Guk and Kellogg

[kellogg]

I just looked at the calendar and I realized that we really only have two weeks left. So here's my plan.

We want to do one last discourse analysis--using either CA or SFL. But the MAIN thing we want to do is to look not only at the LANGUAGE used but also at the THINKING.

We've already seen that classroom conversation can be 'complexive" in various ways. It can represent a chain, or a diffuse complex, or even (as in the "dragonfly" example) a pseudoconcept.

So what we need to do is to look at some data (you can use old data or new) and try to characterize it in terms of THINKING. We are particularly interested in the CHILDREN'S thinking, of course, although the teacher's thinking is hardly irrelevant to our analysis.

Take this as an example:

Jimin: She has small face. Sheʹs face is white.

     Anna: ‘마르다’가 뭐야? (“How do you say ‘mareuda’?”)

     Jimin: Thin.

Anna: Sheʹs thin.

(Data collected by Ms. Guk Iju.)

In this example, the children are playing a game. They have a picture, and each one volunteers a sentence about the picture.

Jimin makes two sentences, but neither one is really correct. The first one lacks an article, and the second one has an incorrect possessive pronoun ("She's" rather than "her").

Jimin's turn is followed by an embedded adjacency pair. Using Korean as metalanguage (a common feature of S-S discourse, according to Guk and Kellogg 2007), Anna gets the adjective she needs. She thn makes the sentence "She's thin" which is the only correct sentence in the exchange.

The three sentences, correct and incorrect, create an associative complex, insofar as the children are noting the FEATURES of the pictures they've been given. All the features are concrete, factual ones; there is nothing abstract or essential about any one feature, and they are all connected to one picture.

However the SENTENCES form a chain complex. "She" links the first and the second sentence, while "is" links the second and the third sentence. We often find that children are able to change only ONE grammatical feature at a time, and this is further evidence, if we needed any, that the "one new idea" feature we find in so much skilled teacher talk (see Kim Yongho, forthcoming) is a good idea!

More good ideas HERE:

Guk and Kellogg.pdf

Remember:

a)     Mr. Yun: Which kind of interaction has more METALANGUAGE? S-S or T-S? Why?

b)    Mr, Kim: Which kind of interaction is more ACCURATE? S-S or T-S? Why?

c)     Ms. Yi: Which kind of interaction is more COMPLEX? S-S or T-S? Why?

d)    Ms. Choe: Do the two types of interaction form ONE kind of ZPD or TWO?

dk

[kellogg]

I forgot. Here's the video we were watching last night: http://vimeo.com/groups/39473/videos/13550409
And here is a short written presentation about it: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Vygotsky_Concept_Symposium.pdf