|
Of course, doing this depends on HUMAN puppets--that is, on skillful casting.
Then the teacher casts roles by using statements. And she also calls the students' name to ask him to take the role in a direct way.
KT: I need two boys. Two boys. Two boy friends. I need two boy-friends. S8: Two girls! KT: Two girls? S8: Yes! S3: Two girl friends! KT: Two boy friends! Two boys! 준석? |
In this box, there are nine KT utterances, and only two of them are statements.
We can see that Mr. Park is oversimplifying when he says that the casting is done through statements. "Two girls?" is not a statement, and neither is "Two boy friends!", "Two boys!" and "Junseok?".
I can easily understand why Mr. Park simplifies like this. Every week I comment on pages and pages of your work. It takes a lot of time. And the temptation is always to simplify and leave things out.
Mr. Park CAN do this (although I can't). But since he has quoted the data, he needs to say something about it. He can't just say that it's full of statements.
And the teacher also uses Teacher-Anyone question for casting the roles instead of pointing to a specific person. This strategy allows students' voluntary involvement.
True, but in that case why does the teacher reject the idea of girlfriends? Actually, she did note earlier that shopping is a bit of a girl's thing.
S8: Teacher, two girl friends! S5: 아, 뭐야! KT: Two boy friends. I need two boy friends. Ss: *&^%$ KT: Who wants to be my boy-friends? |
I don't understand this part of the data at all, and I would like to, because it seems to me that the whole thing would really work MUCH better with two girl-friends, even if one or both of them were played by boys.
In general, I find it very hard to understand why teachers reject suggestions from children when they are constructive and do not reject them when they are destructive (e.g. "No!"). There must be a good reason for it, but I really don't know what it is.
In any case, it's a simplification to say that the casting is done through questions just as it's an oversimplification to say that the casting is done through statements.
Remember that when we looked at "Look and Listen" we spent a lot of time thinking about how the teacher goes from inside the story to outside the story, from OPEN questions to CLOSED questions and so on.
The problem is actually fairly similar here. COMMANDS are quite far outside the story, and they are very closed. STATEMENTS are closer to the story (because they contain at least the name of the characters) and they are more open (because response is not mandatory or compulsory). What about QUESTIONS?
For the next casting, she uses commands and questions as well. She guides the students more directly who does what to whom, how.
Mr. Park ends with the data! No interpretation? No analysis? Oh, dear! He must be in a terrible hurry to go out and smell the flowers.
2. How does the teacher control and correct ERRORS? Does she model, prompt, uptake, recast?
- Teacher can control students' errors by modeling, prompting, uptaking and recasting.
The teacher tries to use recasting to correct the students' errors. In Korea, we normally say “가위-바위-보” (order : scissors first / rock second / wrapping clothes last), but in EFL country they say RPS (order : rock first / paper second / scissors last). The students say rock-scissors-paper unconsciously, but the teacher recasts the sentence in a natural way to let the students correct their errors.
It seems to me that the ORDER of Rock Scissors Paper doesn't really matter. It would probably be best to say "Scissors, Paper, Rock!" because:
a) The elements get shorter: "hickory dickory dock" or "higgledy piggledy pop" or “ally bally bee" Get ready, get set, go!
b) The vowels get somewhat more "open" and "vowelly", as in "fiddle faddle", "hip hop", etc.
c) The initial consonants get somewhat "harder" and more "consonanty", as in "super-duper" or "씽글 방글“ or ”오슨도슨”
But I can't really say it's an ERROR to do it another way.
What I think really IS an error is for Mr. Park to discuss recasts FIRST. I would discuss recasts LAST. Do you know why?
KT: Rock, paper, scissors! Ss+KT: Rock, paper, scissors! KT: Rock, paper, scissors! S5: I'm the winner! |
And the teacher uses another strategy of controlling errors, that is modeling. She does not point out the students' specific errors directly, but she revises the sentence again to let the students notice their errors all by themselves. This is how the modeling works.
