Minkyeong's Greatest Hits

[kellogg]

Everybody!

I'm afraid I've been very slow in grading the midterms. It's not really MY fault; I've had some unexpected tasks from other quarters that required attention. But it's bad news for you because a lot of what I see is quite useful on the final exam.

So I'm going to start posting the bits I like best, both for everybody to read and for me to refer to in my lectures. Here's some of Minkyeong's work, to start. As usual, I'm quite critical, but (also as usual) what I say has very little to do with Minkyeong's actual grade (which was a well-deserved A+, actually!)

1.Learners and Teachers. Get a sample of data, or use one of the samples from below. What evidence is there of learning? What evidence of teaching? How is the learning DIFFERENT from the teaching? Is there any evidence of development? Quote from data to support what you say (put quotations in parentheses and quotation marks).

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.

a) What evidence is there of learning/teaching?

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.

It's evidence of teaching but not direct teaching. And of course for S14 there is no teaching at all.

On the one hand, it seems likely that the students except S14 does not know what '잠자리' is in English.

Why?

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.").

Good--now, is this a tram driver or a rickshaw puller?

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.

Wait. If I remember something in one context that I learnt in another, that is NOT learning? Why not?

Jeonghwa actually uses this as her definition of learning; it's only learning if there is some takeaway, some way of remembering in one context what I learnt in another. Not a bad definition, when you think about it; much better than Sujin's idea about "permanent changes in knowledge".

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.

Minkyeong assumes that only learning something you have never heard of before is learning. Is that a realistic assumption?

b) 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!").

c) Is there any evidence of 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.

It's really CHEATING to go outside the data, Minkyeong! Besides, you don't have to. There's very good evidence that the children are developing metalinguistic knowledge right there in your data. Isn't that what the various mnemonic devices are about?

2.Skills and Knowledge. Get a sample of data. Can you find an example of integrated SKILLS? Can you find an example of the integration of KNOWLEDGE? What is the difference? Why does it matter?

S8: Donut.

Some Ss: Donut.

T: Do you want to write 'donut'?

S8: Yeah.

S3: 왜 ‘도너’를 말해?

T: (gesture) Short one or long one?

S1: Long one.

T: Long one? Okay.

S3: 그거 무슨 뜻이야?

S1: 긴 거... (inaudible)

T: (writing) d. o. u. g. h. n. u. t. (pointing) Dough. Nut. Doughnut.

Ss: Doughnut.

T: Doughnut.

Ss: Doughnut.

T: 두넛 아니고 doughnut.

Some Ss: Doughnut.

T: Okay, two more times, please.

T & S10: d. o. u. g. h. n. u. t.

a) Can you find an example of integrated SKILLS?

The data shows several signs of integrated skills. First of all, the students are integrating listening and speaking because they are listening to the teacher's questions ("Do you want to write 'donut'?", "Short one or long one?") and replying accordingly ("Yeah.", "Long one.").

You can see that the second pair is better integrated than the first!

Secondly, when S8 initiates the exchange by saying what he wants to write ("Donut."), other students agree with it and repeat this word ("Donut."). Another student, S1, who seems to understand what the teacher means, says what she wants ("Long one."). Lastly, the students are integrating spoken and written language because they write and read aloud the word which the teacher shows on the screen.

Good.

b) What about the integration of KNOWLEDGE?

It seems quite likely that although some students are only following at the level of sound (S3: 왜 ‘도너’를 말해?, 그거 무슨 뜻이야?), other students are integrating knowledge of sounding and vocabulary. Firstly, the students know the vocabulary partly because of the pronunciation (Donut) is similar to the Korean equivalent (도넛) and also because the class talked about "Dunkin Donuts" in advance of this exchange. Secondly, the students are pronouncing the word correctly through Listen and Repeat ("T: Doughnut.", "Ss: Doughnut.").

Notice that this will work better if your reorder it: Firstly should be secondly and secondly should be firstly: you said some at the level of sound and others at sound and word.

However, it's hard to say that the students are integrating any grammatical knowledge because the teacher's utterances do not provoke much grammar use in the students' utterances. Also, the teacher does not uptake or rebroadcast when S3 offers a valuable opportunity for development of meaning (S3: 왜 ‘도너’를 말해?, 그거 무슨 뜻이야?), and as a result, it's hard to observe integration of meaning in the exchange.

Good.

c) What is the difference and why does it matter?

As can be seen, the integration of skills happens quite easily within a short exchange. I disagree here. Integration of skills dos not mean their juxtaposition. A student utters a word ("Donut"), and other students hear this and utter the same word ("Donut"). The teacher writes the word letter by letter and reads it aloud ("d. o. u. g. h. n. u. t. Dough. Nut. Doughnut."), and then the students write the word and read it at the same time ("Doughnut."). However, the integration of knowledge (especially, grammar and meaning) is much harder to observe. Except that we really do see it every time there is actual integration. There is the students' tendency of using only vocabulary continues throughout the whole data, and even the teacher hardly uses grammatical sentences except "Do you want to write 'donut'?". When S3 expresses that he cannot understand the teacher's utterances ("왜 ‘도너’를 말해?", "그거 무슨 뜻이야?"), the teacher ignores it and therefore loses the opportunity to rise to the level of meaning.

Good. By the way, only S10 actually repeats the letter names. Does this mean the others don't know how to pronounce them? Or does it mean they don't know them? Or that they know them too well? Or that they know the teacher doesn't require this? Details, details, details!

This difference matters because it implies that teachers have to pay closer attention to students' utterances and pick up opportunities to raise students' knowledge to the level of grammar and meaning. The difference in THIS DATA implies all of that? Also, teachers need to base their lessons both on students' old knowledge (that is, sounding and vocabulary) and on their new knowledge (that is, grammar and meaning) in order to help integrate ALL three levels of knowledge.

