How Do Children Distinguish Between "Repeat After Me" and "Repeat: 'After Me'"?

[kellogg]

 

[Question 4] Rules-Situations

T: 여기 보셔.(=Look at this.) Children, LOOK at THIS.[C]

   This is 윷.[indexical]-[S] OK?[indexical]-[Q]

   What's this?[Q]

S: 윷!

T: 윷.[S](The teacher repeats the children' answer to show that they're right.)

   자, 윷을 던졌어요.[S](=I threw the 윷.)

   (The teacher threw the 윷s. and it turn out to be 모.)

   What is this?[Q]

S: 모!

T: 모.[S] Then, what's this?[Q]

   (The children already know what the '도', '개', '걸', '윷', '모' means. So most of them look bored in the video.)

S: 걸!

T: That's right.[S] Then, what's this?[Q]

S: 개!

T: OK. 개.[S] Then, what's this?[Q]

S: 도!

T: Right.[S] It's ‘도’.[S]

   BUT, LOOK at this.[indexical]-[C](On one 윷, It is written "No Chance" in English.)

   This ‘도’ means "No chance!".[Symbolic]-[S]

S: 기회 없음! (Some children look at the board and read from the table.)

T: No chance.[S] 다음 판에 쉬는 거예요.[S](=You don't have a chance at next turn.)

   기회 없음.[S] 아시겠죠?[Q](=No chance, do you understand?) Look at this.[iconic]-[C]

   This ‘도’ means...[S]

S: 한 번 더!

T: "One more time!".[Symbolic]-[S]

   You can throw 윷 one more time.[S]

S: ??

T: Repeat after me.[C]

   One more time![S] (The teacher throws the 윷 one more time.) One more time!

S: One more time!

T: 자, look at this.[indexical]-[C]

S: Go back!

T: Go back.[S] This ‘도’ means "Go back!".[Symbolic]-[S] Repeat after me.[C]

S: Go back! (The children know the meaning of "Repeat", but don't know what "Repeat after me." means. So sometimes they say before the teacher says.)

Are you sure? Look:

T: Repeat after me.[C]

   One more time![S] (The teacher throws the 윷 one more time.) One more time!

S: One more time!

Here the teacher says "Repeat after me" and the children do repeat after her. So it certainly LOOKS like they understand what "Repeat after me" means.

But perhaps they DON'T. The fact is that the children do NOT repeat after the teacher says "One more time" the first time. They only repeat after the teacher when she says "One more time" the SECOND time.

So it looks like the teacher's instinct is right. The children do NOT understand. What happens is that when the children do not repeat the teacher repeats. The children then guess at what "Repeat after me" means.

When you think about it, expressions like "Repeat after me" are VERY confusing when we analyze them.

T: Repeat after me.

Ss: "After me!!!!"

T: !!!!

How do children know that "Repeat after me" does not mean "Repeat! 'After me'"? Of course, there is something indexical going on here! But the way in which you have used "indexical", without any explanation of what the teacher is trying to do (for example WHY the teacher goes UP or DOWN) does not help us to answer this problem.

T: Go back!

S: Go back!/ You go back!/ I'm a Go Back.

Third graders are truly delightful. Always experimenting! How can we keep this kind of experimentation going?

We saw that even when the teacher is rather discouraging (when she tries to get the children NOT to repeat and when she insists on full sentences) the kids go on and on and on experimenting. We also saw (in the "Repeat after me!" example above) that guessing and trial and error is often successful. The tragedy is that we can see from Eunjeong's data that this kind of experimentation does not continue into fifth grade. How can we get the children to keep it up?

   (Some children are making sentences with the word what they here right before.)

T: 자, OK. Look at this.[C] Look at the...[C]

   (When the teacher says "Look at the", the children say "Screen."-Classroom English)

S: Screen! Cancel!

T: Cancel![S]

S: Candy! (A naughty boy is enjoying to play with the word.)

T: Oh! No, no.(=The teacher is warning the boy not to do that.) Ha ha.

   This ‘도’ means...[S](This intonation let the children answer or make a full sentence.)

S: ‘Cancel!’.

T: 던진 것이 모두, 모두, 여러 번 던져도 무효가 되는 거예요.[S]

   (=Even though you throw several times (by 모 or 윷), when you get this 'cancel'도, all of them are canceled.)

   REPEAT after me.[C] Cancel![S] (양 손으로 X를 만들어 보이며)

S: Cancel! Cancel! Candy! Cancel! Candy!

T: OK.[iconic] Look at this sheet.[indexical]-[C]

   This will help you.[Symbolic]-[S]

S: ??

T: (The teacher shows the rule table of the game on the screen.)

S: 우리 이거 보면서 하자!

   (=Let's look at this table and do the game.)

No Chance!	기회 없음!
One more time!	한 번 더!
Go back!	뒤로 가!
Cancel!	무효!

T: No Chance "No Chance!" on the screen.)

S: 기회 없음!

T: 기회 없음.[S]

   One more time "One more time!" on the screen.)

S: 한 번 더!