Well, that's not what the book (Kim and Kellogg 2007) says. Look:
김 선생님의 교실로 돌아가 교사가 학생들을 돕는 다양한 방법들을 좀 더 상세히 살펴보도록 하자. 앞서 보았듯, 이를 위한 한 가지 방법으로 교사는 신중을 기해서 본인이 맡을 역할을 결정하였다. 교사는 (아마도 무의식적으로) 문법의 부담측면이나 주요 표현의 포함측면에서 전화를 건 나미의 역할을 계산 하고, 나미가 최초 발화자가 아님에도 불구하고 교사 자신이 나미의 역할을 맡고 있다.
그럼으로써 교사는 두 가지 측면에서 오류를 통제할 수 있는 위치를 확보하게 된다. 우선 어린이들이 대화를 잘못 시작하거나 망설이거나 오류를 범하여 지도의 초점을 흐리지 않도록 한다. 둘째, 어린이들이 따라할 수 있는 좋은 모델을 교사가 제공할 수 있게 된다. 이를 모델링MODELING이라고 부르기로 하자.
물론 이것이 다가 아니며, 이것만으로는 오류를 통제하는데 충분하다고 말할 수 없다. 교사가 역할을 바꿀 경우 어린이들이 대화를 시작하기란 매우 어려울 것이다.
T: Ring ring 해야지.
재은: Ring ring
T: Hello?
재은: Hello? 음 음...
T: (대화문이 적혀있는 칠판을 가리킨다.)
재은: This is 재은. Is... English teacher there?(sic)
T: Speaking.
재은: ...
교사는 위치를 옮겨가며 Sindbad와 Yasmina의 역할을 하면서(T-T) 혼자 전체의 대화문을 학생들에게 MODEL할 수 있다. 물론 T-S로 대화문을 MODEL하는 것도 가능하다. 마지막에 Yasmina는 즉흥적으로 대사를 만들어 내야 하므로 교사는 하나 이상의 모델 대답을 제시해 주어야 한다(예를 들면, ‘Thank you!"나 “For me?" 또는 간단히 ”Wow!"나 심지어 “I want BOTH diamonds!"등이 가능하다). 교사가 다양한 대답을 제시해 주지 않으면 어린이들은 Yasmina가 마지막에 자유롭게 대답하도록 되어 있다는 점을 이해하지 못할 것이다(3학년의 경우에는 대화 지문을 읽을 능력이 안 되는데다가 ”!!!“가 무엇을 의미하는지 알지 못한다).
따라서 Yasmina의 역할은 반드시 교사가 맡아야 한다. 그리고 그렇게 하기 위해서는 T-S가 아니라 S-T로 대화를 시작해야 한다. 또한 교사가 복수의 응답을 modeling하는 최선의 방법은 여러 명의 Sindbad들을 등장시키는 것으로, 이는 S-T 활동이 EVERYONE-Teacher가 아니라 실상은 SOMEONE-Teacher가 되도록 할 것을 시사한다.
T: Stand up, Jae-eun. You are the handsome Sindbad. And I am the beautiful Yasmina. (영화감독 같이) Lights, camera, action!
(이는 3학년 학생들에게는 적당하지 않을 수도 있다. 좀 더 단순화할 수 있겠는가?)
위의 지문을 이용해 대화문을 더 가르쳐 보자. 이번에도 역시 Sindbad와 Yasmina를 이용하되 목표 표현은 4,5,6학년의 4 과에 나오는 주요 표현으로 설정해 보자. 복수의 응답을 modeling 하기 위해 Someone-Teacher 상호작용을 이용하고, 교사의 언어가 학생의 연령 수준에 어울리도록 유의하자.
S16: Let's ... let's go ... to the shopping. KT: Shopping? S4: To the? KT: Let's go shopping? S16: 아하, Let's go shopping. |
The teacher's strict high-standard demands on students might interrupt the proceed of class. Thus the teacher does not indicate the trivial errors directly, but leads the sentence by giving a Key word.
Good. But what shall we call this? Is it modeling, prompting, uptaking or recasting? Is it preventative or cure? Is it proleptic or retroleptic, summative or formative?
Mr. Park has developed his OWN terminology for it ("leading a sentence by giving a key word"). Why not?
