|
Grade | Turn | Percentage | Mean turn of emergence |
3 | 109 | 31.5 | 9.21 |
5 | 124 | 11.0 | 8.61 |
In quantitive comparison, 3rd gragers use much more item-based combinations than 5th, but in qualititive comparison in particular using mean turn of emergence there is no significant difference.
True. They BOTH tend to wait until the ninth turn before they create an item-based combination, but the fifth graders are a little earlier than the third graders. Interestingly, that's what we see (more or less) in our "blue sky" data (which is 5th grade data, of course!)
Under pressure to use creative constructions, they use item- based expression!!s, which seem to be aquired by long-term experiences in IPBS which I don't know. They've learned to hew to the norm of behavior and select low risk strategies
What do you think IPBS stands for?
What developed is as followings.
When 3rd grade students used "negativism", a complexity emerged out of the joint eleboration of the word interactively not intraactively. What does "intractively" mean? This is the causality, Vygotskan word. Causality is English, not Vygotskyan! Moreover, when 5th students refused to hear the suggestions, emerged reported speech "I syas 'Wait'" which is the joint construcions kind of complexity. If ONE side refuses to hear, can we really say that it is "jointly" constructed? Can we even say it is "interaction"?
This is also the production of interaction between turns. True. I can say that this is the function of metatalk by students and for students in a foreign language.
Yes, it's talk about talk. But it's not talk about YOUR talk. It's talk about MY talk. Can we call that "interaction"? Perhaps we should call it "intra-action"?
In my opinion, as Vygotsky said that development takes place in social situation in developmet, students develop language more by themselves when they interact. Why "by themselves", Jeonghwa? I don't understand. The two examples above 3rd and 5th, support this idea since they showed us new genuine complexities came from 'give and take situation'. Can I say this is the central neoformation in social situation?
Vygotsky's LAST book is called "thinking and speech". In it, he describes "thinking" and "speaking" as two different LINES of DEVELOPMENT, which "cross" and influence each other, but which are nevertheless separate.
Remember that the neoformation is really a form of MENTAL life. But the social situation of development is a form of SOCIAL life. Which one is closer to "thinking"? Which one is closer to "speech"?
Now, let's consider how the two lines of development CROSS, how they INFLUENCE each other, or, as Jisu says, how they INTERACT.
BIRTH: "Thinking" is only subcortical, "old brain" functioning. "Speaking" is mostly CRYING. The two lines of development do not interact.
INFANCY: "Thinking" is cortical, "new brain" functioning. "Speaking" is mostly cooing. Both are mostly PASSIVE and REACTIVE--the baby reacts to EXTRA-cortical, other brain functioning (e.g. smiling back).
CRISIS AT ONE: "Thinking" tries to create "speaking"...and fails. Do the two lines interact? Which controls which?
EARLY CHILDHOOD: "Speaking" and "Thinking" merge: thinking becomes VERBAL and speaking becomes RATIONAL. Consciousness is possible, but not self-consciousness.
CRISIS AT THREE: "No" happens, but it often happens BEFORE the children are thinking. Which is dominant? Thinking or speaking?
PRESCHOOL: Thinking and speaking interact in PLAY. First, we have PLAY LANGUAGE, that is, action accompanied by speaking. Then, later, there is LANGUAGE PLAY, that is, speaking first and then acting.
CRISIS AT SEVEN: The crisis of "acting", "affectation", "posing". The child 's consciousness becomes meta-conscious and even self-conscious. Abstract rules become thinkable, and these control actions in rule based games.
Now, here's the big question. When the child learns a FOREIGN language...does all this have to start all over from the beginning? Or is foreign language learning really a kind of LANGUAGE PLAY and a kind of META-LINGUISTIC consciousness? Let's see what Jeonghwa says:
However, they failed to develop the creative construtions, which I think it would take more time to do so becasue the surroundings do not fit to develop them.
NO creative constructions? None at all? Are you sure? What about THIS:
Puppy’s Team: Let's go home.
Julie’s Team: I cannot go home!
Puppy’s Team: No, go!
Julie’s Team: No.
Puppy’s Team: Go, go, go!
Julie’s Team: I cannot go home.
Puppy’s Team: Why?
Julie’s Team: I cannot go home because I'm hungry.
Actually, the data says that 13.1% of the utterances are creative constructions, right? But even if that were NOT true, maybe the developmental significance of the creative construction is NOT quantitative but qualitative.
dk
첫댓글 Sorry! To me, 'matatalk' was so attractive to use that I worte it without any thinking. I felt freey when I posted homework but now I feel burden more than before casue I realized how little I know and understand. When I refered to 'develop by themsevels' I mean while students interact toghether, they stimulate each ohter to say in different way unlike the way the text book. To be honest, I got more confused.
It almost always happens with Professor's comments. They are too profound to understand and somewhat make you feel like you've written a totally wrong answer. He does it to everybody. It's just a learning process:)
Come on, Minkyeong! Be fair. You are all teachers yourself. You KNOW that if the teacher says "Good job!" it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Now, I said "good" and "true" to Jeonghwa and I really meant it. If I didn't think her response was interesting, I would just say "Uh huh" and move on. If I write a couple hundred words, then I think it's a really GOOD and TRUE response. Only good and true responses are worth discussing at this length.