Sung-eun's answer for final exam-Let's Play

[홍성은(Julia)]

Final Exam(M20081420 홍성은)

Q2. Let's Play. Look at the data(or choose your own)and consider ALL THREE of the following problems. Write at least one paragraph for each, and include quotations from data (in parenthesis) to support your claims. Do not include all the data; only include those parts you need.

a) Does the teacher explain rules to the children? How does she do so, or how could she have done so? Why did she make the choices reflected in the data?

The teacher explains rules to the children by three method. She is naming some concrete objects before the game starts("KT: Let's play! We are going to PLAY...? ", "FT(Craig):Yeah~!...Navi Game", "KT: What's this?", "Ss: Map, car, dice, score-paper"). She introduces the game by naming the game(Navi Game) and some parts of the game(map, dice, toy car, score-board) to provide context so that the pupils can notice what, how, and why they should do with what. That's the "AIM" of the game she is using for explaining the game. Ss are expected to catch the aim(eg. They will get points through dice only when they give correct directions.) of the game by understanding the NAME of the game plus each NAME and meaning of each part of the game. But the name of the game could have been related with the teaching point or target language(eg. Where is Namdaemun?)

 Another way she is adopting is "DEMONSTRATIONs". She is trying to show and tell how to play the game by just doing the game with FT(Craig), fortunately she is able to get great help from the English native teacher, avoiding short-fat ugly tedious explanations or "bellybutton problem". Notice how "T-T' demonstrations go like:

KT & FT: Rock, Scissors, paper!

KT: I'm the winner!

FT: Oh, I always lose(sounds disappointed)!

KT: So I am "Navi". You(pointing to Craig) are Mr. Driver. (She throws the die)

KT: Number?

Ss: 2

KT: Where is number2 in the map?

.

.

.

  It seems very effective to help Ss understand how to do the game to win very clearly through many examples taking turns between T-T, but the teacher should be careful not to waste time for the next abundant  and productive S-S social interaction. Additionally, she could use T-S demonstration without FT(Craig), in this case she might have hard time making the game understandable and it may also take much time, and she can just DOING the game with Ss together reducing their passive involvement or boresome.

b) Does the teacher adjust the level of action or meaning as the game progresses? If so, how, and if not, why not? Why does the teacher take the options that we see in this, and not some other option?

  The teacher adjusts the level of action or meaning as the game progresses by " ROTE repetition", "ROLE creation", and "RULE formulation".

   Firstly, she is using " rote repetition" as a primary step(eg. "KT: Ok. Go straight two blocks(making her voice clearly and loudly like a robot).", "Ss: Go straight two blocks(Ss repeat after the teacher even though she didn't ask them to repeat).", "KT & Ss: Stop! ", "KT: Cross the street.", "Ss: Cross the street.", etc.) The children are just repeating the sounds, words, and sentences without stress of being forced to understand the meaning. They are shown to learn by rote. But the teacher is providing supports with some tools like a map and a car so that the children will be able to acquire the language with pragmatic meaning in the context.

  Secondly, the teacher, Julia is creating ROLES( "KT: So I am Navi. Mrs. Navi. And....you are Mr. Driver.") By using this method, she is helping students understand the context of the game and adding meaning into the rote repetition("KT: Hey, Mr. Driver? Where do you want to go? 우리 bank? 하나 bank?", "FT: 우리 bank", "KT: Ok. Go straight two blocks...") Her purpose to use this way is to help to make the meaning of the language clear and to avoid short-fat ugly tedious explanations of the game or "bellybutton problem" as I mentioned above.

  Finally, Julia introduces RULES in a way of negotiation("KT: If you make a mistake....?", "Ss: No points!","KT: Yes. Only correct directions. No mistakes. And no Korean. Only...?", " Ss: English.", "KT: Yes, Only English. No Korean. If you drop the die?", " Ss: Out!", "KT: Yes, don't drop the die.", etc) in order to help the pupil self-regulate his or her own behavior and language use. What I'd like to suggest is to relate the rules coherently to the language in grammar and vocabulary rather than to borrow the general game rules.

C) Does the teacher ensure that the rules have been taken on board and understood by the children? How does she do this, or how could she have done so? Why does the teacher make the decisions that we see her implementing in the data?

  The teacher guarantees that the children have understood the game rules by EXTERNALIZING, SUMMARIZING, and REFEREEING.

  First of all, she uses "score board" to externalize whether or not the children are able to apply the rules to the game asking what happened during and after the game("KT: Excuse me. Why did you get NO point here? Why?", "S: Um...he talking two block but this is one block."). In this way, the children themselves can express what they've internalized(game rules and key language items) explicitly, concretely, and easily.

  Secondly, the teacher is trying to negotiate the rules clearly while demonstrating the game at the beginning("KT: If you make a mistake....?", "Ss: No points!","KT: Yes. Only correct directions. No mistakes. And no Korean. Only...?", " Ss: English.", "KT: Yes, Only English. No Korean. If you drop the die?", " Ss: Out!", "KT: Yes, don't drop the die.", etc). The rules are stated both positively and negatively by both the teacher and the children("Only correct directions. No mistakes", "Only English. No Korean"), that is, the teacher is getting the children to restate the rules in a negative or positive fashion checking if the rules have been really taken on board by the children. She is also providing a summarized "rule-contract" verbally to help the children to internalize the rules completely("KT: Craig? Can you tell us the rules again?", "FT: Ok. Be careful! Use English. Don't use Korean. Don't drop the die. And don't make a mistake!"). But I think there is something to be considered in case that the key language items are not melted in the game rules skillfully for successful language learning.

  Lastly, she is acting as a REFEREE to control a dispute or argument that does happen in games("KT: Oh, you dropped the die. You lose your chance. Your partner's turn", "S: No! He did 반칙 like this 아까", "KT: But he didn't drop the die. He blocked the die with his belly like this?. It's ok. No problem"). This process of the conflict being solved between children seems to be one way the teacher can see if they have internalized the rules, and the results of "refereeing" could be another type of externalization.

DatafortheFinalExam.hwp