Too general. Notice how you stop quoting the data.

3.Spoken and Heard. Get a sample of data. Compare the language the children are LISTENING to with the language that they are SPEAKING. How are they different QUANTITATIVELY? How are they different QUALITATIVELY? What can we do to integrate them? Why does it matter?

T: Okay. What season is it NOW? Now.

Some Ss: Spring.

T: Yeah, it's spring now. 지금은 봄이죠. (pause) What can you see? (gesture) What can you see in spring?

S1: Flower.

T: Yeah. I see flowers. What else? (pause) Flowers.. 꽃도 보고... 현정, please?

(S23 is inaudible)

T: 응?

S1: New teacher.

T: New teacher. Yes. You meet a new teacher.

 And what else?

Some Ss: Mmm....

T: In spring, flowers and...? (flying gesture)

(Ss laugh)

S1: Bee.

T: Bee? Oh, yeah. Bees. We see bees.

S27: Butterfly.

T: Butterflies. And 예림?

S28: Dragonfly.

T: Uh? Yes. Dragonfly? Do we see dragonflies? (Ss burst into a laughter) No....

(very noisy)

T: In what season, do you see dragonflies?

S29: 어... 가을.

T: Dragonflies 언제 나타나요?

S1: Fall.

a) Compare the language the children are listening to with the language that they are speaking.

In this data, the students are speaking one language and listening to another language. Different from the previous writing practice session, the students are not at all initiating and very careful with what they say ("Some Ss: Mmm....", "S29: 어... 가을. "). The teacher asks, and the students answer with fragments ("Spring.", "Flower."). The students' language and the teacher's language are inequal in terms of grammar use (qualitatively) and the number of words per turn (quantitatively).

b) How are they different QUANTITATIVELY? How are they different QUALITATIVELY?

The quantitative difference is prominent when we compare the number of words per turn. The teacher has constantly longer turns than the students. Also, the teacher's questions are two to seven words in length (the shortest being "What else?" and the longest being "In what season, do you see dragonflies?") whereas the students have no questions and only answer with one or two words ("New teacher.", "Bee."). Notably, four out of eight audible student answers in this exchange are by one student (S1). Good. This is important. In the qualitative perspective, the students use only vocabulary whereas the teacher uses grammar.

The teacher, in the hope of showing the students how to use grammar, keeps uptaking their answers and adding grammar to them ("S1: New teacher." "T: New teacher. Yes. You meet a new teacher.").

Let's assume that children are like normal people everywhere and they speak only when they have a pragmatic reason to do so.

If the teacher says "You meet a new teacher", what is the PRAGMATIC reason for the children to say "I meet a new teacher"? Of course, there IS a pragmatic reason. This is an English class, and in English class one of the things you have to learn is to make English sentences. But there are two reasons why we might suppose that this particular pragmatic reason is not very compelling.

First of all, these are very young children. They are used to thinking of language, if they think of it at all, as a mode of action, not a system, a way of producing sentences. When you use language to do things (as opposed to when you use it to produce sentences, you are not usually conscious of HOW you use it; you just use it.

Secondly, these are SCHOOL children; they are used to thinking rather than talking in class. When you are a schoolchild you are supposed to speak when you are spoken to, at least in the presence of the teacher, not otherwise. But suppose the teacher does this?

T: New teacher. Yes. Tell me more. Tell me about that. Tell me about your new teacher. Tell me about meeting a new teacher.

Will the children produce a sentence? Will they grammaticize the lexis? Will they add plural morphemes?

Especially, the teacher pluralizes the words that students mention ("S: Flower.", "T: Yeah. I see flowers."). In addition, the teacher rebroadcasts individual students' answers to the whole group ("And what else?") hoping to generalize the topic (things we can see in spring). Though the exchange becomes somewhat generalized (e.g. flowers, bees, and butterflies), the students do not use any grammar.

c) What can we do to integrate them? Why does it matter?

There is a disparity between the students' language and that of the teacher's in terms of grammar use. In the data, the students are basically answering to one simple question ("What do you see in spring?") and they seem to know what this means. However, the students ignore the teacher's generalized utterances and continue to utter simple nouns. This might be because students do not feel a need to grammaticize their answers. When the first student answers with a simple noun ("flower"), the teacher grammaticizes it for her. This might seem to other students that it's okay to utter only nouns.

Yes, exactly. There is TOO MUCH teaching, not enough learning. Concretely, this is what Vygotsky means when he talks about the tram driver and the rickshaw puller.

They might think it's the teacher's job to uptake and grammaticize their answers. The teacher does not explicitly push the students to grammaticize their answers even though she constantly pluralizes the nouns.

Very convincing. I'm convinced.

In order to integrate the two languages in terms of GRAMMAR use, the teacher could possibly have the students practice certain FORMS of sentences before they start the ask & answer session, like this:

What do you see in spring?

I see ______s in spring. What else do you see?

How would you have the students practice this?

Remember that there is a big distinction--a distinction in KNOWLEDGE--between "Listen and Repeat" and "Listen and Answer". One kind of exchange simply integrates speaking and listening on the level of phonological knowledge. The other simply integrates speaking and listening on the level of words, wording, or at most semantic knowledge.

But what we require is PRAGMATIC knowledge. Let's go back to the two reasons I proposed before. I suggested that the first reason why children do not grammaticize is that they see language as a mode of action rather than as a system. They use it unconsciously rather than as an object of conscious mastery.

The second reason was that they see themselves as more engaged in THINKING than in speaking, they see the role of the school child as listening rather than speaking. How does your solution measure up?