|
Learners and teachers
What evidence is there of learning? What evidence of teaching? How is learning different from teaching? Is there any evidence of development?
From Minkyeong's Data
1. What evidence is there of learning?
Throughout the whole script students show significant signs of learning at the level of meanings while they are taking turns.
Remember that we want to show NEW knowledge and NEW meaning. How do we know the kids are not just REMEMBERING?
Let's take a look at the evidences one by one.
<Example 1>
T : What do you see?
S3: A calendar!
T : Yes, there is a calendar.(pointing) The boy and the girl are looking at the calendar. What is the month?
Ss : May.
T : Right. What else do you see?
S4 : A boy and a girl.
T : A boy and a girl?(pointing) There is another boy here. (sic!) There are TWO boys and a girl.
When a teacher asks, students answer. The whole discourse goes like this. It means that students understand what the teacher is saying and they know what to answer. Let's look at this.
Good point. .But there's something else that's happening here.
a) The teacher ASKS using grammar. (e.g. "What do you see?")
b) The children ANSWER using vocabulary. (e.g. "A calendar")
The teacher and the children understand what the teacher is saying and they know what to answer. But what they answer is NOT what the teacher is saying and what the teacher is saying is NOT what they answer. Actually, they are speaking at two completely different levels.
So what? Well, we know that children have a hard time CREATING SENTENCES. We know this because they go all the way through middle school and high school and they arrive at SNUE and they can't ASK QUESTIONS--they can only give answers.
The teacher and the children are speaking two different languages!
<Example 2>
T : Why is he happy? Can you guess?
S6 : His birthday is May fifth. (!!!! THIS is a very important microgenetic change. Let's see if Jeonghwa picks it up!)
T : Oh, yeah. Maybe his birthday is May fifth.
...............
Who is "he" in "Why is he happy?" It can't be Jinho. It must be Joon. So the children have control of the topic. The teacher has FAILED in her first attempt to get the kids to predict the lesson.
The kids have failed too. S6 produced a sentence, but it's a MISLEADING sentence that is going to INCORRECTLY predict the content of the listening. Minkyeong knows this and she tries to show the children the way.
T : Why is she happy? Can you guess?
S7. Mmm.. Ann is going to Joon's birthday.
What the teacher has done is just leading asking and students follow her. Amazingly, S6 and S7 give an excellent reason why Joon and Ann are happy and maybe they have never thought why they are happy and never been interested in that picture as well.
Actually, this isn't why Ann is happy at all. Joon is irrelevant to the dialogue. It's always quite difficult to work with someone else's data (though of course you can ask Minkyeong about it). Take a look in the sixth grade 지도서, p. 113. That might help.
But at the end of her simple question, wonderful syntagmatic variations come up. Apparently he rest of students seem to learn through S6 and S7. They can imitate S6 and S7's and generalize the sentences. Let's look at the other example.
How do we know this? Isn't it possible they could do it before?
<Example 3>
T : ... There are TWO boys and a girl. What's this girl's name?
S4 : Mmm.. Nami?
T : Nami? But she has dark hair. She's Korean. Look! This girl is not Korean.
(Ss flipping through the book) Yeah, you can find her name in the front.
S5 : Ann.
This suggests that the children understand WORDING but not meaning. If they understood meaning they would know that Ann and Jinho are friends, and that Jinho is JEALOUS of Ann. This is actually the key to the whole dialogue, and the dialogue is the key to the teaching point.
Students must not have paid attention to the characters in the textbook. They didn't care who is who. It is interesting because Nami and Ann absolutely look different. I think this is a fine clue that students are completely indifferent to what's going on in their textbook.
And this does NOT suggest much meaning-making, does it?
But from this point, they will never confuse Nami and Ann, I think. It is the evidence of learning even though not important one. Here's another example of learning.
How do we know they will not confuse Nami and Ann? It seems VERY likely that they learned this before, that is, at teh beginning of the year, and perhaps again during the first lesson (when Ann is introduced to Jinho and Joon). But they FORGOT!
Since they forgot it once, how do you know they will not forget it again?
