|
Ms. Lee:
Here's my little flower! It's data from a FIRST grade class--possibly the very first day of school for some of these kids. It's in Korean, of course.
T: 조용히 우리들은 1학년 24쪽 보세요. 지금 그림마다 동그라미가 있어요. 동그라미가 조그맣게 달려있죠?
Ss: 네.
She sometimes seems to be speaking from INSIDE the child, as if she were thinking ALONGSIDE the child, like this;
T: 여기는 너희가 그림을 보고 내가 잘 하는지 못 하는지 생각하는 거야. 너무나 내가 잘 하는 그림은 동그라미에 파란색 색연필로 칠하고 내가 잘 못 하는 그림은 빨간색으로 칠하세요. 내가 우리 집에서 정말 옷을 잘 입는지 아니면 숙제를 잘 하는지 생각해 보면서 칠하세요.
Notice that SOMETIMES the teacher uses POLITE Korean (높임말). And sometimes she doesn't. Now, you might think there isn't any rule.
But if you look carefully you will see that there IS a rule. When the teacher FINISHES an utterance (when she stands outside the utterance and outside the kids' heads) she uses the polite forms ("~어요", "~있죠", and "~세요"). But when she is INSIDE the utterance (and when she is talking from "inside" the child's head, showing the child HOW TO THINK) then she uses 반말 ("너희가", "내가", "~거야").
Now, you might think this really has nothing to do with your data. But I think it's related in THREE ways:
a) First of all, by using roles, imaginary characters, we can sometimes succeed in putting the children INSIDE the heads of English speaking people in much the same way that the teacher is putting herself inside the children's heads.
b) Secondly, by using the diversity of answers that OPEN questions provide, the teacher can SELECT answers that will live and answers that will die. By doing this, the teacher can make the process of REASONING explicit--in the same way as our first grade teacher is doing here.
c) In the same way, it's possible to put our analysis of the data INSIDE the data (what I will call "Method 1" below) or it's possible to put it outside the data (what I will call "Method 2" below). When we put the analysis outside the data, we put the data INSIDE a paragraph. Have a look.
Here are three problems of Listen and Repeat. First, how does the teacher present more than one voice? Second, how does the teacher get the children to remember their lines? Third, how do learners go beyond just remembering? I am going to use my own data for giving answers about these questions. Also, I am going to explain what I usually do when I teach Listen and Repeat part. My data is from fifth grade, Lesson three the title of which is 'It's Under the Table'.
Good! See, Mr. Park? A metaparagraph doesn't have to be difficult--Ms. Lee writes hers just by putting the three questions together into a single paragraph and adding a sentence on her data.
Notice the difference:
a) There are three problems of Listen and Repeat. (Only three?)
b) Here are three problems of Listen and Repeat. (There may be a lot more!)
First, usually there are TWO characters in Listen and Repeat part. So I present the PICTURE on the screen and ask Ss to tell me about the characters' NAMES. When the teacher talk about the characters Ss know how many voices there are naturally.
I am always a little skeptical when anybody says that anything in language is "natural" (or "authentic"), because of course I believe all language is CULTURAL rather than natural.
This is a good example. It's quite easy to HEAR how many voices there are without knowing any language at all. This is something an animal could do, and so we can call it "natural".
However, naming a voice is a very different matter. You can only name a voice if you know a culture. That is something no animal could do, and so I woiuldnot call it natural.
In writing, Ms. Lee picks up one of my bad habits. I tend to STRESS words a lot by using capitals. This is really not a good habit, but like many people I tend to write the way that I speak, and when I talk I do use a lot of stress.
Here it works pretty well. But it will work better if Ms. Lee can somehow link the stressed ideas. Like this:
"First, the Listen and Repeat part usually has two characters. These two characters can be presented on a screen, and named by the children. By naming the characters, the children learn who the voices are and not just how many different voices there are."
And then I lead Ss to give attention to the picture and ask them what CLUES related with the sentences there are. Next, I ask Ss to PREDICT the sentences. The situation and the sentences of Listen and Repeat are from the Look and Listen or Look and Speak part. So Ss predict the sentences easily. I think prediction is an important step because it makes Ss use their brains to make the proper sentences about the situation that they are looking at instead of just mimicking. And also Ss think about what the characters are going to say. My data shows this way.
And so it does! Of course, it's quite possible that some of the children KNEW (from listening to the CD ROM).
Notice that Eunkyeong ENDS this section with data. When you are writing a thesis, this is usually not a good idea. You usually have to:
a) introduce the data
b) give the data
c) interpret the data
How to tackle c)? Well...
