|
Date : April 20.
Grade : 5th.
Lesson 3. It's under the table. 1st period. Introduction part.
I transcribed my data for the first time! Whew~ so embarrassing work! I'd like to know how well I teach and to know in which point I need to develop.
Yes, I would like to know how well I teach too. The problem is that when I analyze the data from my own teaching, I find that I am only a very small part of the picture.
This is an introduction part of lesson 3. Showing and Telling about a picture on Lesson 3, I noticed that many students already know the concepts of 'preposition' and key phrases as well. So I called 채민 who was picked up randomly from an attendance book and he doesn't seem to know them well.
When you say they know the "concept" of the preposition, what does that mean?
a) They know what a preposition is and what it does on a few examples
b) They know what a preposition is called and they can give some examples of prepositions
c) They know general rules, such as the fact that "at" is used for small times and spaces and "in" for large ones.
d) They know all of these things and can actually verbalize them.
( sometimes I lose my track what I should do next when children seem to know 'today's lesson' very well, because it means that my preparation can be useless at that moment)
Yes, I know the feeling. But I always pretend that the main purpose of preparing is not preparation. The main purpose of preparing is being prepared. By being prepared, I mean that I feel ready for surprises!
T : Look at Mina (Nami) and her brother. They are finding something. What are they looking for?
a) I'm looking for my water bottle. Oh, look! There's a sock.
b) I found a sock. But I'm still looking for my water bottle.
These sentences mean something different. But BOTH of them suggest that they are looking for one thing and finding something different.
S1 : Water bottle!
T : Ah~ Water bottle. It looks like a Water bottle. What is a water bottle?
Ss : 물병
T : 물병~ (pointing to a pencil case in the picture)Is it 물병?
Ss : Yeah~
T : Maybe. It looks like a 물병. Yeah~ maybe. And look at the brother. (pointing to a pencil case which is in his hand)What is it?
Ss : Pencil case.
T : Ah~ he's looking for a pencil case. Where?
Ss : Under the table.
S2 : It's under the....
T : Ah~ UNDER the table. And Mina (Nami), Mmm, what is she thinking?
S1 : Where is my water bottle?
T : Where is my WATER BOTTLE? What does it mean?
Ss : 내 물병 어디있어?
T : 내 물병 어디있니~. And look at Mina's mother. She's pointing to A ...
Ss : Pencil case.
T : She's pointing to a pencil case under the table. Then look at Mina again. Mina is thinking "where is my water bottle? or where is my pencil case?"
S1 : Pencil case.
S3 : Water bottle.
T : Ah~ maybe... Mina is looking for a pencil case. Then do you know 위치? 위치단어?
S4 : Yes.
T : Are you sure?
S4: Yes. Some Ss : Yes.
T OK. Where is the eraser?(putting an eraser on a book)
Ss : It's on the book.
T : It's ON the book. Where is the eraser?(putting it in the book)
Ss : It's in the book.
T : It's IN the book. Wow~ great! 채민~ Where is the eraser?(putting it next to the book)
S5: It's next to the book.
S1 : 채민이~
T : 채민, 채민! Where's the eraser?
채민 : (mumbling)
T : Everybody! Everybody~
Ss : It's next to the book.
T : Oh~ great! It's NEXT TO the book. Oops! (on purpose dropping it on the floor and pushing it under the table)Where is the eraser?
S4: It's under the table.
T :Oh~ good job! So 위치를 나타내는 단어, 위치를 나타내는 단어~ 위에 (writing the preposition when they say it)
Ss : on
T : 아래에
Ss : under
T : 옆에
Ss : next to (Is it really the same? Doesn't it also mean "in front of"?)
T : 뒤에
Ss : behind
T : OK. Then let's learn how to write. 어떻게 쓰는지 한 번 볼까요? 위에~
Ss : on
T : 오 오 (Ss : on) What is the first letter On?
Ss : "O"
T : 오(writing "o" on the board) 온(Ss : "N") on(writing "n")
아래에 (Ss : under) 어, 어 (Some Ss : "U") (writing "u"and "n") 어, 어 ㄴ
Ss : "D"
T : 드, 드 d(writing "d") (Ss : der) Righit, 드, 더(writing "er"). 안에 (Ss : in)
이 (S5 : i, n ) 인(writing "in"). 옆에 (Ss : next to) 느 느 (Some Ss : "n")
네 (Some : "e") 넥스(writing "x")
S6: "t"
T : Right next (Some : to) next to
Ss : next to (repeating)
T : But when we say "next to" just naturally say 'NEXTO'
Ss : NEXTO
T : NEXTO
Ss : NEXTO
T : NEXTO
Ss : NEXTO
T : But you have to write NEXT TO. OK?
