Applying the Silent Way in Teaching Japanese Language to University Students in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the feasibility of applying the Silent Way in teaching Japanese to Taiwanese university students. A total of 168 (96 female and 72 male) students in a university in central Taiwan were the subjects of this study. They were studying Japanese as a general course, and were grouped in five classes ranging from freshmen to juniors. Some basic principles and techniques of the Silent Way were adopted in teaching them some vocabulary and 50 Japanese Hiragana sounds during six successive sessions in three weeks. Each administration took about 20 minutes embedded in the normal class time. A 25-item Hiragana sounds oral test was used as the pre-test and post-test in order to examine the effects of applying this method. Using a paired sample T-test (α ≤.05) significant difference between students’ knowledge of the Japanese sounds before and after the experiment was observed. However, comparing female and male students’ gained scores via applying a Mann Whitney U-test, no significant difference was observed. Thus, this study shows that the Silent Way can be used in teaching Japanese sounds and vocabulary, and that the effects for both females and males seem to be the same.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".