Learners and Learning

My experience as a learner of English has profoundly shaped my understanding of students and learning. I was educated within a culture of memorization, where learning was largely equated with rote repetition and the accurate reproduction of the teacher’s input. The well-known phrase among teachers, “My commodity is sent back to me,” captures this philosophy of education—one that aligns with Paulo Freire’s notion of the “banking model,” in which the teacher is the depositor and the student the depository. In such a context, the classroom dynamic is characterized by authority and conformity rather than creativity and independent thought.

When I arrived at SIT, I realized that this deeply ingrained mindset had unconsciously influenced my teaching practices and perceptions of learners. One of the most transformative ideas that reshaped my view was Gattegno’s principle of the subordination of teaching to learning. This notion represented a radical departure from the beliefs I once held about the teacher’s role and the nature of learning itself.

Coming from an educational system that prioritized the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student, I initially understood “student-centered learning” in purely procedural terms. However, through my coursework in Approaches to Language Teaching, I came to recognize that genuine learning occurs only when learners’ capacities are activated holistically—intellectually, emotionally, physically, and spiritually. This realization moved me toward a humanistic approach to education, one that values the learner as an active participant in constructing knowledge rather than a passive recipient of information.

This shift in perspective has since guided both my teaching philosophy and classroom practice. I now view learning as an inherently creative, relational, and dynamic process—one that emerges through meaningful engagement, curiosity, and respect for each learner’s individuality and potential.

Sub-Competency A.2: Teachers Need to Be Knowledgeable About Theories of Language Acquisition and Learning

Supporting Documents

The Second Language Acquisition (SLA) course marked a turning point in how I understood the nature of language learning. My long-standing fascination with languages evolved into a deep curiosity about how learning actually occurs and how languages are acquired—or, as I later came to prefer, developed. My final SLA paper, Interaction with Texts and Language Development, represents an ambitious attempt to analyze aspects of my own learning process through the lens of SLA theories.

The decision to use the term development rather than acquisition in my title reflects a conceptual shift in my understanding of language. Diane Larsen-Freeman’s Complexity Theory profoundly influenced this change, challenging my earlier view of language as a fixed, rule-governed system. I came to see language instead as a dynamic, adaptive system that evolves through the interaction of multiple interrelated factors. This theoretical lens also reframed my perspective on how learning unfolds—not as the accumulation of discrete linguistic items, but as an emergent process shaped by variability, adaptation, and self-organization.

My paper Interaction with Texts and Language Development integrates an emic (insider) perspective on language learning with etic (outsider) perspectives from established SLA research. Drawing on my own experiences as a learner, I compared personal patterns of development with theoretical constructs such as input, interaction, and affordance. In doing so, I proposed a context-based understanding of interaction that emphasizes reading and textual engagement as key mechanisms for language growth—particularly in EFL contexts where opportunities for spoken communication are limited.

I further elaborated on this idea in my University of Cambridge Research Proposal, where I wrote: “The study I intend to undertake falls in the context of interaction-related research. The topic of the research examines the role that interaction with texts plays in the development of lexis and morphosyntax in contexts where English is a foreign language. In these contexts, students do not have the opportunity to interact with native speakers on a daily basis. Instruction usually reflects more emphasis on reading and writing and less on interpersonal communication.”

This proposal extended the conceptual groundwork established in my SLA coursework, positioning interaction with texts as an alternative pathway for language development. The diversity of theories explored throughout the course—from behaviorism and cognitivism to sociocultural and ecological perspectives—provided me with a panoramic framework for understanding how multiple dimensions of learning intersect.

Ultimately, these explorations allowed me to conceptualize a personalized, evolving “mini-theory” of language development that integrates cognitive, social, and contextual factors. Through this lens, I now view language learning as a dynamic, co-adaptive process—one that continuously evolves in response to the learner’s environment, identity, and engagement with meaningful interaction.

Sub-Competency B.6: Teachers Need to Be Skilled at Assessing the Linguistic and Cultural Needs and Performance of Their Students

One of the most valuable insights I gained during my time at SIT was the realization that meaningful learning can only occur when teaching is grounded in an understanding of learners’ expectations, prior knowledge, and lived experiences. Without exploring students’ linguistic, social, and personal backgrounds, teaching risks becoming detached from learners’ realities. In this context, assessment serves as an indispensable tool—one that enables teachers to gather insights about their students’ progress, needs, and learning trajectories. It acts as the bridge between instructional goals and learning outcomes, ensuring that what teachers intend to teach aligns with what students actually learn.

