Agenda for Today

[kellogg]

This is the agenda for today, but I don't seem to be able to download it, so I'm going to paste it in!

CD&M10.doc

Tools and Signs in Classroom Management and Classroom Discourse

Functional, Structural, and Cultural-Historical Approaches to Language Classroom Management and Teaching Talk

Agenda TEN: Tools and Concepts

Signs and Concepts

Homework

Chapter FIVE: Research Methods

Signs and Concepts

Consider the problem of teaching CIRCLES to children. One way we might do this—to preschoolers or to very young children—is like this:

T: Today we are going to learn about circles. Look at this coin. A coin is a circle. Now, look at a plate. A plate is a circle. There are many circles in the world. In fact, there are circles outside the world too—the moon is a circle, and so is the sun! (The teacher and the children then go out and look for more circles: a clock, a key-ring, a compass, a jar lid, a Frisbee, etc.)

Now, this way of teaching is profoundly inductive. But that doesn’t matter nearly as much—to Vygotsky—as the fact that it is non-analytic. It is, rather, synthetic—it’s about adding on to the child’s complex of circles; the child’s circle collection.

Another way of teaching might look like this.

T: Today, we are going to learn about circles. Now, here is a string. And here is a pencil. I’m going to make a small circle (makes one). Now I’m going to make a big circle. And now we’re going to make THOUSANDS of circles.

This way of teaching is really not inductive—in a way, I suppose, it is deductive; we use the general principle of construction of the circle and we create our own circles. But from the point of view of classroom management and classroom discourse, the important thing is that it starts not with examples but rather with a tool and a kind of working definition of a circle: the set of ALL points (the pencil mark) that are equidistant from a centre (the string).

Imagine we want to teach THIS:

We decide to use the game of “Going to the market”. One way is to start with the conceptual categories, like this:

Mr. K: Let’s NOT go to the market. Let’s have a CONCERT. (singspiel) “Let’s have a concert, I’m the conductor, you are the STRINGS.”

Ms. Yi: Let’s have a concert. You are the conductor. I am the strings.

Ms. Choe: Let’s have a concert. He is the conductor. You are the strings. I am the woodwinds.

Mr. Bak: Let’s have a concert. He is the conductor. She is the strings. You are the woodwinds. I am the brass.

Ms. Bak: Let’s have a concert. He is the conductor. She is the strings. She is the woodwinds. You are the brass. I am the percussion! (cymbals!)

Now, these categories of instruments are concepts—to the adult. Why? Because the name of the category is really like the string and the pencil—it suggests (usually) the way in which the sound is defined. For example, the strings make sounds by sawing on strings with a bow (and that is why the guitar and the harp are not really strings!). The woodwinds make sounds by blowing on REEDS (and that is why the brass are not really woodwinds). What about the percussion instruments?  

But here is the problem. We know that when the kids THINK about instruments, they usually think complexively. That is, they think of some typical string instrument, like a violin, and they just lump together all the instruments that look like it, at least externally.

Now, suppose we want to continue our game by subdividing it. We do this.

Ms. Bak: Let’s go to the STRING INSTRUMENTS. I’m the violin. And you? And you?’

Now eventually, we will find that the children begin including NON-string instruments. And when this happens, we can ask WHY.

Ms. Yi: Let’s go to the BRASS instruments. I’m the tuba player. And you?

Ms. Yun: Let’s go to the PERCUSSION instruments. I’m the kettle drum player. And you?

Ms. Kim: Let’s go to the WOODWINDS. I’m an oboe player. And you?

Ms. Kim Yeosun: Let’s go to the SYMPHONY. I’m the conductor!

One of the most predictable and at the same time remarkable results of the last quarter century has been the discovery that when the child has a concept in his or her native language, say, “brass instruments”, the child cannot easily transfer this into his or her second language. And yet the reverse road seems quite easy: we find that when children have a concept in their second language they do not have much difficulty transferring it into the first language.

It’s predictable, because of course there isn’t really any clear reason why we should not be able to re-express any concept we’ve actually grasped in our mother tongue. It’s remarkable, because it really appears to imply that we can get two lessons in one: we can teach concepts and at the same time teach English. Hence the popularity—and the apparent success—of immersion, CBI, task based teaching!

On closer examination, it’s not so simple. It really does appear, for example, that to some degree children can express—in English—concepts from their first language. It’s just that when they do this, they make English look rather more like Korean. It is also true that my graduate students can have a lot of difficulty re-expressing in Korean concepts that they have learnt in English, and that when they try to do this they end up sounding, to Korean ears, a little more English.

