|
Word guessing game for 5grader's.
<Data>
N: You can only answer one time.
S: School sticker?
N: Sparkly sticker. Ok, Ready?
S: How do you..?(This student just stopped ask a question at here, so N ignored)
N: This is a toy that spins. This is a toy that spins.(more slowly)
S: 아, 제발.
S: 아, 한글이름은 아는데 영어이름을 모르겠어.
S: 한글이름이 뭔데?
S: Top!
N: Yes, 다윗. Top.
S: 와~~
S: Top이 뭔데?
S: 팽이
N: Top
S: 아~
K: This is a Toy. 무슨 뜻이에요?
Ss: 장난감!! 장난감입니다.
K: That spins.(making circles with her finger)
Ss: 돌아간다!
K: Spin이 뭐야?
Ss: 돌아간다!
K: 돌아가는 장난감이 뭐에요? That is a top(showing the picture of a top)
S: Top, top!
K: 팽이를 Top이라고 합니다. T, O, P, top!
S: Top, top!
<Exchanges>
1. N: You can only answer one time.
S: School sticker?
N: Sparkly sticker.
2. Ok, Ready?
3. S: How do you..?(This student just stopped ask a question at here, so N ignored)
4. N: This is a toy that spins. This is a toy that spins.(more slowly)
S: 아, 제발.
S: 아, 한글이름은 아는데 영어이름을 모르겠어.
S: 한글이름이 뭔데?
S: Top!
N: Yes, 다윗. Top.
S: 와~~
5. S: Top이 뭔데?
S: 팽이
6. N: Top(showing the picture of a top)
S: 아~
7. K: This is a Toy. 무슨 뜻이에요?
Ss: 장난감!! 장난감입니다.
8. K: That spins.(making circles with her finger)
Ss: 돌아간다!
9. K: Spin이 뭐야?
Ss: 돌아간다!
10. K: 돌아가는 장난감이 뭐에요? That is a top(showing the picture of a top)
S: Top, top!
11. K: 팽이를 Top이라고 합니다. T, O, P, top!
S: Top, top!
a) integrating sounds, words, wordings and meanings?
In the first exchange, there is a sound, wording and meaning(N: You can only answer one time. S: School sticker, N: Sparkly sticker).
First, N started just like this, 'You can only answer one time'. S already realized that there will be a something like a game or a quiz with a compensation. Second, S got a hint from N's initiation, so S wanted asked a question with just two words, word level, 'School sticker?' with intonation(↗). Which means 'If I answer one time and I'm right will you give me a school sticker?'. Because of the intonation, S added a meaning of a 'question'. It shows sound, wording and meaning to us. Third, N answered to T's question also with two words 'Sparkly sticker(↘)'. T uptakes S's answer.
Good, Saeromi. Notice how Saeromi just uses ONE exchange and she manages to get examples of everything she wants. Notice how she organizes a complex paragraph by using "firstly", "secondly", and "thirdly> Above all, notice how she backs up everything she says with evidence, still hot from the dialogue. Nice work.
But notice too--the last two points are MOSTLY sound and word, and NOT wording. "School Sticker"? is not a sentence, and neither is "Sparkly Sticker". They don't even have articles!
This means that only the FIRST sentence is "fully" integrated. But how does the first sentence include SOUNDING? Where is the stress? Is the intonation up...or down?
b) integrating visual and nonvisual modes of meaning?
Teachers use motions and pictures to explain meanings.
In Exchange 6, N said a word 'Top' with presenting the picture of a top (N: ‘Top’(showing the picture of a top), S: 아~.) Then Ss understood the meaning of a word 'top'.
In Exchange 8, K tried to explain a word 'spin' (K: That spins.(making circles with her fingers), Ss: 돌아간다!) She made circles with her fingers. Ss could catch the word's meaning and answer as ‘돌아간다’.
Here we can find that K succeeded in integrating visual and nonvisual meaning of meaning. But at the point of grammar, it's so difficult for students because of a relative clause. When N initiates, N uses a relative clause-'This is a toy that spins'. So K repeated it to explain the meaning. Sometimes teachers produce lots of language Ss can not return. This make English difficult to learn in classroom situation. N could reconstrue differently like 'This is a toy. It spins.' Because Ss didn't learn a relative clause, it can make Ss understand more easily and give more chance of sentence level uptake.
Better and better! Saeromi is absolutely right: N could reconstrue a SINGLE, COMPLEX sentence as two sentences. There are MANY advantages to reconstruing complex grammar as complex discourse.
1) As Saeromi points out, it's easier to understand the sentence structure.
2) As Saeromi ALSO points out, it's easier to BORROW the sentence structure and in borrowing it the children can integrate speaking and listening.
3) Because ONE utterance is now TWO utterances, we can divide it into complex DISCOURSE, and provide places for checking understanding, repeating, etc.
T: This is a toy.
S: A toy. It's a toy. This is a toy.
T: It spins.
S: Spin. It spins.
The kids are VERY willing to do this: that's what they are doing, after all, when they use Korean!
Next, notice Saeromi's use of "could" instead of "should". Very important. Many things are POSSIBLE in a classroom. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it is NECESSARILY desirable. There could be good reasons for using a relative clause here (though I doubt they would be good INTEGRATIVE reasons).
Finally, let's keep in mind that there are OTHER ways of simplifying language besides breaking up long sentences into long exchanges. For example, what happens if we use the word "turn" instead of "spin"? Is it easier, or more difficult? Why?
c) integrating reception and production?
Let's go back to exchange 1( N: You can only answer one time. S: School sticker? N: Sparkly sticker.). There is a reception and a production (??? Do you mean an "overlap" or an "integration" between them?) between S(School sticker?) and N(Sparkly sticker). Actually N uptakes S's words.
An "uptake". And of course an uptake is precisely a way of integrating. Or rather, it is MANY ways of integrating. As Saeromi says, it is a way of integrating reception and production, because we produce what we receive. But it's also a way of integrating sounding, words, and wordings, because we use the sounds and words that we receive to produce new wordings (uptake NEVER involves exact repetition, and it doesn't here either). But as we saw, the WORDING part is the weakest part here--there isn't even an article, much less a sentence.
From this exchange, we can understand that S and N achieved their communication goals successfully. N explained the game rules-how to play and S understood what the compensation is-what to get. But in teaching English, we can consider other ways of using grammatical sentences. In this exchange, S asked 'School sticker?' and N uptake in the word level, 'Sparkly sticker'. How about if N uptakes her words at the sentence level like 'I'll give you a sparkly sticker', or 'Do you want a school sticker? How about sparkly sticker?'. It can show Ss a example of grammatical sentence level talking. And also Ss could uptake it.
Is "how about sparkly sticker" really a sentence? Where's the verb? Where's the ARTICLE?
Never mind--Saeromi has done this very well. Notice that she handles the CRITICAL/APPRECIATIVE part of the problem particularly well, using "could" instead of "should" and making suggestions rather than condemnations. We need this kind of attitude towards our teacher talk; we need to treat it as a miracle that can be made even better.
d) integrating skills and knowledge?
In the exchange 3, S tried to ask a question. N already explain what to get, but there wasn't a specific explanation about 'how to play'. N just said 'you can only answer one time.' S's question is started with 'how'. So, maybe S wanted to ask 'How to win the game' or 'How do I win?'
But S didn't know what is right expression. S tried but couldn't finish. N could encourage him. But N missed chance to integrate skill and knowledge. S has a knowledge that 'how' is a question word and S used skill of 'speaking'. As a student, he tried nicely. But there was no response and encouragement for S. Teacher could help him, and it could be a good chance to learn for S.