Ss : OK.
T : 뒤에 (Ss : behind) 비, 비, 브, 브 (Some : "b") be(writing "be) 하 (Some : "hi")
하인, 드 (Some : "d") behind, behind.
In our book on pp. 59-60 there is an interesting comparison between Minkyeong the SYNTHESIZER and Seongeun the ANALYZER. Which is Jeonghwa? An ANALYZER or a SYNTHESIZER?
1. Can you find an example of integrated skills?
Mentioning about 'prepositions' I write those words on the blackboard and let children say the spelling. This is an attempt to integrate speaking and writing skills.
<Example 1>
T : OK. Then let's learn how to write. 어떻게 쓰는지 한 번 볼까요? 위에~
Ss : on
T : 오 오 (Ss : on) What is the first letter On?
Ss : "O"
T : 오(writing "o" on the board) 온(Ss : "N") on(writing "n")
아래에 (Ss : under) 어, 어 (Some Ss : "U") (writing "u"and "n") 어, 어 ㄴ
Ss : "D"
T : 드, 드 d(writing "d") (Ss : der) Righit, 드, 더(writing "er"). 안에 (Ss : in)
이 (S5 : i, n ) 인(writing "in"). 옆에 (Ss : next to) 느 느 (Some Ss : "n")
네 (Some : "e") 넥스(writing "x")
S6: "t"
T : Right next (Some : to) next to
Ss : next to (repeating)
Most students show their understanding about the basic phonics and correctly say the right letters. I intend to teach low level of students how to match the alphabet sound and the letter. Can they understand the relationship?
The main problem with phonics teaching is that there is NOTHING TO UNDERSTAND. Consider:
MARIA: "Do, a deer, a female deer!"
BRIGITTA: Why is do a female deer?
MARIA: Oh, because the note "do" sounds like "doe", which means a female deer in English!
JEONGHWA: O, N, 온.
JAEMIN: Why is O, N "온" (and not 운 or 언 or 안 or 은)>
JEONGHWA: ....
Jeonhwa has a problem! There ISN'T a reason, or at least thre isn't a reason that a non phonetician can understand, and in fact there CAN'T be a reason because sometimes "on" DOES sound like 언 (e.g. in "dragon").
Now consider THIS:
JEONHWA: We say "on the table"?
JAEMIN: Why do we say "on the table" and not "in the table" or "at the table"?
JEONHWA: Well, we do say "in the table". You put a nail IN the table and you have dinner AT the table. It's really how you look at things! If it's a SPACE, we say "in" and if it's a PLACE we say "at". But suppose it's a SURFACE?
I can't make sure. If they get the clue from this short activity, they have never been low learners. Maybe hopefully some of them get the idea.
But IS there an idea? That is the whole problem.
Here is my dilemma. Am I teaching? Or am I confirming what they know already? Fortunately, children who seem to know well, make a lot of mistakes and they need to practice to use their skills unconsciously. (Integration of skill and knowledge, I think.)
Vygotsky says:
While for Thorndike learning represents a mechanical process which leads from the method of trial and error to happy results and is devoid of meaning (of intellect, of intelligence, of comprehension—DK), for structural psychology, the process of learning is the appearance of new structures and the perfection of old ones. (...) If I learn to use a typewriter, it may be that nothing is modified in the general structure of my consciousness. But if, let us say, I learn a new method of thinking, a new type of structure, that will give me not only the possibility to practice this activity with what has been the direct object of learning but a lot more besides—that will give us the possibility of going well above the immediate results of learning.
We can see that for Vygotsky learning skills is only learning--not development.
2. Can you find and example of the integration of knowledge?
Through my experience, I've learned that some children are confused the spelling 'next to' and the sounding 'next' and they misunderstand 'next' as 'next to'. I try to show how different the sounding 'next to' and spelling 'next to'. Students have a tendency to pronounce every single word.