Well, first of all, it's important to agree on terms for what we are describing, because we may wish to count it in order to study it quantitatively (see Ms. Shin Yura's work).
Secondly, you have to be able to write a thesis, and in order to write a thesis about this stuff you have to use technical words correctly to describe it.
Thirdly, we want to be able to make THEORETICAL generalizations about it. Remember the quotation from Vygotsky we read--the one about the different forms of giving assistance.
비고츠키는 “근접발달영역”을 정의하면서 두 명의 10살짜리 장애 아동에 대한 실험을 가정한다. 이 두 아동은 모두 발달상 8세 수준의 문제를 해결할 수 있다.
“내가 이들에게 다양한 문제 해결법을 보여준다고 가정해 보자. 서로 다른 실험자들이 각자의 방법으로 각각의 상황에 어울리도록 실연을 해 보일 것이다. 어떤 이는 문제 해결법 전체를 통째로 제시한 후 어린이에게 따라하도록 할 수도 있고 또 어떤 이는 문제 해결의 첫 부분만을 제시하고 뒷부분은 어린이가 마무리 짓도록 할 수도 있을 것이다. 또는 유도 질문을 통해 문제 해결을 인도할 수도 있을 것이다. 각설하고, 어떤 방법으로든 어린이가 나의 도움을 통해 문제를 해결했다고 가정하자. 위의 조건 하에서 한 어린이는 12세 수준의 문제를 해결할 수 있게 되었고 다른 어린이는 9세 수준의 문제를 해결하게 되었다. 과연 이 어린이들이 정신적으로 동일하다고 말할 수 있겠는가(1978: 86)?”
(“어떤 이는 문제 해결법 전체를 통째로 제시... 또 어떤 이는 문제 해결의 첫 부분만을 제시... 또는 유도 질문을 통해 문제 해결을 인도할 수도 있을 것이다.“ 이중 MODELING에 해당하는 것은 무엇인가? PROMPTING과 RECAST는 무엇에 해당할까?)
In the abstract below S16 makes a preposition error "at", and it does not match with the days of the week (Saturday). The teacher does not give the correct preposition "on", but suggests another way "this Saturday".
If you look at the words of the chant, you will see why she suggests this.
S16: Let's go shopping at ... Saturday. KT: 아, this Saturday? S16: Yes. |
Once again, Mr. Park ends with DATA and not with ANALYSIS. This is really a tiger's head and snake's tail, isn't it?
3. How does the teacher move from frozen pairs to pairs, from “Remember and Repeat” to “Think and ANSWER”? Does she use an open question, a dispreferred response, a game?
- When we go through with the data, we realize that the key expressions consist of conversational structures : First suggestion(A) ⇒ Refusal ⇒ Another suggestion(B) ⇒ Alternative Suggestion(C) ⇒ Argument ⇒ Rock-paper-scissors ⇒ Final Decision(B or C). In the basic key expressions, students use this structure above, and they make a decision quite incidentally by rock-paper-scissors.
Good. This is really the fixed structure of the chant, but it’s a useful tool of analysis here.
In the frozen pairs, the same structure of the conversation comes again, and this means just remembering what had said before and repeating. But we can vary the words and even structures by adding a new word, altering the old word into a new one, reorganizing the sentence patterns. In this (open) pairs, students are required to think and answer, instead remember and repeat.
Yes, but doesn’t that just produce a kind of substitution drill? Are the children really thinking of meaning, or are they simply playing a word game, constructing a machine which is quite independent of content.
In the data, students learn basic key expressions by repeating first. After several drills, students change the words to express another idea of their own and reasons all by themselves.
S17: Let's go hiking. S16: Let's go swimming. S17: Let's go hiking. KT: Ok, let's do rock-scissors-paper. T+S16+S17: Rock, scissors, paper! S8: Rock, paper, scissors! KT: Wow, (toward S17) I'm ... you are the winner! Let's go ... S17: Hiking! |
Take a look at the chant in Lesson 8 of the Fifth Grade Book, “Let’s Go Swimming”, Mr. Park!