In my Assessment Plan (CDA#1), I designed each component around the principle of placing the learner at the center of instruction. The Initial Needs Assessment was specifically intended to collect information about learners’ literacy levels, classroom experiences, and sociocultural contexts. This process provided a clearer picture of which linguistic and social dimensions were most relevant to their real-world needs. It also allowed me to tailor instruction in ways that were both contextually meaningful and developmentally appropriate.

While some of the assessment activities I used were adapted from existing resources, my selection of them was guided by Gattegno’s notion that teaching should be subordinate to learning. For example, I chose to use a Picture Questionnaire as a diagnostic tool to identify the communicative contexts that learners most wanted to engage in. This activity was particularly effective with lower-level students, who often struggle to articulate their learning priorities. By showing images that represented various social situations—such as workplace interactions, shopping, or family gatherings—students could visualize and discuss the settings in which they wished to use English. Through these discussions, I was able to collaboratively determine which linguistic functions and notions (e.g., requesting, apologizing, describing routines) were most relevant to their goals.

To complement this, I developed a Connecting Language to Learners, Learning, and Social Context table (CDA#2) as a reflective framework for assessing both linguistic and cultural needs. The first column, Learners & Learning, included indicators that addressed students’ affective goals, interpersonal skills, and learning strategies—emphasizing the importance of engaging the learner as a whole person. The second column, Social Context, focused on preparing students to navigate real-world communicative situations. It included sociolinguistic, sociocultural, and sociopolitical competencies that would help learners function effectively and appropriately in diverse social settings.

Together, these tools reshaped my understanding of assessment as more than a measure of performance. Assessment became a form of inquiry—an ongoing, dialogic process through which teachers and learners co-construct understanding. By integrating linguistic, cultural, and contextual dimensions, I learned to view assessment not as an endpoint, but as an integral part of teaching that guides learning, informs instruction, and honors the individuality of each learner.

Ultimately, these explorations allowed me to conceptualize a personalized, evolving “mini-theory” of language development that integrates cognitive, social, and contextual factors. Through this lens, I now view language learning as a dynamic, co-adaptive process—one that continuously evolves in response to the learner’s environment, identity, and engagement with meaningful interaction.

Sub-Competency C.15: Teachers Need to Hold Attitudes of Willingness to Allow Learners’ Learning to Guide Their Teaching

The Silent Way profoundly challenged my assumptions about both teaching and learning. When I first encountered it, two words stood out to me—silent and way. I wondered what exactly was “silent” about this method and why it was called a way rather than an approach. Participating in a Silent Way lesson forced me to confront these questions and ultimately led to a transformation in my understanding of the teacher’s role and the learner’s agency.

Initially, I resisted the Silent Way because it felt unfamiliar and even unsettling. The classroom atmosphere, though seemingly controlled by the teacher, placed a remarkable degree of initiative on the learner. This dynamic contradicted the traditional classroom model I was used to, in which the teacher maintained full authority and directed all learning. Coming from an educational background that emphasized teacher control and correctness, I found it difficult to adapt to a classroom environment where learners were expected to discover, experiment, and self-correct.

However, my curiosity about the method encouraged me to shift perspectives—from that of a teacher to that of a learner. It was only when I stepped into the learner’s role that I began to appreciate the underlying logic of the Silent Way. My initial skepticism toward tools such as the Sound-Color Chart stemmed from viewing it through a teacher-centered lens. I saw it as “out of context” and overly mechanical, diverging from my belief in teaching language through meaningful communication. Yet, as I examined the principles more closely, I realized that the chart serves a very different purpose—it focuses learners’ attention on language itself rather than on the teacher. As Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011, p. 65) explain, this shift encourages learners to notice patterns, internalize sounds, and develop self-reliance.

This realization led me to understand that the Silent Way is not merely a set of techniques but a philosophy of teaching grounded in the subordination of teaching to learning. It positions the teacher as a facilitator who anticipates, observes, and supports learners’ development rather than directing it. By prioritizing the learner’s process of discovery, the Silent Way cultivates autonomy and deep engagement with language. This understanding has reshaped my own teaching stance—I now see value in occasionally relinquishing control and allowing students’ learning processes to inform and guide my instructional decisions.

Similarly, my experience with Community Language Learning (CLL) reinforced this learner-centered orientation. CLL emphasized the importance of building a classroom atmosphere of trust and empathy, where learners’ emotional and cognitive needs are equally valued. During a CLL lesson, I observed how integrating learners’ first language can serve as a bridge to the target language rather than an obstacle. This approach allowed students to express meaning, reflect on form, and negotiate understanding in ways that made learning more personal and accessible.

