|
Midterm Examination
Q1. As you know I'm not teaching English, so sometimes it is a little difficult to get data. This script comes from video and I wonder this is OK or not.
Date : 2008. 10.23
Students : 5th students
Lesson : Lesson 13. What did you do yesterday?
FT : Last Friday we didn't have school. We had holiday.
What kind of holiday?
S1 : National day.
KT : National day. Wow!
FT : What kind of National day?
S2 : 개천절이요.
FT : Good. What kind of holiday of National..?
S3 : National Foundation day.
KT : OH! National Foundation day.
What did you do National Foundation day?
What did you do? Think about it.
S4 : I play. I play the Basketball.
KT : You played basketball.
S4 : I played basketball.
S5 : I study.
FT : You studied. Wow, you are a good student. What did you study?
S5 : I studied English.
KT : Anybody else?
S6 : I went...
KT : You went...
S6 : I went to dance-school.
KT : Good.
S7 : 방콕.
KT : Ha-ha. You enjoyed 방콕.
FT : 방콕? What does it mean?
KT : He stayed at home all day.
Some students use this word humorously.
OK, good. Everybody, look at the screen. This is a magic tunnel.
FT : When this word go through magic tunnel, what will happen?
Who can guess?
KT : Who can guess? Cry?
S8 :That verb change past tense.
KT : Past tense? Wow.
OK. Let's see the scree. See... will change....
Ss : Saw.
KT : And have?
Ss : Had.
KT : Had, good!
KT : Live?
Ss : Lived.
KT : Eat?
Ss : Ate.
KT : Meet?
Ss : Met.
KT : OK, good.
Now I think you are ready to start today's lesson.
FT : We will continue Lesson 13 'What did you do yesterday?
.....................................................................................
(1) Evidence of learning
S1, S3 knew National and National Foundation day and answered correctly. Maybe they would listen or study this word at the private school.(As you said I'm not sure this student went to private school. Whenever the students know some difficult words, I think they will go to private school. But this is always not true as you said.) Is this is learning? I'm not sure but I think this is learning. They knew this new word and used for the class.
S4 : I play. I play the Basketball.
KT : You played basketball.
S4 : I played basketball.
S5 : I study.
FT : You studied. Wow, you are a good student. What did you study?
S5 : I studied English.
S4, S5 made same mistakes, they did not use correct past tense.
Yes, notice that S4 ALSO picked up on the absence of the article. So S4 picks up on TWO things at once: tense and article.
Now, what does this suggest? On the one hand, it suggests that there is more than memory at work; as you point out the previous example of vocabulary learning could be nothing but remembering something learned in a private school. But it's unlikely that the child would remember these TWO exact items from a private school when they occur RIGHT in the teacher's utterance; obviously, the child's uptaking from the teacher. So this is a microgenetic instance of learning, and it's much more interesting that the instance of "National Day" because we can actually see it happening in the data (internal validity)..
On the other hand it also suggests that the child is uptaking the teacher's utterance WHOLE, that is, without actually analyzing it. Remember we saw that children often think of "stand up" as a single word, and they learn a whole class of expressions (we called them "fixed expressions", following Tomasello) which they cannot analyze productively and another class of expressions (we called them item-based combinations) which they can only analyze partially. So on the one hand, the child is learning a whole expression. And on the other the the child is NOT learning the various parts.
I said that I thought this instance was more interesting than the "National Day" instance. That's not simply because we can see it happening. It's also because it has more knowledge (it's at the level of wording rather than simply words). And finally, it's because it shows us both learning and what remains to be learnt.
But KT and FT their utterances, and they said correct sentences again. I think the important thing is not their re-utterances but they realized their mistakes.
Yes, I agree. This is a very profound comment. Long likes to talk about this in terms of negative evidence. But I think what's really important about it is not negative or positive evidence per se but rather conscious awareness of evidence.
Remember we said that development is not simply learning, but learning a whole new way of learning. Vygotsky says that one of the keynotes of development at school age is precisely this kind of conscious awareness, this kind of deliberate mastery. This is what makes school age different from preschool, what makes scientific concepts different from everyday ones, and what makes foreign language different from first language learning.