There's another problem, Jeonghwa! The kids DO remember Joon. They like Joon. But they don't remember Jinho. Why not?
I really don't understand this at all. To me, Joon and Tan are very confusible. I find it quite difficult to keep them apart. But Jinho is absolutely different. So why do the kids keep forgetting Jinho and not Joon?
<Example 4>
T : Ah~ Ann is INVITED to Joon's birthday party. Now look at Jinho's face. How does he feel?
S8 : Very bad... Sad!
T : Yeah, he looks sad. WHY~ do you think he is SAD? Why is he sad? Can you guess?
S9 : He's not... invited.
T : Oh! He's NOT invited to Joon's birthday party.
S10 : Ann ate his birthday... cake. 케잌을...
Surprisingly, S9 uptakes the teacher's deliberate input which skillfully uttered.
Brilliant! I never noticed this before. Bravo, Jeonghwa!
Jeonghwa notices that S9 has managed to notice and use a PASSIVE form in the teacher talk and uptake it. He doesn't just uptake it, he NEGATES it. So it's not just REPETITION, it's also VARIATION.
How can Jeonghwa PROVE that S9 did not use this form before? Well, she can't (although the pause in replying is certainly very suggestive!). But she CAN prove that S9 has completely understood a completely new situation (because in fact this situation, a "birthday party to which Jinho is not invited", does NOT occur in the book).
Is this important, or is it just another arbitrary fictional "fact" like Ann's name? Well, it's mportant to be able to use the passive form correctly. And it's mportant to be able to look at situations and guess what is being said. Finally, it's important to be able to CHANGE your guess according to new data!
You see, this is the joy of graduate students. You can ask them questions to which you DON'T know the answers. And sometimes they can ask questions that you didn't even THINK of asking.
This is a very significant momentum to start to learn a new vocabulary. S10 gets to know a word "invite" by means of contextual meaning. Maybe the other students can vaguely understand the word "invite" since the teacher rebroadcast it again. I believe learning occurs here.
Yes, very convincing! You might want to mention the PAUSE.
2. What evidence of teaching?
Let's take a look at <Example 1> again.
<Example 1>
T : What do you see?
S3: A calendar!
T : Yes, there is a calendar.(pointing) The boy and the girl are looking at the calendar. What is the month?
Ss : May.
T : Right. What else do you see?
S4 : A boy and a girl.
T : A boy and a girl?(pointing) There is another boy here. (sic!) There are TWO boys and a girl.
When she asks "What do you see?", only S3 answers so she uptakes S3 and makes a statement "The boy and the girl are looking at the calendar." on purpose even pointing it. In 2 turns, students happen to listen to the word "calendar" 3 times. This is the evidence of teaching a word "calendar".
True. But it's NOT evidence of learning. Only teaching.
Let's look at the example more closely. When she uptakes "calendar", she deliberately says "The boy and the girl are looking at the calendar" to let them notice there are boys and a girl let alone the calendar. So when she asks "What else do you see?" S4 can answer " A boy and a girl." And the teacher say "There are TWO boys and a girl." But still students dont's seem understand what the teacher is going to say. I think here is a very crucial teaching point. The teacher is trying to make the indifferent students to the textbook involved in it by telling them a hidden story behind the dull picture. The innocent students who still don't know what will happen just follow where she leads. Let's look at more examples.
Is it a dull picture? Actually, the problem is a rather difficult one: Jinho has a birthday on Children's Day. So he gets only ONE present. Of course, this problem is not very interesting to you or me. But do the children find it dull?
<Example 2>
T :Yes. Now look at Joon's face. He's smiling. How does he feel?
I REALLY don't understand why the teacher does this. Joon is NOT an important character in this dialogue at all. This is a diversion, a distraction, a wild goose chase. Why does she do it?
Notice that SHE is the one misleading the students. By using the word "Now" and telling the children to "look" at Joon's face, she implies that this is important. But it ISN'T.
Can we really say this is teaching?
Ss : Happy!
T : Why is he happy? Can you guess?
S6 : His birthday is May fifth.
T : Oh, yeah. Maybe his birthday is May fifth.
But Joon's birthday is NOT May 5th. Jinho's birthday is May 5th.
