Re:What happened, develped between 3 and 5

[kellogg]

What happened is In P. 20~21 that 5th graders appear to use comservative and non-developmental strategies such as simpler and shorter fixed expression‎!!s.

Good! But is shorter necessarily non-developmental? Here's a passage from a textbook in the mid-19th century:

Does your friend still live with you? He lives with me no longer. How long has he lived with you? He has lived with me only a year. How long did you remain at the ball? I remained there till midnight. How long have you remained in the carriage? I have remained an hour in it. Have you remained in the garden till now? I have remained there till now. Has the captain come as far as there? He has come as far as here. How far has the merchant come? He has come as far as the end of the small road. Has the Turk come as far as the end of the small road? etc

Doesn't really sound NATURAL, does it. Now, consider the following:

1  T: Look at the picture. What do you see?

2  S: Cable car

3  T: This is a cable car. And another one? (sic)

4  S: Tall tower

5   T: Yeah. This is very tall tower .What is it? Do you know the name of this tower?

6  S: 남산타워

7  T: 남산타워. OK. It’s 남산타워. And another (sic). What do you see?

8  S: I look at the mountain. (sic)

9  T: You’re looking at the mountain. Do you know the name of this mountain? Maybe 남산.

10  S: I look at the grass. (sic)     

11 T: You’re looking at the grass. Yeah, lots of grass here.

12  S: I look at the blue sky.

13 T: You’re looking at the blue sky. Ok.

You can see that the student's response is long, but not entirely appropriate. It's not exactly NATURAL, is it? Is complexity ALWAYS developmental?

This is because that they have learned the rules and the nature of competition of the game.  However when calculating the mean turn of emergence, there is a difference.

Notice that the mean turn of emergence is NOT a measure of complexity. It's a measure of how EARLY the students are using a particular turn. Let's look at that "blue sky" data again. You can see that there is an answer emerging in turn 2, but it's not a sentence. Which turn does a full sentence emerge in?

Following table is about the comparison of item-based combination between 3rd and 5th garde.

 

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

[은정화]

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.

[이민경]

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:)

[kellogg]

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.