Method 1) One way is to take the data apart into smaller pieces and comment on things we find that are interesting along the way.
Method 2) Another way is simply to move some of the paragraph above to AFTER the data.
T: Let's look at the first picture.
Can you tell me who they are?
Method 1) (Notice the us of an INDIRECT question!)
Ss: 웅성웅성
T: Raise your hand! 민영!
Method 1) (This is called a "bound" exchange; it's really an exchange WITHIN an exchange, used to establish exactly who "you" refers to.)
민영: They are Nami and Nami's mother.
T: Right, everyone, they are Nami and Nami's mother.
Look! (pointing to the pencil case) What is it?
Ss: Pencil case.
T: 정은!
정은: Nami's pencil case.
T: Right, this is Nami's pencil case.
Number one is a question, Number two is an answer.
Can you guess what Number one is?
Ss: Question.
T: 지섭, please!
지섭: Where is my pencil case, mom?
T: Where is my pencil case, mom? Okay, and Number two? 성종!
성종: It's under the table.
T: It's under the table. Okay, let me check.
Method 1) (Why "let me check" and not "let us check"?)
CD(1): Where's my pencil case? Ting Ting Ting.
CD(2): It's under the table.
T: Wow, you are right. Let's repeat after it, three times.
Number one!
CD(1): Where's my pencil case?
Ss: Where's my pencil case?(×3)
T: and then "Ting Ting Ting."
Ss: Ting Ting Ting.(as laughing at the funny sound)
T: Number two!
CD(1): It's under the table.
Ss: It's under the table.(×3)
Method 2) My data shows that Ss predict the sentences easily. I think prediction is an important step because it makes Ss use their brains to make the proper sentences about the situation that they are looking at instead of just mimicking. And also Ss think about what the characters are going to say.
Second, how does the teacher get the children to remember their lines?
I ask Ss to say the lines of Listen and Repeat part after they repeat after it (After what?) several times. And I write the lines with blanks. (e.g. Where is ? It's the .) After Ss say the full sentences fluently, I divide them into two groups and give them roles.
Notice--lines before roles. Now, when we looked at Mr. Park's work, we noticed that there was a distinction between three different kinds of meaning.
a) GRAMMATICAL meaning. (What Mr. Park calls the basic pattern, that is, the idea that a sentence starts with a theme and ends with a rheme, that subjects come before verbs, and so on).
b) SEMANTIC meaning. This is really abstract, dictionary meaning; the ability to define words and translate meanings. It has nothing to do with "who says what to whom and why".
c) PRAGMATIC meaning. This is meaning in USE. Unless there are USERS, this meaning does not exist.
Now, Ms. Lee chooses to teach LINES before ROLES. That means a) and b) before c).
There is a good reason for doing this. If we think that c) depends upon knowing a) and b), then this is a logical way to proceed. Before we understand what words mean in USE we need to understand what they mean WITHOUT use--as patterns, and as dictionary definitions.
But there is another view. Suppose a) and b) depend on c)--without use, there is no dictionary meaning and no patterning either. Grammatical and lexical meaning are simply abstractions based on pragmatic use.
Suppose we take this second view. Which makes sense: roles before lines or lines before roles?
Ss practice each their lines as a whole group, and then they practice as a pair.
We can call this distinction the distinction between "OPEN PAIRS" and "CLOSED PAIRS". Open pairs are open to the whole class, but closed pairs are simultaneous. Of course, they have different advantages and disadvantages, and that is why Ms. Lee combines them.
Open pairs allow much more control--the teacher can hear errors and control them, and above all the teacher can keep the kids on task. On the other hand, most of the children are not really taking part at all; they are only looking and listening.
Closed pairs allow much more fluency practice--all the kids can take part at the same time, so they generate almost ten or fifteen times as much English activity. On the other hand, the teacher is really not taking part at all, and so she can't do much about errors or children who go off task.
I observed Ss remembered the lines well when they looked at the written sentences on the board.
Yes--but WHAT do they remember? Which kind of meaning?
a) GRAMMATICAL meaning. (What Mr. Park calls the basic pattern, that is, the idea that a sentence starts with a theme and ends with a rheme, that subjects come before verbs, and so on).
b) SEMANTIC meaning. This is really abstract, dictionary meaning; the ability to define words and translate meanings. It has nothing to do with "who says what to whom and why".
c) PRAGMATIC meaning. This is meaning in USE. Unless there are USERS, this meaning does not exist.
Ss' volume goes up when I lead Ss to look at the written sentences with blanks. The blanks stimulate Ss to remember the lines.
T: Okay, everyone. Give me a sentence.
Do you remember? What is Number one?
