence is students’ ambition of high-
quality participation, that is, the belief that talking meaningfully is far more important than talking 
nonsense. Below are some thoughts from participants: 

 

A Vietnamese proverb says, words must be weighed not counted; spend time on saying what is 
worthwhile. 

I usually concentrate silently on thinking about the answers. Funny talks are only useful for 
socialisation. While studying, students should think more and talk less.  

The remaining 80 students (33.5%), as shown in the yellow and light blue columns, do not make 
effort in verbal participation but most of the time stay within their silent thinking. In this group, 
some students do not see the lack of participation is a problem but feel that they can learn to listen 
and observe without having to speak. As several participants elaborate: 

 



194 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

When I am quiet, I focus more on the ideas and I feel like I can complete my work in silence 
more quickly rather than talking with someone else. 

You should probably keep quiet for a while waiting for someone to answer first. Then you 
will understand how to tackle the task and be more ready to contribute the next answers. 

When I stop talking, I can watch other people working and I learn more from them. That is 
why the following speakers will often make fewer mistakes than the antecedent ones. 

When I was quiet to observe and listen to my friends, I was able to refine what I agreed with 
and I had plenty of time to formulate sharper ideas before joining the discussion. 

Others take a cautious stance towards participation for different psychological reasons, as 
stated in students’ words:  

I did not want people to judge me when I contribute something new first. I would rather 
listen to others and join the discussion to express my agreement or disagreement. 

I usually keep quiet at the beginning of the lesson or before the presentation. Probably I 
cannot speak anything until I feel ready enough. 

Overall, the data show a reasonable balance between silent thinking and verbal contribution. This 

reality reflects what the discourse highlights about communication, that is, effective 

communication is about both speech and silence (Bao, 2020a).  As evident in the data, silence 

proves to be useful for speech as it is employed more proactively than demonstrate passively in the 

learning process. These figures, which represent the efficiency of silence, are not commonly 

documented in the current discourse in silence research. Although this is only a case study of 239 

students in one context, the breakdown in the silent-talk relationship signifies the extent to which 

learners treat silence as a learning tool. It also consolidates the significant reality that silence has a 

closer relationship with talk than we often know. From this awareness, it would be unhelpful if 

teachers think twice before blaming quiet students for not learning. Depending on students’ 

intellectual ability, character traits, and classroom dynamics, silent rehearsal might experience a 

delay until students feel ready to speak. Teachers might learn to be tolerant of all this and maintain 

a conducive atmosphere for mental engagement among individuals.  

3.5. Strategies for Transforming Silence to Talk 

It has been proved from research from research that learner behaviour is never static, because 
learners constantly adjust their participation mode (Bao & Ye, 2000). When taking a closer look at 
how students treat silence as a set of learning skills we realize that silence is not one single 
behaviour but is made up of a range of practical strategies with the potential to connect thoughts into 
verbal output. Data collected from one of the open-ended questions reveal eight different ways of 
employing silence as outlined below. 

Table 1.  List of Strategies for transforming silence to talk 

Silent learning strategies Frequency Percentage of Cases 
Gathering thoughts 181 75.7 

Mental rehearsal 179 74.9 
Writing down ideas  163 68.2 

Self-talk 125 52.3 

Listening to peers 107 44.8 

Doing nothing 6 2.5 
Using a dictionary 

5 2.1 Visualising 

Others 

 

The strategies in Table 1 are not employed separately from one another. Instead, most students 
resort to more than one strategy as arising from both classroom circumstances and individualised 
ways of learning. As the data show, the five most frequently employed strategies in this case study 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 195 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

include gathering thoughts (75.7%, n=181), rehearsing talk in the mind (74.9%, n=179), writing 
down ideas (68.2%, n=163), self-talk (52.3%, n=125), and listening to peers (44.8%, n=107). 
Visualising was reported by a minority of participants (2.1%, n=5 in all). Very few students treat 
silence as an idle time and do nothing, that is, making no effort to think or speak (2.5%, n=6). It is 
important to note that a large percentage of students, that is, between 52.3% and 75.7% of all 
respondents, acknowledge that they employ silence in intensive mental work such as gathering 
thoughts, rehearsing participation in the mind, talking to oneself, and writing down what they wish 
to say. Such practices demonstrate an autonomous tendency to make pro-active use of silence for 
learning rather than to use silent time for relaxation.  

4. Conclusion 

Three implications can be drawn from this study to benefit ELT pedagogy. First, teachers need to 
be attentive to learner needs for silent processing. A time can be allocated for this practice when 
tasks are designed, with instructions for how much time students might need as well as how to 
follow up on that in the end. Second, silence needs to have an outcome, whether it is speech, or it 
results in students’ enhanced L2 input, the latter of which can be evident in form of note-taking or 
improved assessment performance at a later time. Third, teaching needs to recognise silence as 
multiple learning strategies rather than perceive it as one type of behaviour. With this understanding 
in mind, classroom activities can include these ways of learning to be communicated to learners for 
clear expectations and for maximizing the potential of mental processing. 