This was the second period of the lesson and all students reviewed verbs' past tense. This is just repetition or learning? I think learning is not accomplished at one time but continuous thing, so the review of the lesson is learning.
Yes, I think the distinction between short term and long term is relatively trivial; I think that learning can be short and long term. There are many things that the children learn which are almost ALWAYS short term (as we'll see in the Song and Kellogg study) and there are other things that they never forget.
I think there's a more interesting distinction, which I will call "intra-mental" and "inter-mental". When something is "internalized" we don't mean that it is in some sense recorded in the brain (it probably is, but it might not be, because after all there are lots of things that I use on my computer that are not stored inside the computer). We mean that the child can use it WITHOUT HELP. That, I think, is what we mean by internalization.
Of course, learning can be both: we can learn things and store them entirely inside the mind, and we can also learn things, write them down on pieces of paper or something else (e.g. an exam, or the agenda I use for class, or something on our cafe). and store them outside the mind. They are both forms of knowledge. But in terms of SKILLS (speaking as opposed to listening, writing as opposed to reading) it makes a big difference, because very often we have to speak with what we have internalized.
(2) Evidence of teaching
S4 : I play. I play the Basketball.
KT : You played basketball.
S4 : I played basketball.
S5 : I study.
FT : You studied. Wow, you are a good student. What did you study?
S5 : I studied English.
I quoted this script at the evidence of learning, too. Teaching is not one-sided. I think if the students listen(get) something from the teachers and they change their mistakes, this is teaching, too. At this script, KT and FT corrected past tense, S4, S5 immediately changed their sentences.
And KT taught various verb forms of past tense and the students reviewed it. Even though the students did not remember all things, this is teaching.
(3) How is the learning different from the teaching?
This was 2nd period of the lesson so the students already studied past tense. And usually many teachers ask questions like that 'What did you do last weekend?', 'What did you do yesterday?'(Even though they didn't teach past tense). So I thought students has listened many sentences with past tense.
But they made some mistakes with past tense again. Teaching doesn't happen with learning simultaneously. If there is no any making students' change, teaching remains just not learning but teaching. If the teaching is given to the students continuously and the students make any changes, that is learning.
(4) evidence of development
I am not sure the differences between learning and development. If the students learn something from the teachers but they misunderstand the teachers' saying, is this learning? This is learning but not development....(I checked this from the textbook.)
Well, I certainly think that things we learn but do not actually use and then forget to not contribute to development. This is why I reject Yunseon's argument based on the comprehensible input hypothesis and the learning/acquisition distinction.
But this only tell us what development is NOT. It doesn't actually tell us what development IS. According to Vygotsky, development is a RESTRUCTURING, a way of RETRANSLATING everything you already know into a new form. When babies learn to NAME things instead of point to them, that's development. But it's also development when children learn to GRAMMATICIZE things instead of merely name them. And it's development when they learn RECONSTRUE complex grammar as complex ideas.
The students learned past tense, and when they made mistakes, they immediately corrected them. Through this course, if the students use past tense naturally, this is development. As time goes by they will use past tense frequently, their mistakes will be reduced. Of course, there is a possibility for them to make same mistakes again, but if there are some positive changes, it is a development.
I agree! Learning a new tense, going into the past, is a form of development. It allos us to restructure and reconstrue every verb we've already learnt. It allows us to apply all of the ways we have developed for talking about the present to talking about the past. So I think this really IS an example of development.
Now, the problem is, did the children REALLY learn the WHOLE past tense, right in this data? That seems unlikely to me. I think learning creates the need for development, learning AWAKENS development, learning LEADS development forward and DRAWS development behind it. But learning is not development itself. For one thing, it's a lot more inter-mental, and development is intra-mental.
Q2. I quoted this script from the video, too.
Date : 2008. 9.
Students : 6th students
Lesson : Lesson 11. What do you want to do?
KT : You look so happy. Do you have some special?
FT :Yes, actually I did. Today is my mother's birthday.
KT, Ss : Congratulations!
FT : Thank you.
KT : But your mother isn't here.
FT : Yes, so I'm so sad. I want to go to Canada to say Happy birthday to my mother.