T: 한 번 더.[S] Go back "Go back!" on the screen.)

S: 뒤로 가!

T: Cancel!(The teacher's finger is pointing "Cancel!" on the screen.)

S: 무효!

T: 그렇죠.[S] OK. Let's START the GAME![Symbolic]-[S]

S: WOW~!

Notice how the teacher simply gets the children to REPEAT the rules. Is this the same thing as understanding them?

We know that children cannot learn rules directly. There is a very good reason for this, which we saw in our very first data from Kim Jiseon (which I analyzed in the first question). Children cannot initially tell a general rule from a specific example. This is because in order to make a general rule, we usually use a conditional of some kind (e.g. "If you land on another player's marker, the other player has to return to the starting square").

These general conditionals are not readily understandable in English. So teachers quite correctly simply DO the moves and SHOW what happens. But this means that the children can only tell the difference between an actual move and an example by a mental act of generalization.

The same thing is true of the difference between an example and a concept, of course! So we see that it is impossible to directly teach concepts, just as Vygotsky says. When we attempt to do this, the children simly repeat the words without understanding them. Vygotsky calls this "empty verbalism", and it is similar to the way our kids learn material for tests, or learn to "use" scientific concepts that they don't really understand.

It's interesting that our teachers INSIST on preposition use where it is not obligatory (e.g. "Look at me" when just "Look here!" would be more effective, and "Repeat after me!" when "Listen...Repeat!" is probably more effective). But they often DON'T use propositions where it is obligatory (as we saw in class, "touch your nose" and "point to your nose" do not mean the same thing, and the preposition represents a real as well as a figurative space).

This suggests that a lot of what we call grammar is, at least in the classroom, a matter of habit. I worry a lot about this, because I can see that the habits that my undergrads form are mostly bad habits, and that they really have no way of changing them once they start teaching (because children do not correct their teachers, and for the most part teachers do not correct themselves either).

Gradually, of course, the kids are starting to complain about our teachers, and when they do the only response of parents and politicians appears to be more 원어민. Now Chung Dongyeong is promising to put a "native speaker" in every classroom! How many Korean teachers will lose their jobs if he carries out this promise?

Yet this is NOT necessary. The principles we need to master (article use and preposition use and the distinction between plural and singular) are for the most part not difficult to explain. Even if they WERE difficult to explain, the habits which really produce correct article, preposition and agreement are no more difficult to develop then incorrect habits.

a. 1) What kind of game is it?

   - This is a upgraded 윷놀이. 윷놀이 is a traditional Korean game, I made it more exciting adding more rules.

Really? I thought these were traditional rules!

   2) Is it agon, alea, ilinx, or mimicry?

   - It's an alea. Because we don't need a skill or speed in this game. Sometimes we need to be smart to catch the other team's pieces. But usually, this game is up to the luck.

Exactly.

   3) Role play or rule play?

   - It's a rule play which is based on some rules. There should be a game board, a set of 윷(4 sticks), two teams of people, and 4 pieces for each team. When all the 4 pieces arrives to the end, the team win (sic). When it's '도', the piece can go one, when it's '개', the piece can go two, when it's '개', the piece can go two

I see! You added the rules about extra turn and losing your turn. Very clever!

   4) Would you say it is mostly action or mostly meaning?

   - It's mostly meaning. Even though it's a simple game, but there are a lot of rules that the children should know.

Good! And by adding rules, you make it possible to add MEANING and ENGLISH　USE! Bravo!

b. 1) How and where does the teacher present the rules of the game?

   - Fortunately it's a really familiar game to the children. Because the Korean often enjoy this game on special holidays like, 설날 or 추석. But the teacher added some rules to make it more exciting. To explain the rules, the teacher threw the 윷 and showed that on the screen. The children could see it and they could easily understand. And the teacher also showed the rule table of this game. So the children could do the game with the help of the rule table.

Yes--the teacher uses a table and a sheet as a tool. What is the advantage of using tools like this? One obvious advantage is that it allows the teacher to REPLACE other-regulation with tool-mediated self-regulation. Instead of asking the teacher, the child can consult the rule sheet! This is a very important step; I think it is exactly what Vygotsky meant when he talks about:

ZPD라는 것이 아동이 교사의 도움 없이 혼자의 힘으로 할 수 있는 것과, 교사의 도움을 받고 해 낼 수 있는 것 사이의 차이에 기초하여 설치하는 단순히 개인적인 비계(scaffolding)라고 생각한다면 그것은 오산이다. 비고츠키에게 있어 ZPD는 항상 두 사람 이상의 사람들을 포함하는 것이었다. 이런 이유로, 그는 유치원 아동에게 조차도 ‘놀이는 아동의 ZPD를 창조할 수 있다 (1978: 102)’고 말을 했던 것이다. 그래서 비고츠키는 자신의 원래의 ZPD 개념을 ‘도움없이 할 수 있는 수준’에 두지 않고, 보다 일반적이고, 일반화할 수 있는 ‘정신연령’이란 개념에 두었던 것이다. 정신연령이란 사람의 물리적 나이와 항상 일치하는 것은 아니다. 비고츠키는 ZPD의 개념을 정신연령에서는 흔히 뒤쳐지지는 정신지체 아동들과의 활동(작업)에서 발달시켰다고 한다. 그래서 어떤 아동들은 도움 없이 과제를 할 수가 있고, 또 다른 아동들은 다른 사람의 도움을 받고 과제를 할 수 있는, 보다 넓은 전체 교실 크기의 ZPD 영역을 만들어 주어야 한다. 이에 관해, 비고츠키 (1998:204)는, ‘학습 지도는 아동이 성장해 가는 과정을 민감하게 고려해야 하는데, 이 성장 과정 전체는 아동의 ZPD에 둘러싸여 있어 있기 때문에, 아동에게 학습지도를 하는 최적의 시기는 아동의 ZPD에 맞는 나이에 맞춰야한다’고 하였다.