The study has provided evidence of students’ diverse ways of using silence. This goes well with 
the discourse that recognizes silence as a form of engagement (Bao, 2020b) and a strong association 
with vocal manipulation (Bao, 2019). We appeal for teacher support to ensure that learners can 
exercise more choices and control over the learning process. The ultimate aim of such endeavour is 
to help learners take advantage of productive silence for speaking practice through various 
strategies. From a learner perspective, silence both facilitates and hinders the learning process. 
Besides, it is important to be mindful of learners who might be off task during silence, that is, simply 
relaxing and not knowing how to employ mental rehearsal for learning. Teachers might wish to 
develop a balanced understanding that not all positive silences lead to speech, but it all depends on 
class time availability, classroom circumstances, and individual decisions to contribute. The 
exploration of learner perspectives on the role of silence in producing verbal output in this 
article only representes one specific case. There is the need to replicate this type of research in 
other contexts for a more generalised view on how silence can boost speech. A second 
recommendation for research is how pedagogy responds to this silence-speech productive 
model with a relevant instructional procedure and strategies. A third topic is to compare teacher 
and learner attitudes towards reflective learning and how that understanding influences 
classroom learning. 

 

REFERENCES  

Abede, D. T. & Deneke, D. G. (2015). Causes of Students’ Limited Participation in EFL Classroom: 

Ethiopian Public Universities in Focus. International Journal of Educational Research and 

Technology, 6(1), 74–89. 

Bao, D. (2014). Understanding Silence and Reticence: Nonverbal participation in Second Language 

Acquisition. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 

Bao, D. (2019). The place of silence in second language acquisition. English Language Teaching and 

Research Journal (ELTAR-J) 1(1), August 2019, pp. 26-42. 

Bao, D. (2020a). Exploring How Silence Communicates. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 

3(1), 1-13. 

Bao, D. (2020b). Silence, talk, and in-betweens: East-Asian students’ responses to task challenge in an 

Australian university. In Jim King & Harumi Seiko (Eds). East-Asian Perspectives on Silence in 

English Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp.17-36. 

Bao, D. & Ye, Y. (2020). Investigating learner silent and verbal response to tasks. International Journal of 

Teaching and Education 4(1), pp.61-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22437/ijolte.v4i1.10469   

https://doi.org/10.22437/ijolte.v4i1.10469


196 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

Bosacki, S. L., & Bosacki, S. (2005). The culture of classroom silence (Vol. 31). Peter Lang. 

Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the silence: Using a token economy to reinforce classroom 

participation. Teaching of Psychology, 30(3), 224-227. 

Bista, K. (2012). Silence in Teaching and Learning: Perspective of a Nepalese Graduate Student. College 

Teaching, 60(2), 76–82. 

Canary, D. J., & MacGregor, I. M. (2008). Differences that make a difference in assessing student 

communication competence. Communication Education, 57(1), 41-63. 

Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and discussion 

effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 53(1). 

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. Academic 

Press. 

Guerrero, M. C. M. (1991). The nature of inner speech in mental rehearsal of the second language 

[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Inter American University. 

Jensen, J. V. (1973). Communicative functions of silence. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 249-257. 

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed 

approaches. 

Kalamaras, G. (1994). Reclaiming the tacit dimension: Symbolic form on the rhetoric of the silence. State 

University of New York Press. 

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon Press. 

Nguyen, A. T. H. (2002). Cultural Effects on Learning and Teaching English in Vietnam. The Language 

Teacher. http://www.jalt.publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2002/01/an  

Nguyen, H. T. (2002). Vietnam: Cultural Background for ESL/EFL Teachers. The Review of Vietnamese 

Studies, 2(1), 1–6. 

Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity 

model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social 

Psychology, 21(1), 34–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323 

Ollin, R. (2008). Silent pedagogy and rethinking classroom practice: Structuring teaching through silence 

rather than talk. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(2), 265–280. 

Ramirez, M. I. (1989). Pluralistic education: A bicognitive-multilcultural style: Cross ethnic comparisons. 

Early Child Development and Care, 51, 137–155. 

Roberts, D. E. (2010). The Paradox of Silence: Some Questions About Silence as Resistance. Faculty 

Scholarship at Penn Law, 1318. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1318 

Santosa, B., & Mardiana, R. (2018). English Learner’s Perspective on Culture and Silence in an EFL 

University Classroom. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(8), 18–24. 

Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: 

Classroom‐based practices. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 87-101. 

Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford University Press. 

Tran, T. T. (2013). Factors affecting teaching and learning English in Vietnamese universities. The Internet 

Journal Language, Culture and Society, 38, 138–145. 

Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students' perceptions. The 

Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601. 

Wursten, H., & Jacobs, C. (2013). The impact of culture on education. The Hofstede Centre, itm 

international. 

Zembylas, M., & Michaelides, P. (2004). The Sound of Silence in Pedagogy. Educational Theory, 54(2), 

193–210. 

 

http://www.jalt.publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2002/01/an
https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1318


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 197 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 188-197 

 

 Dat Bao & Nguyen Thanh-My (How silence facilitates verbal participation) 

 

APPENDIX – QUESTIONNAIRE 

1. Do you feel comfortable or uncomfortable when keeping silent in an English-speaking 

classroom? Why? 

2. Do you feel annoyed or comfortable if your partners tend to keep quiet without sharing 

ideas with you in a speaking activity? Please explain. 

3. Do you think silent students are unintelligent and passive or do you have another opinion? 

4. In a speaking activity in a classroom, do you initiate or respond? 

5. Do you improve English speaking skills by talking aloud or processing ideas quietly? 

How? 

6. Does your teacher provide sufficient thinking time during English speaking activities? 

Please comment on how and in what case you might need such a time. 

7. How often does your silent thinking result in talk? If possible, give an example of how 

silence help you prepare for class participation. 

8. Which of these do you usually do during your own silence while preparing for interaction? 

Writing down ideas, self-talk, mental rehearsal, listening to peers, gathering thoughts, 

doing nothing, others (please explain). 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

  