Together, these two approaches taught me that effective teaching begins with attentive listening—to what students do, say, and need. Allowing learners’ learning to guide teaching requires humility, flexibility, and a willingness to see the classroom as a collaborative space of exploration. It is through this lens that I now view my role: not as the central source of knowledge, but as a responsive guide who adapts to learners’ evolving processes of discovery and understanding.

Sub-Competency D.16: Teachers Need to Be Aware of the Relationship Between Learning and Teaching

Teaching and learning are two deeply interrelated and complex processes that cannot be understood in isolation from one another. Teaching extends far beyond mastering subject matter—grammar, pronunciation, or the four skills—and encompasses a continuous engagement with the human, social, and contextual dimensions of learning. Earlier in my teaching career, I often asked teacher-centered questions such as, “What are the best methods or activities I can use in my classroom?” These questions reflected a limited perspective—one that sought to reach learners only through language as I understood it, rather than through their own ways of perceiving and processing knowledge.

Through the Approaches to Language Teaching course, I learned to reframe my inquiry. Instead of focusing on what I should do, I began asking, “Who are my learners?” and “How can I facilitate a learning experience that meets their needs and realities?” This shift led me to view the classroom not as a site of teaching, but as a dynamic ecosystem where teacher, learner, and subject matter interact within what Caleb Gattegno describes as the I–Thou–It relationship. In this framework, the I represents the teacher, the Thou the learner, and the It the subject matter. True awareness of the relationship between teaching and learning arises from the continuous reflection on and balancing of these three dimensions.

As I explored the Silent Way, I came to understand more deeply the idea that teaching is subordinate to learning. This perspective redefines the teacher’s role—not as a transmitter of knowledge, but as a facilitator who prepares not just lessons, but themselves. In my Silent Way Reflection Paper, I highlighted Gattegno’s assertion that “teachers do not prepare a lesson plan, but prepare themselves.” This idea resonated with me profoundly. It underscored the humanistic dimension of teaching: to teach well, one must first engage in self-reflection and assume the dual role of teacher and learner. For me, teaching now means being a step ahead in the learning process, maintaining constant awareness of what I teach, how I teach it, and to whom it is being taught.

The Silent Way helped me realize that awareness lies at the heart of effective teaching. As I wrote in my paper: “In this context, the Silent Way promotes awareness in the learning process by both shifting responsibility to students and also by pushing the teacher to think and be aware of the simple details in the content he is about to present to his students. This leads to a deeper understanding of the nature of language and the learning process. The result is that teachers become students and students become teachers.”

Similarly, Community Language Learning (CLL) reinforced this understanding by highlighting the central role of emotional security and mutual trust in the learning process. In the CLL classroom, learning occurs through interaction, empathy, and cooperation. The teacher’s role transforms from an authority figure to a counselor who listens, understands, and supports learners’ self-expression. As I reflected in my CLL paper, the teacher “understands and listens, and the student engages, interacts, and reflects on and in his own learning.” This reciprocal relationship nurtures learners’ confidence and fosters authentic engagement, leading to meaningful learning outcomes.

These experiences illuminated the profound interdependence of teaching and learning. Awareness of this relationship requires teachers to view learners as whole persons—individuals with intellectual, emotional, and social dimensions. It also calls for humility: recognizing that effective teaching does not begin with the teacher’s expertise but with learners’ experiences, needs, and ways of learning. When teaching responds to learning rather than dictates it, the classroom becomes a collaborative space where both teacher and learner grow together.

Agenda for Future Learning

• Earl Stevick’s ideas seems to resonate a lot with me. Sharing his ideas with my colleagues in Mauritania, will help in bringing a new perspective to a language teaching mentality that pays attention only to the teacher and the subject matter.

• Assessment is a skill that I would like to hone during the upcoming years. I think that a very important part of teaching is to examine the development of the students throughout the learning process.

• Reading in Second Language Acquisition specifically socio-cultural perspective about language development that I consider very relevant today. 

• Design lesson plans that reflect the students’ learning goals and accommodate them as human being and learners with diverse learning styles. 

• Reading more about Narrative Inquiry and how I can benefit from it as a tool to improve my teaching and learning. Read ‘A way and Ways’ by Earl Stevick. 

• Read ‘Memory, Meaning, and Method’ by Earl Stevick.

Supporting Documents