Now look at Ann's face. How does she heel?
Ss : Happy!
T : Why is she happy? Can you guess?
S7. Mmm.. Ann is going to Joon's birthday.
But she isn't! A disaster!
Now the teacher is making up a story with students step by step. She doesn't tell the whole behind story. Just by leading asking, she reveals the relationship between Joon, Ann and Jinho. And now the indifferent students to the characters seem to be emerging into the lesson. This is the teaching evidence not only of the teacher, but also of the other students. In the one hand, the teacher teaches how develop a story and on the other hand, S6 and S7, unconsciously teach others by responding "His birthday is May fifth.", "Mmm.. Ann is going to Joon's birthday." respectively.
In China we say that husband and wife sleep on the same bed but they have different dreams.
Earlier we saw that teacher and student are having the same lesson but speaking different languages.
Here we can see that teacher and student are speaking the same language, but having different lessons: one of them is trying to prepare a LISTENING lesson, and the others are interested only in SPEAKING.
Here's another great evidence of teaching.
<Example 3>
S7. Mmm.. Ann is going to Joon's birthday.
T : Ah~ Ann is INVITED to Joon's birthday party. Now look at Jinho's face. How does he feel?
S8 : Very bad... Sad!
T : Yeah, he looks sad. WHY~ do you think he is SAD? Why is he sad? Can you guess?
S9 : He's not... invited.
T : Oh! He's NOT invited to Joon's birthday party.
S10 : Ann ate his birthday... cake. 케잌을...
T : Oh, Ann ate Jinho's birthday cake, so he's.....
Just receiving S7's answer "Mmm.. Ann is going to Joon's birthday", the teacher introduces a word "invite" and let the students guess the meaning in the context. Then she tries to connect the word to Jinho's feeling stressing "WHY~ do you think he is SAD?". A smart S9 uptakes what the teacher's saying and produces a paradigmatic variation of "Ann is INVITED", "He's not... invited.".
While S9 gets to know the meaning and usage of "invite" at the same time the student provides other students with a chance to learn it also. Unconsciously he/she teaches others.
Good. But isn't this the same point you made earlier?
3. How is the learning different from the teaching?
The teaching has an aim but the learning hasn't any. It means, with a specific aim, somebody teaches someone but the learning can occur or not. It is also the other way around. The learning can arise from no purpose of teaching.
This is very true! And I think Jeonghwa has really put her finger on the reason WHY we cannot simply think about learning and teaching as borrowing/lending or buying/selling or even speaking/hearing. The relationship is simply not direct, not causal, and in many cases there may be NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL!
In a sense, that is exactly what this course is all about. We want to know if it is possible to CREATE this relationship between learning and teaching, by INTEGRATING them, integrating them the way that, say, speaking and listening are integrated. But the answer so far seems to be NO.
Let's take a look at example 1.
<Example 1>
T : ... There are TWO boys and a girl. What's this girl's name?
S4 : Mmm.. Nami?
T : Nami? But she has dark hair. She's Korean. Look! This girl is not Korean.
(Ss flipping through the book) Yeah, you can find her name in the front.
S5 : Ann.
The teacher has no aim to teach the characters' name and just mention how Ann and Nami look different when students are confused their names but students learn not only Ann's name but also how to distinguish them.
Why do you think the teacher does not aim to teach the character's names? Isn't she trying to get the children to correct their mistake?
Let's look at another example how the learning is different from the teaching.
<Example 2>
T :Yes. Now look at Joon's face. He's smiling. How does he feel?
Ss : Happy!
T : Why is he happy? Can you guess?
S6 : His birthday is May fifth.
T : Oh, yeah. Maybe his birthday is May fifth. Now look at Ann's face. How does she heel?
Ss : Happy!
T : Why is she happy? Can you guess?
S7. Mmm.. Ann is going to Joon's birthday.