KT : So, what will you do?
FT : I will send to my mother e-card. Do you know?
KT, Ss : Yes.
KT : Can we see it?
FT : Yes, you can. Do you want to see?
Ss : Yes.
FT : Look at the screen.(reading e-card)
Happy Birthday Mom. I miss you. I want to go home. I want to cook for you. But I can't . I send you e-card. Happy birthday, I love you.
Do you like this?
Ss : Yes.
KT : So, what does she want?
She wants ....
Ss : Go home.
KT : And she wants ....
Ss : Cook for mom.
KT : You learned many things from this letter. Look at the black board.
I will give you some sentences. Let's read.
Ss : What do you want to do? I want to sing.
KT : (changing the word card) Next?
Ss : I want to dance.
KT : (changing the word card) Next?
Ss : I want to play the piano.
FT : (changing the word card) What about?
Ss : I want to play the sing.
FT : (smile)...
(1) Can you find an example of integrated skills?
There are a few integrated skills. Most of all, the students are integrating listening and speaking skills. The teacher asks some questions ' What do you want to do?', 'Next?', the students answers. Also, the students are reading the FT's e-card with listening FT's saying. This is integration reading and listening skills. And the students read the word cards, speak and listen the teacher. So there are many(there are a few instances of skill integration, not many) examples of integrated skills.
Is it few or many? I'm confused!
(2) What about the integration of knowledge?
I think integration of skills happens unconsciously(as you said the word 'unintended' is more proper than unconsciously) and through giving and taking(주거니 받거니). But the students are integrating sounding, wording and meaning in this data. They understand 'e-card', and that is the integration of wording and meaning.
Yes, I agree.
Ss : What do you want to do? I want to sing.
KT : (changing the word card) Next?
Ss : I want to dance.
They exchange the word sing, dance and swim... I don't see "swim" in the data. Where is it? and they are using grammatical knowledge, this is also the integration of knowledge.
Good use of data. Notice the "play the sing" at the end. This is something I've seen before. Where do you think it comes from?
(3) What is the difference and why does it matter?
Integration of skills is inter-mental but integration of knowledge is intra-mental. Integration of skills occurs through interaction and integration of knowledge is a personal thing. Can you give me an example of each from the data? You could reuse the examples you mentioned above, just for emphasis. For the class, integration of skills usually happens easily and is accomplished by remembering and practicing, so integration of skills doesn't always contribute to the students' development. But it is not possible to have meaning without wording, or meaning and wording without sounding. Integration of knowledge, three levels of knowledge is necessary thing for the students' learning and development.
Too general! We need examples, Eunyeong! I try very hard to give examples in class, although it's quite difficult for me (as you know). It's EASY for you.
Q3. I quoted this script from the video, too.
Date : 2008. 9.
Students : 6th students
Lesson : Lesson 10. I'm stronger than you.
KT : What did you learn last time?
Look at the screen. (There are a few comedians of TV program '무한도전‘)
FT : Whose eyes are bigger?
KT : Who are they?
Ss : 유재석, 장동건
KT : Can you make a sentence?
S1 : 장동건‘s eye....
KT : 장동건‘s eyes are...
S1 : 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석.
FT : Good job.
KT : Everybody, read this. 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석’s eyes.
Ss : 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석’s eyes.
FT : Who is taller?
KT : Who are they?
Ss : 정형돈, 정준하.
KT : You know their names already. Who is taller?
재연, Try.
재연 : 정형돈 is ~~, 아아, 정준하 is taller than 정형돈.
FT : Right? OK, good job.
KT : 정준하 is taller than 정형돈. OK, next.
FT : Who is stronger?
KT : Who?
Ss : 유재석 and 강호동.
KT : Maybe you can compare who is stronger.
FT : Can you make a sentence?
KT : 인영.
인영 : 강호동 is stronger than 유재석.
KT : Are you sure? Maybe.
OK, everybody.
Ss : 강호동 is stronger than 유재석.
(1) Compare the language the children are listening to with the language that they are speaking.