<Example 2>
T : 드, 드 d(writing "d") (Ss : der) Righit, 드, 더(writing "er"). 안에 (Ss : in)
이 (S5 : i, n ) 인(writing "in"). 옆에 (Ss : next to) 느 느 (Some Ss : "n")
네 (Some : "e") 넥스(writing "x")
S6: "t"
T : Right next (Some : to) next to
Ss : next to (repeating)
T : But when we say "next to" just naturally say 'NEXTO'
Ss : NEXTO
T : NEXTO
Ss : NEXTO
T : NEXTO
Ss : NEXTO
T : But you have to write NEXT TO. OK?
Ss : OK.
Some students have a hard time to link consonant to consonant, I try to show the difference 'next' and 'next to' by indicating written word and spoken word. This is an example of integration of sounding and wording. Later on, after the lesson I regretted not to link their Korean skills to English knowledge. (i.e. 같이 sounds 가치).In that case, then, I can dare to say it is the right evidence of integration knowledge.
Yes, and it's much more than that; I think that by showing them that processes that exist in English can also be found in their own language, you are developing their knowledge of Korean!
3. What is the difference?
Listening, reading(impression, inter-mental, receptive), speaking and reading(expression, intra-mental, productive) are skills. Knowledge is sounding, wording and meaning.
Yes, but of course speaking is sounding, wording and meaning. So why isn't skill the same as knowledge?
The difference between skills and knowledge is that the former is related inter personal and the latter intra personal.
This is much more important. Notice that ONE of your explanations is simply descriptive, but the other one is FUNCTIONAL and GENETIC, it talks about how skills and knowledge differ in what they DO and in how they DEVELOP. Good!
That is, skills can be increased and developed through social interactions. On the contrary, knowledge is the matter of personal thing. It takes place within minds.
Is it "on the contrary" or "in contrast"? Or is it "linked...but distinct"?
As we saw, one of the problems with teaching phonics is that there is no clear link between skills and knowledge. In particular, phonics tends to stress sounding WITHOUT meaning, at least without PRAGMATIC meaning, meaning in USE.
But it's not clear to me that spelling can actually be taught this way! Look:
a) "women"
b) "woman".
The "a" and the "e" are different, but they sound exactly the same. The "o" is exactly the same. Does it sound the same?
4. Why does it matter?
Actually mother tongue is acquired by repeated skills. Unlike mother tongue, foreign language seems to be learned through knowledge at least in EFL conditions.
Yes, I think this is true. This explains why we are much more conscious of language in foreign language use. This is one of the great strengths of foreign language use, although of course it is also a weakness.
For elementary students who are in abstract (formal) operation stage(Piaget), it is easier for them to learn by means of their own background language skills and knowledge.
I think Piaget would probably say that the kids are in the stage of concrete operations, and that they do not really understand the abstract concept of prepositions. For example, can they explain:
a) at the table
on the table
in the table
b) at six o'clock
on Monday morning
in April
Why are prepositions similar across time and space?
If they have any strong images of some English concepts and relate them to their own language background, these English concepts can transfer implicit to explicit, to concrete, and to unconscious.
If the children are able to see that Korean also has prepositions (and that Korean prepositions actually have more structure than English ones), they are certainly making implicit knowledge explicit. They are also rising to the concrete, because they are seeing how the words are USED and not simply how they are spelt or what the mean in the abstract. But is is this conscious or unconscious? If it is EXPLICIT, isn't it CONSCIOUS?
Skills are unconscious functions. When we are speaking, rarely we use grammatical filter very much. When it comes to say about grammar knowledge, we usually know better than we speak. Knowledge is conscious function.
One of the teacher has to teach is link this conscious function to the unconscious functions. The older children are, the more they are conscious of many things. Hence teachers need to try to make a link abstract English knowledge to concrete Korean Knowledge and integrate conscious knowledge into unconscious skills.
Vygotsky says;
There is a big difference between the unconscious and the non-conscious. The non-conscious is not at all partly unconscious and partly conscious. It does not indicate the height of raised consciousness but rather another direction to the activity of consciousness. I tie a knot. I do it consciously. Nevertheless, I cannot say exactly how I did it. I did not take conscious (notice—DK) of my conscious action, because my attention was directed on the act of tying itself and not on the manner which I was doing it. Consciousness always represents a certain fragment of reality. That which is the object of my consciousness is the act of tying, the knot and what I did with it, and not the acts which I carried out while making the knot, not the way in which I did it. But it is precisely this which can become the object of my consciousness—this, then, will be the seizure of awareness. The seizure of awareness is an act of consciousness of which the object is the activity of consciousness itself
(Thinking and Speech, Chapter Six, Section Two)