Is "Interesting" More "Settling" or More "Stirring"?

[kellogg]

I have chosen the given data. In this paper, first, I will explain how the teacher asked the questions that 'teach' and not simply questions that 'test'. Secondly, I will analyse how the teacher builds the bridge from just 'looking' to really 'listening'. Third, I will examine how the teacher copes with students' wild answers in three different ways, during the lesson. Finally, I will suggest my own opinion which I think might have helped the teaching activities in the data.

Good uptake. But perhaps it's a little TOO literal, too much "word for word". Here's what the question said--remember?

1.1 HOW DOES THE TEACHER ASK QUESTIONS THAT TEACH AND NOT SIMPLY QUESTIONS THAT TEST? If we ask closed "Is it A? Or B?" type questions then the answers we get contain the same information as the questions we give. If we ask open "Tell me about…" questions, the children sometimes don’t answer because they don’t really know what kind of answer we want.

1.1 HOW DOES THE TEACHER GO FROM JUST LOOKING TO REALLY LISTENING? How can we get children to go beyond what they see? Can we get them to tell us what they see in a way that will help them understand the text?

1.3 WHAT DOES THE TEACHER DO ABOUT "WILD"ANSWERS? Finally, what do we do about incoherent, uncomprehending, or uncooperative answers? Is there any way to use them in a way that is helpful to learning?

When we uptake IN WRITING, we have to obey the five word rule. The five word rule is the tool used to determine "fair use" of other people's words and other people's ideas. Itsays:

"You cannot take more than five consecutive words from somebody else unless you quote them."

It's usually better to PARAPHRASE the question in some way--rephrase it. We can see that Jeongmin does this very well indeed on 1.3. But we can also see that 1.1 and 1.2 are violations of the "five word rule".

First, teacher (sic) asks students to guess what they can see in the picture using open-ended questions.

It's very useful to begin the paragraph with ANOTHER restatement of the question, like this:

"First, in order to help students to participate in guessing what they will learn throughout the lesson, the teacher asks students to guess what they can see in the picture using open-ended questions.

In this way we can see that "helping students to participate in guessing what they will learn throughout the lesson" is how Jeongmin interprets the words "questions that teach" as opposed to "questions that test".

Now, is that a fair interpretation? Is teaching students to guess a way of teaching vocabulary and teaching grammar? Not by itself, of course. It all depends on HOW they guess.

Here's a problem. If the questions are TOO open ended, they canot' really lead the children to the specific PROBLEM that must be solved with the use of English. Here, the specific problem is that it's a hot day and the children want to go swimming, but Jinho has a piano lesson. Let's see how close the children get.

KT : What do you see?

S : Him... 아 He.

S: 진호

........

This COULD be an open ended question--that is to say, it COULD have many answers. But the children don't seem to interpret it that way. They seem to treat it as a closed question: "Who do you see?". Look back at the data. Can you see why they interpret it this way?

KT : Then what are they doing?

...

KT : Then how's the weather?

Now, a lot of teachers use TIME adverbs to link their teacher talk together. But "then" is really WRITTEN English--we use it when we are telling a story, or sometimes when we are drawing logical conclusions in writing. "Now" is what teachers tend to use in speaking (“자!”).

...

KT : Is it morning or afternoon? Is this really an open-ended question?

KT : Why do you think it's afternoon?

These questions help students to participate in guessing what they will learn throughout the lesson.

Yes, but they need to guess some fairly specific things:

a) CHARACTERS

b) SETTING

c) SPECIFIC PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES ENGLISH TO SOLVE.

These three things are what help the kids answer the key PRAGMATIC question: "Who says what to whom? How do they say it and why?" Without this key pragmatic question, the lesson is simply going to focus on WHAT, on the SEMANTIC meaning of the language and not on the communicative function of the language.

S : I didn't have a swimming suit. 하하

KT : I don't have a swimming suit?

The teacher "recasts" in the present tense.

S : Or there is so far.

KT : So far?

The teacher "uptakes" only the correct part of the utterance.

S : 아하, he has a academy.

KT : Ah, I have to go to academy. Notice that the CHILD has a correct article use but the teacher does NOT.

S : I don't have money.

KT : I have no money. Not clear why the teacher recasts here. What do you think? wow good guess.

Jeongmin presents very GOOD evidence that the children have hypotheses about what the children SAY. But how did they get these hypotheses? They are not good answers for the questions that she lists above!

As seen in the next conversation, teacher uptakes what students answer, and continues to question to build up the context of the story.

S : They just want to go to swimming pool.

KT : Ah, they will go swimming now? How's the weather?

S : Hot, very very very hot.

....

KT : It's very hot. Is it morning or afternoon?

FT : I think they are leaving school.

KT : They are leaving school?

FT : In the afternoon. And it's really hot.

KT : This is their school?

The important thing to notice is that the KT and the FT are talking to each other, not to the children. So...does THAT help the children learn how to analyze a situation? Or is it simply another instance of "comprehensible input"?