In this data, the students are speaking and listening to the different language. The teachers ask and the students just answer. The teachers' language is grammatical (but sometimes their language is not grammatical, like that 'Maybe you can compare who is taller.'), but the students say the sentences mechanically and automatically.(KT : Everybody, read this. 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석’s eyes. Ss : 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석’s eyes.) The language the children are listening to is short, but they are producing and creating long sentences.(S1 : 장동건‘s eye.... KT : 장동건‘s eyes are... S1 : 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석.) (FT : Can you make a sentence? KT : 인영. 인영 : 강호동 is stronger than 유재석.) This doesn't seem mechanical to me. Besides, isn't some of what the teachers say rather mechanical too?
Good use of data.
(2) How are they different quantitatively? How are they different qualitatively?
In this data, the questions and answers are similar in length.(KT : Who are they?
Ss : 유재석, 장동건) The teachers' sentences consist of four or five words and the students' sentences, sometimes two or three words.(FT : Whose eyes are bigger? KT : Who are they? Ss : 유재석, 장동건) But the stuents are saying longer sentdnces at this part. (S1 : 장동건‘s eye.... KT : 장동건‘s eyes are... S1 : 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석.) KT asks just one word 'Who?‘ and the students answer 유재석, 강호동 very shortly and simply. And the teachers asks questions and the students answer, and the teachers demand to make some sentences and immediately the students make and speak those sentences. So they appear to speak equally in the quantitative side.
And, are they similar or different in the qualitative side? The teachers ask questions to the students grammatically and give the students chances to speak conveniently. Also, they are uptaking and reinforcing the students' answers continuously. (S1 : 장동건‘s eye.... KT : 장동건‘s eyes are... S1 : 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석. FT : Good job.) Of course, the students are uptaking the teachers' sentences and correcting their mistakes.
But I wonder the teachers' language is better than the students' language, qualitatively. The teachers speak accurately and grammatically, but most of the sentences are repetitions, commands and simple interaction.(FT : Who is stronger? KT : Who? Ss : 유재석 and 강호동.)
Good! I think this is a very important insight! It might be better to have more VARIATIONS!
This is something I was trying hard to get at in class, but it didn't work very well. Minkyeong has a strong tendency to blame ALL student performance on the students. But when we look at data, we are struck by the fact that a lot of student performance really IS appropriate to the initiate; the kids will answer what we ask. So maybe it's NOT the student's fault. And maybe we CAN do something about it by altering the initiates, by varying the initiates, by asking for DIFFERENT kinds of answers.
So why do teachers keep asking yes/no questions and wwh- questions when they KNOW they will get short answers? Perhaps it's for the reasons that Eunyeong suggests: the TEACHERS find it hard to vary, hard to avoid repetition and short formulas. This hasn't got much to do with ENGLISH expertise, though; it has to do with TEACHING expertise.
I think the teachers' language is good in the case of having an impact to the students qualitatively.
Maybe. But how can we tell unless we vary the language and see the variation in outcome that results?
(3) What can we do to integrate them? Why does it matter?
Usually the teacher's language is grammatical but longer, more difficult and complex. So the students have some troubles and difficulties to understand that language and sometimes this remains just teaching far from development. This is why we do integrate them. Good. We can use picture cards to integrate them(In this class the teacher used famous comedians' photos to give the students interests). The teachers often use one word (simple but some difficult to the students) instead of explaining easier expressions. (KT : Maybe you can compare who is stronger. But the teacher doesn't need to use 'compare', and she is able to just say 'Who is stronger?' ) Good. I think it's particularly important to show that teachers DO vary their talk, because the fact that they DO proves that they CAN and also because we can avoid making prescriptive conclusions and using words like "MUST" and "SHOULD". The teacher is an important educational material and input, so they can change and develop the students. (S1 : 장동건‘s eye.... KT : 장동건‘s eyes are... S1 : 장동건‘s eyes are bigger than 유재석.) FT : Good job.) Can teachers really do this? By themselves? First of all, the teachers have to know the student's language concentrate to their interests, and then they make low their language level and deliver their message clearly but easily. Sometimes they can use gestures and excessive facial expressions.(KT and FT used many gestures to show the meaning the words 'strong', 'tall', even though the students already know the words) Through this process the student could speak and understand longer and more complex sentences. In the end they are developed.