But from the point of view of classroom management and classroom discourse, the most remarkable thing is not these exceptions to the rule that transfer of concepts is easier from foreign language to native language than from native language to foreign language. The most remarkable thing is that we find that whenever we teach some content, or some task, or some immersion, the “focus on content” always comes with definite “focus on form” episodes, in which the various distortions of first language on second language and second language on first language are brought into focus.

When we are finished with the homework, I have a plan for the rest of the year that I would like to share with you. I think we should spend it designing research on classroom management and classroom discourse that is:

a) non-invasive

b) sustainable

c) objectivizing

Homework

Now, in EACH example of the homework, we have an example of CBI or TBL. That is, the focus is on a turning a preconceptual category into a more conceptual one. We know that Ms. Yi, for example, wants to present the idea that houses are made or more or less durable materials. We also know that Ms. Choe wants to present the problem of choosing a boyfriend from two fighting stags, and Mr. Bak wants to present the concept of changeable weather and the daily weather report (as opposed to day and date), while Ms. Bak wants to introduce the idea of quantity.

We hypothesize that in each case, we are working on transferring complexes into concepts. We will call this mode the bottom-up mode, and we will say that it goes from native language word meanings to foreign language word meanings, instead of the other way around.  

Ms. Yi

T: by the way, can you see the first pig’s house? what is. what kind of house he has. first pig, first pig’s house(1.)  what is that?(.) do you know that?  in korean is ok.  무~슨 :::: 재료로 만들었을까?

S1:  [짚]

S2:  [헝겊]

재욱: [block, block,]

S3:  [지푸라기]

The analysis of Ms.YI’s data by Halliday’s grammar.

* by the way, can you see the first pig’s house?

IDEATIONAL

By the way	Can	you	see	the first pig’s house?
		participant	process	participant
		sensor	mental	phenomenon

Perfect! Now, we notice that there is a lot in this sentence at the beginning that does not really serve an ideational function. What function does it serve? Well…

TEXTUAL

By the way	Can	You	see	the first pig’s House?
Theme: Textual	Theme: Modal	Theme: Interpersonal	Rheme
Marked			New

Also perfect.

INTERPERSONAL

By the way	Can	you	See	the first pig’s House?
	Residue	Mood	Residue	Residue
	What is this?	Subject	Predicator	Complement

*What is. what kind of house he has.

IDEATIONAL

In this part, there are missing sentences. It would be ‘what is the first pig’s house?’ or ‘what is made of first pig’s house?’ Ms.YI wants to ask a question like that. but she hesitates and stops the sentence then makes a new question as ‘what kind of house he has?’ This is for focusing on how the first pig makes the house, by what?. By that result, the sentences are mixed as what is What kind of house he has. (even this is not correct grammatically). Then Ms YI analyzes this sentence into two conditions

1-1What is (the first pig’s house?)

What	Is	(the first pig’s house)
Participant	Process	Participant
Identified	Relational	Identifier

1-2. What is (made of the first pig’s house?)

What	is (made	of the first pig’s house)
Participant	Process	Participant
Thing?	Material	Goal

2.what kind of house he has.

What kind of house	He	Has
Participant	Participant	Process
Attribute	Carrier	Relational:Possessive

Compare:

a) What kind of house does he have?

b) What kind of house has he?

Remember: there are two kinds of wh-question.                                                

                                                                                              Wh-element is not the subject Fin>Sub

                                        Wh-

                                                                                                  Wh-element is the subject: Sub>Fin

Which is it?

TEXTUAL

1-1What is (the first pig’s house?)

What	Is	(the first pig’s house)
Theme	Rheme
Wh-element	New

1-2. What is (made of the first pig’s house?)

What	is (made	of the first pig’s house)
Theme	Rheme
Wh-element	New

2.what kind of house he has.

What kind of	House	He	has
Theme:modal	Theme: topical	Rheme	Rheme
Given		New

INTERPERSONAL

1-1What is (the first pig’s house?)

What	Is	(the first pig’s house)
Residue		(Mood)
Complement	Predicator+finite	(Subject)

1-2. What is (made of the first pig’s house?)

What	is      (made	of the first pig’s house)
Residue		Mood
Wh-element	Predicator+finite	Subject

2.what kind of house he has.

What kind of	House	He	has
Residue		Mood	Residue
Complement		Subject	Predicator+finite

* First pig, first pig’s house.  what is that?

IDEATIONAL

First pig	The first pig’s house	what	Is	That?
Participant	Participant	Participant	Process	Participant
		Identified	Relational	Identifier

Yes! But actually the teacher wants to talk about the ATTRIBUTES. The whole problem here is that the relational process is too GENERAL—it is used attributively here. But it might be better to use a material process and then attach a minor clause:

“The first pig built a house. The first pig made a house. With what? Of what? How?”

