snueenglish

Well, I think that judging a class by whether it is "interesting" or "boring' is probably not very interesting. Even VERY interesting classes are not as interesting as boring computer games (for children). But this doesn't mean that we should cancel all classes and just play computer games.   Perhaps if you could convince me that children really learn more in interesting classes than they do in boring classes I might be interested. But so far I really haven't seen any evidence that this is true. Let's see if the data will give us any.   Yesterday, I visited 6th grade English class again.  They were studying Lesson 3 'I like spring'.  I just inspected the beginning of the class. T : Let's sing together. RR Ss : (sing a song - They song Westlife's 'My Love'.)   "My Love" is interesting--for the kids. But here are the lyrics:   So I say it in a breath Hope my dreams will take me there Where the skies are blue To see you once again my love All the seas go coast to coast Find the place I love the most Where the fields are green To see you once again my love Obviously, these are all "fixed expressions" rather than item based combinations or abstract constructions, at least as far as the kids are concerned (and some of them are taken from advertising slogans, like "coast to coast' and "The I love the most..." which are taken from travel literature).   Would you say that these are reversible utterances? Are they uptakeable? What do you think? Will the kids remember or use any of this?   Or will they just say, one day:   Oh no I wonder how I wonder why I wonder where they are The days we had The songs we sang together And forget?   T ：Hi.  How are you? RR   Is this REALLY reversible?   Ss : I'm fine, thank you.  And you? SV, RR  Notice that the kids say "I" instead of "we". Why? T : I'm good, too. SV     How was your weekend? RR Raise your hands. RR S1 : I went to hiking with my father.  PV, RR (sic) T : Where did you go? RR  Notice that there is TOPICAL uptake but no lexical uptake at all. S1 : Sim-Hak mountain. RR, PV T : Sim-Hak mountain. Was it good?  IU, RR Lexical uptake! But here it's not really necessary. S1 : Not bad. SV, RR T : Anyone else? RR S2 : I had a puppy! PV, RR  (sic) T : Wow, puppy! (sic)  What kind of puppy? IU, RR S2 : Um..  I don't know.  RR, SV T : How big is it? RR S2 : Very small.  PV It's so cute. SV, RR T : You look so happy. RR, SV     What did you do, Ji-yeon? RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? Ji-yeon : I went to sea, Kang-hwa do.  I ate 조개구이. (sic) RR, PV T : You went to Kang-hwa do. IU, SV I envy you. SV     다른 사람은 주말을 어떻게 보냈어요?  RR, Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers?All day sleep? (sic) PV S3 : I went to Kintex, Motor-show. PV 멋있는 자동차가 많았어요. RR,SV T : Oh, very good. RR, SV Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? T : Let's turn.   RR  Today' lesson is Lesson 3 'I like Spring'.  RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers?     Look at the screen, and listen carefully. RR  Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? Ss : (They listen carefully.) T : Who are day? ??? RR, PV  Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? Ss : Ann and Kevin. PV T : Where's Ann? PV, RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? S4 : Shop. PV T : Make a sentence. RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? S4 : She is the shop. PV T : She is... IU S5 : She is at the shop. IU, SV T : What did she drop on the street? PV Ss : 파여. RR, PV T : In English. IU, PV Ss: .... T : Hint.  봄에 양파야.  PV, RR  (Notice the use of grammar translation. But is this really reversible?) S6 : Spring onion여. PV T : Listen carefully dialog (sic) B.  RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? Ss : (They listen carefully.) T : What season is it? RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? Ss : It's spring. PV T : Which season doesn't Peter like? RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? S7 : Summer. PV T : Good.  SV Why doesn't he like it?  RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? S7 : Too hot.  PV T : Why does Nami like summer?  RR Is this really reversible? Can children say this to teachers? S8 : They have long vacation.  PV T : Great! SV              Notice that Eunyeong is using the idea of REVERSIBLE ROLES and not utterances.   This is a good move. It means that Eunyeong is looking at COMMUNCATIVE FUNCTION and not simply GRAMMATICAL UTTERANCE.   It's a good idea. It makes Eunyeong's lesson more INTERPERSONAL, more SKILLS BASED and less GRAMMATICAL and KNOWEDGE based.   We know that when we use language, we use it to DO things and not simply to make sentences. So Eunyeong wants to look at what people are DOING, not just at the grammar they are using and the words they are saying.   Good idea! Now, think a minute:   Can children REALLY initiate a lesson? Isn't that the teacher's role? Can children REALLY check comprehension? Isn't that the teacher's job? Can children REALLY tell the teacher to "Listen carefully?"   This script is just a beginning part of the class, so there are many RR  between a teacher and students.    Are there? I see hardly any!   The teacher asked many questionsI continuously and the students answered shortly. I hoped Paradigmatic Variation and Syntagmatic Variation happen equally for this class. But  Paradigmatic Variations are much more than Syntagmatic Variations(If I am right..)    Actually, there are a lot of syntagmatic variations. Look at the WHY questions, for example. Also look at the use of "he" and "she".   Whenver we have the use of WHY questions to explain MOTIVES we are usually FOLLOWING ON (that is, going BACKWARDS to the reason for things). Whenever we use PRONOUNS, it is because we are FOLLOWING ON from some already given name.   What about the use of "a" and "the"?    I'm not sure the balance of SV and PV is good or bad, indispensable or not.  But I think the class consisted of mostly PV is a little boring and the students are not interested in the activities.            Oh, dear! Well, you see we have the same problem. About two weeks ago, I tried to present the history of teaching as the history of IDEAS. This was so that we could think about these questions of whether language should be treated as an interpersonal SKILL (where syntagmatic variation is important) or as intra-mental knoweldge (where paradigms matter).   But to tell you the truth I could see that people found my long lecture very BORING and they were NOT INTERESTED in the class. So I cut the lecture short, and we just looked at data.   Now I think we are paying the price. We look at the data. We look at the analytical categories. But we can't seem to connect them to the various views of TEACHING, so we just give up and ask ourselves if the lesson was boring or interesting.   But the issue is not whether the lesson is boring or interesting. The real issue is, as Eunyeong suggests, should we try to develop a discourse paradigmatically, as Ollendorf wanted, or syntagmatically, as Sauveur suggested? "Interesting" lessons come and go, but these questions never seem to go away.