Re:Midterm Q1

[kellogg]

S8: 그거... 그것도 ‘드’자로 시작하는데. 잠자리였어요. 그거?

T: 잠자리? 잠자리 혹시 아는 사람? 영어로..

S14: (very quiet) Dragonfly.

S1: 그거 뭐였지?

S3: 아!! Sleepy.

S1: 에??

(Ss laugh)

S13: 잠자리! 잠자리... 곤충 잠자리!

S14: Dragonfly. Dragonfly.

T: That's right! Dragonfly.

Ss: 아, dragonfly.

S9: 드래곤? Dragon 그거 써요? 그게 뭔데..? 

(Ss chatting)

S3: 아, 잠자리.

  At the beginning of the data, S8 raises a new topic of the exchange, that is, ‘잠자리’. The teacher generalizes the topic to the whole class. The teacher uptakes it and makes it an opportunity for the students to learn a new word ("잠자리? 잠자리 혹시 아는 사람? 영어로.."). This is evidence of teaching. The teacher utterance draws everyone's attention to the topic of an insect, and it sets the whole class into a sort of discussion.

Yes! One of the reasons why I want to focus on uptake is that it is a rare instance where speaking and listening really are clearly integrated (grammatically, lexically, KNOWLEDGE-WISE). For the same reason, Minkyeong argues, it is a rare instance where learning and teaching can be said to be integrated (topically, functionally, INTERACTIVELY).

Minkyeong is focussing on a particular KIND of uptake, which we call "rebroadcasting". A "rebroadcast" move looks a structurally a little like S-T, because the teacher REPEATS what the student says. It also looks functionally a little like S-S, because the utterance is repeated for other students to hear. But the real structure, when we analyze it, is not S-T or S-S but actually S-T-S.

Now, here's an interesting question. We saw that Jeonghwa and Sujin have a strong belief in S-S interaction. We also saw that the "rickshaw puller" who tries to provide all the content of the interaction himself or herself will get very tired (I got VERY tired last night, although usually I like to talk. Must have been the lack of strawberries....) So...will S-T-S "rebroadcasting" have the same pedagogical effect as simple T-S dialogue? Will the children all develop the concept of "dragonfly" just as if the teacher taught them one by one? Let's find out.

  On the one hand, it seems likely that the students except S14 does not know what '잠자리' is in English. The students, intrigued by the teacher's question, use some self-directed speech ("그거 뭐였지?", "아! Sleepy.") to figure out what it is. When S14 in Line 9 shares his knowledge with the other students, the consequent students' utterances in Line 11 and 14 show evidence of learning ("아, dragonfly.", "아, 잠자리."). 

In class I drew your attention to the PAUSES in the data, and also the "yes, yes" in Ms. U's data. Another exmaple is the "con" in Yura's data when one of the children is trying to say the word "continent". These hesitations are important evidence. They suggest new information.

Words like "아" also suggest new information. In conversation analysis, this move is actually called a "change of information state" (Seedhouse, 2004: 8). Of course, one definition of learning is that it is a change of information state. But this definition is a little too broad, at least for ONTOGENETIC purposes. We are really interested in the MICROGENESIS, that is, changes in information state that lead to changes in the structure of consciousness. In other words, we are interested in forms of learning that actually lead to development.

  On the other hand, it might not be learning. The students may have learnt the word 'dragonfly' before and might be simply having a memory problem. ALL the children? This does not seem very likely. Nevertheless, the teacher is rebroadcasting what S14 says for the other students, and maybe some of them who really have never heard of the word before are learning it.

Remember what Vygotsky says about the pedagogical duet? Take a look at p. 23 in our book:

"For (Thorndike) the school remains primarily a tool to develop the intellect (....) Connected with this is the almost complete neglect of the social factor in education. The teacher remains the highest authority, the prime mover of the pedagogical mechanism, the source of light and sermon. Education is addressed from the teacher to the pupil, remains deeply individualistic all the time and-in the words of one author-reminds us of a pedagogical duet between the teacher and the pupil (1997: 150)."

"...(T)he traditional view of the teacher as the most important and almost sole mover of the educational process cannot be upheld. The child is no longer an empty vessel into which the teacher pours the wine or water of his sermons. The teacher is no longer a pump who pumps his pupils with knowledge. The teacher is even completely bereft of any direct influence, any direct educational influence upon the pupil as long as he himself forms no part of their environment (1997: 159)."

Vygotsky then draws a rather colorful comparison between the rickshaw puller, and the tram driver. He points out that both the rickshaw puller and the tram driver have an "animal" component of labor as well as a thinking and planning component, but that the proportions are reversed: where "physical labor dominates in the rickshaw, the tram driver has reduced this component to virtually zero. Vygotsky believes that the teacher's labor may similarly be differentiated into the provision of content and the organizing of the social environment.

"The teacher's labor, although it is not subject to the technical perfection which moves and pushes it from the rickshaw to the tram-driver, has nevertheless the same two aspects (...) (W)ith some exaggeration it may be said that the whole reform of contemporary pedagogics revolves around this theme: how to reduce the role of teacher when he, just like the rickshaw-puller, plays the role of the engine and part of his own pedagogical machine as closely to possible to zero, and how to base everything on his other role--the role of organizer of the social environment? (1997a: 160)"

We can't analyze a classroom as if it were simply a duet between TWO people. It's a very complex machine, and the teacher is only one part of it, like a tram driver. 

 Now, how is the learning different from the teaching? There are fewer teacher utterances in the exchange than student utterances. The teacher does not get involved in direct teaching of the word. Rather, she waits for the whole group to discover and savor the new word. On the contrary, students are actively interacting with each other in the learning process. For example, when S3 misunderstands the teacher's question and says ("아!! Sleepy."), other students laugh and then S13 steps in and corrects him ("잠자리! 잠자리... 곤충 잠자리!").

Good! Now, doesn't THIS suggest a change in information state?

  Is there development? It's hard to find evidence of development if we look at this short piece of data. However, if we look at the context of the data, we might be able to say there is some development. Well in advance of this exchange, the teacher starts off the writing practice session with "자, 이제 발음은 그것으로 하고 글씨 쓰기 연습을 할게요. Words that start with 'd' 'd' 'd' sound." After writing several words that start with 'd', S8 understands the writing practice and utters a metalinguistic inititate ("그거... 그것도 ‘드’자로 시작하는데. 잠자리였어요. 그거?"). This metalinguistic initiate possibly indicates development, and it also shows that students' written (grapheme) and spoken (phoneme) language are being integrated.

If I go outside and look at the tree outside my office window, I cannot see it growing. Does that mean that I cannot find any evidence of development?  No evidence at all?

[이민경]

At the end of the third paragraph of my answer, it says "Maybe some of them who really have never heard of the word before are learning it." Also, at the end of the last paragraph, it says "S8 understands the writing practice and utters a metalinguistic inititate ("그거... 그것도 ‘드’자로 시작하는데. 잠자리였어요. 그거?"). This metalinguistic initiate possibly indicates development." I intentionally AVOIDED definite answers such as 'ALL the children' and 'No evidence at all'. I hope that you didn't misunderstand it. I hope you just mentioned these things rhetorically.

[kellogg]

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that I think you are confusing learning with presentation. Take a good look at Hayeong's data, Minkyeong. The kids are TRYING to develop the concept of "freedom" but they don't quite get there. They understand the PRESENTATION: the Korean word meaning. But they don't understand how all the concrete instances (the kite string, the idea of free time, an independent country) are part of a single abstract concept. Are they learning?