Notice that the teacher DOES use this format—she DOES use a minor clause and a major one. But it’s turned around. She uses the MINOR clause to set the topic and the MAJOR clause to ask for information. That explains her thematic structure.

TEXTUAL

First pig	The first pig’s house	What	Is	That?
Theme: Interpersonal	Theme: Topical	Theme	Rheme
Marked		Wh-element: Unmarked interrogative

INTERPERSONAL

First pig	The first pig’s house	what	is	That?
		Residue		Mood
		Complement	Predicator+finite	Subject

*Do you know that?

IDEATIONAL

Do	you	Know	That?
Process	Participant	Process	Participant
Proverb	Sensor	Mental	Phenomenon

TEXTUAL

Do	you	Know	That?
Theme		Rheme
	Interpersonal

Where does the NEW information come in? At the beginning or the end?

Actually—I think the whole problem is that it’s not clear what “that” refers to.

INTERPERSONAL

Do	you	Know	That?
Mood		Residue
Finite	Subject	Predicator	Complement

*In korean is ok.

Wait a minute. Are we sure this is a major clause? One way to check is to add a “tag probe”, like this:

In Korean is OK, is it?

We can see that “it” is missing! So perhaps this is not a major clause. It’s not:

a) “Korean is OK.”

Perhaps it’s really:

b) “It is OK to speak in Korean.”

Now, you can see why this matters. If is a), there is a clear clause structure, and the meaning is that Korean is a good language. But if it is the second then the clause structure is missing.

IDEATIONAL

In Korean	is	O.K
Participant	Process	Participant
Carrier	Relational	Attribute

TEXTUAL

In Korean	is	O.K
Theme:topical	Rheme
Given	New

INTERPERSONAL

In Korean	is	O.K
Mood	Residue
Carrier	Predicator	Attribute

*무슨 재료로 만들었을까?

IDEATIONAL

무슨	재료로	만들었을	까?
Participant	Participant	Process	Participant
Isn’t this a circumstance?	Thing	Material	Wait—are you sure?

TEXTUAL

무슨	재료로	만들었을	까?
Theme	Theme: topical	Rheme
Marked	English puts the theme first. But Korean MARKS the theme using 은/는.

INTERPERSONAL

무슨	재료로	만들었을	까?
Residue	Mood	Residue
Complement Isn’t this really an ADJUNCT? An adjunct of manner?	Subject is this really a subject? Let’s ask Ms. Choe!	Predicator+Finite Yes, there is certainly  a predicator there. But a finite? Two finites?	Finite

*짚, 헝겊, block block, 지푸라기

IDEATIONAL:Participant

TEXTUAL: Theme

INTERPERSONAL: Mood(minor)

Good. Notice that if it’s really a minor clause, it has no theme. No clause theme, anyway!

Ms. Choe

<Data>

동현: If Mike and Kevin…Mike and Kevin meet, fight, Kevin is win so I choose Kevin.

대한: 야, 그게 아니라 엄청난 게 생각났어. 마이크의 키는 3m야. 너무 커.

T: No, no. 180!

Ss: 우와아아!

<Analysis>

Ideational metafunction

If	Mike and Kevin	meet	fight	Kevin	is	win(ning)	so	I	choose	Kevin
	participant	process	process	participant	process	participant		participant	process	participant

If	Mike and Kevin	meet	fight	Kevin	is	win(s)	so	I	choose	Kevin
	participant	process	process	participant		process		participant	process	participant

Now, Ms. Choe is NOT analyzing the third level. But it’s pretty easy to analyze! What kind of process? What kind of participant?

Hint: A MATERIAL process is usually about an actor and a goal. A MENTAL process is usually about a senser and a phenomenon. A RELATIONAL process is usually about a token and a value.

야,	그게	아니라	엄청난	게	생각났어.
	participant	process	participant		process
		relational			mental

마이크의	키는	3m	야.
participant		participant	process
			relational

너무	커.
participant

No,	no.	180!
		participant

우와아아!

Textual metafunction

If	Mike and Kevin	meet	fight	Kevin	is	win	so	I	choose	Kevin
theme				rheme
theme	theme	rheme	rheme	theme	rheme		theme	theme	rheme

야,	그게	아니라	엄청난 게	생각났어.
theme			rheme
	theme	rheme	theme	rheme

마이크의	키는	3m야.
theme		rheme

너무	커.
rheme

No,	no.	180!
theme	theme	rheme

우와아아!

One way to test the “Theme” is to try to add 은/는. If it fits, it’s a theme.

Interpersonal metafunction

If

Mike

and

Kevin

meet

fight

Kevin

is

win(ning)

so

I

choose

Kevin

mood

residue

mood

residue

mood

residue

Subject, finite, mood, or Predicator?

Sub, fin, mood, or pred?

S, f, m, or p?