그렇다면, 전체 교실 크기의 ZPD에서 교사의 역할은 무엇인가? 비고츠키는 Thorndike 비평에서 인력거 일꾼이 하는 일 (육체노동)과, 전차 운전기사가 하는 일 (정신노동)을 비교하였는데, 이 두 가지 일은 모두 행동의 일과 의미의 일을 모두 가지고 있다 하였다. 즉, 인력거 일꾼은 마차에 짐을 싣거나 내리기도 하고, 복잡한 교통을 통과해 나갈 가장 최선의 길을 선택하기도 하지만, 주로 하는 일은 말이 하는 일과 비슷하다. 그러나 전차 운전기사는 운전석에서 신체적으로 이리저리 움직여야 하기도 하지만, 그가 해야 할 중요한 일은 앞의 유리창 너머에 있고, 정신이 하라는 대로 하는 손과 발로 보다는 눈과 정신으로 더 많은 일을 해야 한다.

비고츠키 (1997:159-160)는 놀랍게도, 교사의 일에도 두 가지 비슷한 측면이 있다고 했다. 교사는 인력거 일꾼과 같이 교육내용 (input)을 제공하는 공급자가 될 수 있고, 또 다른 편으로는, 전차 운전기사와 같이 과학(기술)을 이용하여 교사의 일을 하게 할 수도 있다고 하였다. 그는, ‘교사는 교육환경 속에서 중요한 역할을 담당한다는 교육의 중요 동인이라는 사실로 인해 교사의 중요성이 너무 과장되어 있다고 지적하면서, 이로 인해 교사는 자신의 직접적인 임무를 잊어버리고 있는 경우가 많다고 하였다. 과학적인 관점에서 보면, 교사는 사회적 교육환경의 조직자일 뿐이고, 교육환경이 각 학생과 상호작용을 잘 하도록 하는 조정자이고 감독자일 뿐’이기 때문에 아동을 교육하는 것은 학습의 사회적 환경이지 개인으로서의 교사는 아니라고 주장하였다.

   2) Is the language simple or complex?

   - The language is more complex than other game like "King Sejong says" game or the "Guess the color and number" game. because it's more a meaning based game, there are lots of game rules to explain. The teacher used iconic materials, but explained the rules with difficult symbolic words. Fortunately they had many chances to do this game before, of course in Korean, so they could understand the rules fast.

And this shows a GREAT truth that our textbook designers and PPP theorists utterly ignore, but which every teacher knows. That is that even presentation is not a passive process--we don't present into a void, filling empty heads with filling materials. We first find out what the kids already know. We build onto that, or rather, we get the kids to build new rules onto old ones.

   3) Is it understandable or not?

   - Some rules are understandable, and some are not understandable. Most of the children could take participate in this game, because the words like "Chance", or "Back" are familiar to Koreans. The children knew those words already, so they understood easily. But some children didn't have an experience to hear those words like "One more time" or "Cancel". Maybe they saw the rule table and did the game. In the video, a girl who sits in the first line doesn't understand the language at all. While the teacher is explaining the rules, she looks really bored.

I think this is VERY true, and very signficant. But it needs some explaining, Hojin--how does the teacher KNOW that when the children are bored because they are TOO challenged and when they are bored because they are not challenged enough?

As we saw earlier, it's a very significant difference. Here, the business of "candy" and "cancel" probably doesn't help her very much! How could the teacher build a little bridge between "candy" and "cancel"?

T: Hmmm... candy is good! I like candy. Now what about about CANCEL? Is it good, or bad? Junho--do you want candy or cancel?

c. 1) Look at the language. Is it mostly commands, questions, or statements? Why?

   - It is mostly Statement. This game is a rules/situations game. There are a lot of things to explain. Sometimes the teacher commands to look at the screen or something, and sometimes she asks the children about what they understood. But usually the teacher's language is mostly statements that is showing the rules of the game.

Of course, I don't believe you. PROVE it! (Notice that there are no statements at all in the chart that the teacher presented.)

NOTICE THAT BECAUSE ONLY CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS CAN MAKE RULES CLEARLY DIFFERENT FROM MOVES THAT IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT THE TEACHER WILL USE QUESTIONS RATHER THAN RULES.