Conversation flows from swimming - weather - time of the day to the school. The last sentence what KT says gives students a cue about the relationships between the characters in the picture. Different pieces of answers make up the story of a group of friends who go to the same school wants to go for swimming on a very hot day afternoon. KT's questions encourage students to get ready to achieve the learning goals. (As we have learnt, Plato's problem; contexts are there to help the understandings of the text, even it is bigger than the text!)

Jeongmin is very GENEROUS to our teacher. That's good; she IS a very expert teacher. But it will make it difficult for Jeongmin to suggest other and better ways of teaching this!

KT : What is Ann doing?

S : 응원! Hurry hurry.

Notice that the children interpret the question as "What is Ann saying?" Why?

S : Go Go Go

KT : Does she say "Fighting"?

Ss : No, no.

KT : Fighting is Konglish. Maybe Ann says....?

FT : cheering

KT : Cheering. Yes, she is cheering.

KT asks students if Ann says "fighting". Students answer 'No, No'. Through this question students can learn the difference between Korea and western in cheering.

Yes, but I don't really understand this. We DO use "fighting" in cheers, although we use it slightly differently from the way it is used in Korea (we use it as an adjective before a noun, as in "the fighting REDS!" And of course we use the verb "fight" all the time

T: Fight, Harvard, fight! (But gently). Fight, Harvard, fight! (But don't hurt them!)

Second, teacher (sic) lets students see the video clip part by part and ask(sic) questions to build up the story in their own words before watching the whole scene. After constructing the story and the context by themselves, teacher asks students "Do you want to listen?", and students answer "YES!".

Attention to trifles! In general I don't think grammar mistakes are a big deal in writing (you can see that I make them all the time). But the ARTICLE and AGREEMENT are really the bread and butter of elementary English teaching, so let's pay attention to trifles and get them right.

KT : Do you want to listen?

Ss : Yes!

KT : Who can tell me about the story? What did you hear?

Ss : Raising hands

All these processes went through before listening the whole story. Are you sure? Look at the SECOND utterance by the KT. They help students to concentrate on what they hear, which means they make the bridge to connect just 'hearing' to really 'listening'.

Third, teacher (sic) copes with students wild answers in three different ways. The first is that teacher (sic) repeats the correct answer right after students made the mistakes in their speaking.

The technical term for this is a "recast" and there is a lot of research recasts (by, among others, Long, Doughty, and Oliver). The problem is that children seem to ignore them, and the teacher doesn't actually follow up her recasts very much. When children talk to each other, they don't seem to recast at all (Oliver 2002).

S : And they promise... go to swimming pool tomorrow.

KT : So they promised to go swimming...

Second, Korean teacher(sic) uses foreign teacher(sic)

KT : The Big sun is in the sky?

The big sun is in the middle of the sky?

S : No.

KT : That's because... that's why it's afternoon?

Chris, what do you think?

FT : I think it's afternoon.

....

KT : Why?

FT : I think they are leaving school.

as material to correct students' wild answers.

Foreign teacher gives new perspective why it is afternoon instead of 'sun' being in the middle of the sky.

And once again,

KT : Do they look happy?

Ss : No.

....

KT : They are tired.

Ss : ^%$#$

KT : Chris, what do you think they are feeling?

FT : They look too hot.

Korean teacher asks same question to foreign teacher to have a better answer for the class.

Third, Korean teacher comforts the student by telling students that he or she will directly 'teach' how to answer the questions. Which quetsions?

KT : They will teach Jinho how to swim. Is that you guessed? (sic)

S : .......

KT : Maybe, maybe. Oh, I can... don't worry. I will teach you.

KT : (replaying the video and pause)

Ss : Aha!

Finally, my own opinion about this lesson is this.

If a teacher had planned more organised activity to check students' listening at the end of the lesson, it would have been more interesting work for students to do.

Take a look in our book. There's a good discussion of why the teacher CANNOT do this--the belly button is bigger than the belly!

But I also don't think that "interesting" always means worthwhile. The data shows a very boisterous class. Susan Halliwell would say that the class does NOT need more "stirring" but rather more "settling".

The teacher in the data closes up the lesson by just asking a few students to retell the story what they have heard. When students ask the teacher for the 'point', he or she suddenly divided the class into two different teams and started to give one point.

The FT is a he and the KT is a she. They use points to try to "settle" the class.

I want my students do a silent role play. Even listening and speaking always come together and cannot be separated in language learning, I think this lesson is more focused on 'listening' than 'speaking'. I want each group to come to the front of the class and show what they have heard to the class in motions and if possible, it is also good to use verbal expressions. If their role play did not miss any of the situation shown in the video, their group will get full points.

I don't understand, Jeongmin. How is this a "silent" role play?

This activity will encourage students to listen more carefully not to miss anything from the video. This also will help students to cooperate with team members. I expect students helping each other by discussing what each of students has seen to make a complete role play.

Good. Is there any way to do this with the WHOLE CLASS?