S, f, m, or p?

S, f, m, or p?

S, f, m, or p?

S, f, m, or p?

S, f, m, or p?

If	Mike and Kevin	meet	fight	Kevin	is	win(s)	so	I	choose	Kevin
	mood	residue		mood		residue		mood	residue
	S, f, m, or p?	S, f, m, or p?		S, f, m, or p?	S, f, m, or p?	S, f, m, or p?		S, f, m, or p?	S, f, m, or p?	S, f, m, or p?

야,	그게(그것이)		아니라	엄청난 게		생각났어.
	mood		residue	mood		Residue
	sub	fin	negation	sub	fin

마이크의	키는	3m야.
mood		residue

너무	커.
residue

No,	no.	180!
		residue

우와아아!

mood

In general, I think that the analyses are very sound—very solid! But there is a problem—what does it all mean?

Well, in the short term, it means we’ve come closer to solving the two basic problems we set ourselves at the end of conversation analysis. We said we needed to look at structure below the level of the turn, and we needed to be able to ask WHY people choose one form and not another. We haven’t got ALL the answers, particularly not to the last question, but we are closer, because we know that clause structure lies below the level of the turn, and that clauses have three kinds of choices: theme, transitivity, and mood.

In the last part of the class, I want to talk about where the data comes from.

Tool and Sign in Child Development, Chapter Five

It is now WEEK TEN. We have about one month left. Four more classes.

For the whole semester, I have been putting this off—Tool and Sign in Child Development, the chapter on research methods, and our final assignment. I am not sorry, because we have had two interesting assignments along the way and also because it has really prepared the way for our final chapter perhaps even better than Vygotsky himself could have done (as we’ve seen a lot of the experiments he discussed were with apes!)

But now we can put it off no longer! So we CUT to the CHASE! We are going to read Chapter FIVE of Tool and Sign, the Chapter on Research methods. And then…our final assignment:

Design a method of gathering data that is NOT a stimulus-response method, that is NOT based on introspection, and that is NOT based on the idea of a “treatment”. Ideally, your method should be:

a)     NON-INVASIVE. That is, it should not interfere with normal teaching in any way.

b)    OBJECTIVIZING. That is, it should make clear the actual MENTAL processes going on in language use and not simply the resulting behavior.

c)     SUSTAINABLE. That is, it should be easy enough so that you can go on gathering data even after you graduate.

It’s not easy! Or is it? Let’s read Vygotsky and Luria’s chapter and find out.

I In this short chapter, Vygotsky and Luria argue that experiments always reflect the way in which basic questions of the psychology have been resolved and directly illuminate the epistemological basis of the psychologist. They refer to two schools: “spiritualism” and “naturalism.” (5-1~5-3)

            A) The spiritualist school failed to provide a workable form of psychological experimentation because it could not account for the higher mental functions without circularity (the intellect is explained by some reduced, but nevertheless still identifiable, form of intellect) and was particularly poor at providing a child psychology (because it relies on introspection and phenomenology).

            B) The naturalist school failed to provide a workable form of psychological experimentation because (as seen in Chapter One) they simply transferred experimental techniques developed with animals to human beings. This borrowing of zoopsychological experimental techniques attempted to use the stimulus-response units found in lower psychological functions to account for the higher psychological ones.

II Although this approach seems, at first glance, more promising (and in fact it does account for the initial, chimpanzee-like period of child development), three weaknesses proved fatal. (5-4~5-8).

A)    The first was that it only recorded processes that were external and visible; it was powerless to externalize those that were already internal.

B)    The second was that it did not provide any way for the unit of development itself to develop: the stimulus-reaction unit merely reacted to external conditions (through accommodation or assimilation to the environment, as Piaget would say).

C)    Thirdly, because it describes only elements that even the most elementary psychological processes have, it could not account for the way in which new functions and new systems develop internally. The naturalist approach to experimentation could not show how formations that were neither implicit at the outset nor given from the outside arise from the process of development itself.

LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING RESEARCH DESIGNS. ARE THEY NATURALISTIC OR SPIRITUALISTIC?

I want to do a SURVEY, to find out if learners share the same perceptions of what an ideal teacher is that teachers do.

I want to study gestures. I will teach the children dialogues, and then see how well they respond. Then I will teach them dialogues WITH GESTURES and see how well they respond.

I want to study gestures. I will (secretly) divide my students into two groups—higher and lower. I want to look at the gestures used by the higher group and compare them to the lower group.

I want to do a “THINK ALOUD” study where children “think aloud” while they are writing.

I want to do a set of PUPPET DRAMAS. I will give the children a vocabulary test before the dramas and another test after the dramas. I will measure their mean length of utterance, their ratio of error-free utterances to total utterances, and their type-token ratio too!