In example 2, she tries to lead students to read a picture. She never teaches them when is Joon's birthday and Ann is going to his birthday party. But S6 and S7 learn from the teacher's leading asking. If goes further, the other students know why they are happy from peer's instructions. The teacher takes a role of the "tram driver"(Vygotsky, 1997a:160) The source of learning has transmitted "from the teacher to pupils".(Thorndike, 1997:150)
Unfortunately, they are going to learn that this is WRONG, Jeonghwa! Joon's birthday is NOT May fifth. Jinho's birthday is May 5th. Ann is NOT going to Joon's birthday party. She's not going to Jinho's either, because it's on Children's Day and she'll be spending her very LAST children's day with her own Mom and Dad.
Now, of course, it's POSSIBLE that the children will learn and even develop from this. They may learn that when you guess you are not always right and that you have to use a lot of background knowledge to guess correctly. From that they may decide that knowing the character's names and even their personalities might be useful (for example, it helps to know that Jinho is a jealous guy). But that is not clear from this particular part of the script...is it?
Remember that Vygotsky HATED Thorndike. Vygotsky's comment (on p. 23 of our book) is a CRITICISM of Thorndike. He says that Thorndike has NEGLECTED the social factor, and sees the teacher as an individual tutor.
The citation there is actually not a citation of Thorndike but a citation of Vygotsky's introduction to the Russian translation of Thorndike's book.
Vygotsky says that after a child becomes a student of a school, no longer he/she can follow his/her learning desire through play which was his source of development. In early childhood, play is not mere play. It provides a lot of opportunities to learn something new or relationship within objects. (For example, when children play hide and seek, they might make rules of it, and learn to obey it. In this way, they learn through their learning desire.) Teaching follows learning.
That's true. That's good. But is it relevant to the data? Where?
But in the times of school children, things change. They have to learn to follow teacher's instructions not to follow their learning desires, and start to make strong sense of ‘우리' by dealt with a collective. In a collective work collaboration, their learning goes from the teacher to peers. In this way they learn how to learn. That is, learning follows teaching not teaching follows learning.
Also true. But where does that happen in the data?
4. Is there any evidence of development?
Surely, yes, there are.
Let's take a look at this example.
<Example 1>
T : Why is she happy? Can you guess?
S7. Mmm.. Ann is going to Joon's birthday.
T : Ah~ Ann is INVITED to Joon's birthday party. Now look at Jinho's face. How does he feel?
S8 : Very bad... Sad!
T : Yeah, he looks sad. WHY~ do you think he is SAD? Why is he sad? Can you guess?
S9 : He's not... invited.
T : Oh! He's NOT invited to Joon's birthday party.
S10 : Ann ate his birthday... cake. 케잌을...
T : Oh, Ann ate Jinho's birthday cake, so he's.....
S7 and S9's turn are absolutely "abstract constructions" and "syntagmatic variations".
Right--S9 changes at least TWO things in the teacher's utterance (pronoun and negator). So it really IS an abstract construction. It also follows on beautifully, so it really IS a syntagmatic variation. Jeonghwa has grasped the situation perfectly.
However, I'm not sure this shows development! Development is always in comparison to some OTHER stage of development. What can we compare it to?
Wel, one thing we COULD do is to compare it to the third graders and fourth graders on p. 18 of our book! Are there MORE abstract constructions here that we would normally expect?
Having imitated a teacher model and textbook models, students generate creative sentences. These original utterances " abstract constructions" (Tomasello), is the evidence of development. They appear inter speaking, intermentally, between turns.
That's true--and that MIGHT explain the pause. The child is trying to remember the word, and succeeds.
That is, while S7 and S9 show individual development in their creative turns, they give a Zone of Proximal Development to others to learn more.
Do you mean a ZPD or a ZPL?
Vygotsky mentions Development is "an entirely new way of learning" and it takes place through "collaboration" which doesn't always mean face-to-face interaction. S7 and S9 recall this moment and it can be stored into their long-term memory. In coming situation they should say this kind of a sentence, they surely produce a little bit more creative one on the basis of their prior memory. This is a new way of learning Vygotsky says.
And here is a KEY difference. We saw that it was quite difficult to tell that someone is learning something completely new. But we also saw that DEVELOPMENT depends upon and reformulates previous knowledge. Learning, then, is new; while development involves the ability to REFORMULATE and REORGANIZE the old.
dk