Ss: Where is ~.(웅성웅성)/뭐야?/pencil case
T: Please, 정민.
정민: Where's my pencil case?
T: Good! Where~ is ~ my ~ pencil~ case.(write the sentence with blanks on the board: Where is ?)
Ss: Where~ is ~ my ~ pencil~ case.
T: What did she say?
Ss: Where is my pencil case?
T: Good! Everyone. What is Number two?
Ss: It's~./ under table
T: It's~ where?
Ss: under~
T: It's UNDER the~ , where?(on the board: It's the)
Ss: table
T: Okay, It's under the table.(on the board: It's the .)
What is Number two?
Ss: It's under the table.
T: Okay, everyone. Let's say together.
You're Nami. You're mom.
Ss: Nami, Nami. / 우리가 엄마야.
T: Ready, go! Nami!
Ss(Nami): Where is the pencil case?
T: Mom!
Ss(Mom): It's under the table.
T: Good! let's practice again.
Now, in "Look and Listen", it's NOT Nami's pencil case that is under the table. It's Namsu's pencil case! I wonder if any children ever notice this.
Third, how do learners go beyond just remembering?
In real situations, we use the languages with the creative way according to the situation.
Of course, the classroom IS a real situation. But it's a real situation in which the emphasis is not on pragmatic meaning but rather on semantic and grammatical meaning.
Even though Ss learn language with a textbook in the classroom, they will use the languages out of the classroom, too. Someday! So the teacher has Ss go beyond just remembering. For this purpose I used this way. I presented Ss NEW MATERIALS which are different with the textbook shows. I showed a yellow basket and a football and asked Ss make new sentences by using these materials. Also, the basket and ball are REAL. I observed Ss are motivated to speak up new sentences in eager, because they are INTERESTED in a real situation. After that I ask a pair of students come to the front and I allow them talking to each other with the sentences that they WANT to say. Here's my data. This data is about the teacher present Ss the real situation and ask them create new sentences beyond just remembering the lines that they have learned.
T: Everyone, listen! What is it?
Ss: basket./ Yellow basket.
Method 1) Notice the diversity of answers. This allows us to EXTERNALIZE the thinking process--what was intra-mental is now inter-mental. The teacher can CHOOSE answers for uptake.
In fact, the teacher can choose DIFFERENT ways of choosing.
a) The teacher can choose the most CORRECT answer (e.g. "a basket"). That won't work here, because there is no correct article use. But if the teacher does this consistently and thoroughly we can imagine that it will really lead to an increase in ACCURACY. Suppose, though, the teacher wants an increase in FLUENCY?
b) The teacher can choose the FASTEST answer. That WILL work here, of course ("basket"). But if the teacher does this consistently and thoroughly we can imagine that it will lead to a DECREASE in accuracy. Suppose, though the teacher wants an increase in BOTH?
c) The teacher can choose the LONGEST answer. That will work here, of course (e.g. "Yellow basket"). If the teacher does this consistently and thoroughly, it will lead to an INCREASE in complexity...and that might, at least in the long run, increase accuracy and fluency as well!
T: Okay, this is a basket. What is it?
Ss: Basketball./ ball./ Mr. Field's football./master.
Method 1) Notice the diversity of answers. This allows us to EXTERNALIZE the thinking process--what was intra-mental is now inter-mental. The teacher can CHOOSE.
Notice--no teacher uptake! What would happen if the teacher consistently selected the LONGEST correct answer? Do you think this might lead to increased complexity?
T: I'll put the football here and here~ and here.
If you can say the sentence, raise your hand. Okay?
please say the sentence. 건휘!
건휘: It's over the basket?
Method 1) Notice the intonation.
T: OVER the basket? Okay.
Next, ding ding ding ding ding(moving the ball's location) 현진!
Ss: ding ding./ ding ding ding.
현진: football, ~ yellow box~.
Ss: 다른 애가 해야 돼./Me, me!
Notice how orderly the turntaking is! We can see that Captain Lee runs a tight ship!
T: 원석!
S: The foot ball is UNDER the yellow box.
T: UNDER the yellow box or under the yellow BASKET. Okay!
Method 2) I observed Ss are motivated to speak up new sentences in eager, because they are INTERESTED in a real situation. After that I ask a pair of students come to the front and I allow them talking to each other with the sentences that they WANT to say. Here's my data. This data is about the teacher present Ss the real situation and ask them create new sentences beyond just remembering the lines that they have learned.
Nice work, Ms. Lee--it's very consistently taught and meticulously described. Now, all we need to do is think about consistent and meticulous ways of ANALYSING it. What do you think? Method 1) or method 2)?