|
KT: (showing a schedule as a sample on the TV) This is my ... Anyway I will make my schedule for va KT: For my summer vacation. This is my summer vacation schedule. KT: (dragging "camping" in the "Friday" box) I will go camping on Friday. KT: Maybe next-next Friday I will go camping. KT: How about you? When will you go camping? S: 아 ... 아 ... today! S: Next-next Monday! KT: You will go camping? S: Yes! S: Today! KT: Oh, today? Who will go camping today? S: (raising her hand) KT: Really? Oh! Good! S3: Really? KT: Yes, I heard. S3: 아, Where ... Where will go ... S: *&^%$# KT: 아! Church camping? KT: Anyway, I will go ... next next Saturday ... On Saturday I will go ... fishing. KT: How about you? When will you go fishing? Ss: *&^%$#@! |
Lots of data. It's bigger than an exchange, and smaller than a sequence. How many exchanges? Let's find out.
One way to analyze is ideationally, or topically. Topically, there are THREE exchanges: "schedule", "camping (and 'church camping')" and "fishing". Where are the boundaries between the topics?
Another way to analyze is interpersonally. Interpersonally, there is one T-T exchange (where the teacher basically talks to herself and asks the kids to "Look and Listen") and two T-S exchanges. Where are the boundaries between exchanges?
A third way to analyze is textually. Textually, the teacher uses complete sentences. but NOBODY else does. This means that every S sentence DEPENDS grammatically upon a teacher sentence, and answers it in some way. Where are the dependent clauses? What about the independent ones? What are the boundaries between the three parts of the sequence?
It might be better to use only ONE exchange, the exchange which exemplifies the point that Ms. Shin is trying to make. Which exchange?
Instead of directly asking "Can you go camping on Friday with me?", the teacher says "I will go camping on Friday. How about you? When will you go camping?". This seems to be the teacher's intention to get the students be slowly approach the task, not just telling them what they have to say.
It's easy to see why Ms. Hong does not use the direct method. Consider the following responses. Which is better FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE TASK?
a) Yes.
b) On Saturday.
I think there is a good deal more here than just a delaying tactic. Ms. Hong is a very experienced teacher; she doesn't just dawdle and delay.
Filling her schedule she asks the students if they can join what she does and the students seem to know that they have to give a reason when they refuse it, which is the role they are expected to take.
Quote the evidence, Yura! We've already seen that when you put in a LOT of evidence in a big heap, it's very hard to refer to. That is why Mr. Yun always ends up saying "I am just thinking" and "I am just looking" and not really saying anything about the DATA until it's almost too late.
You need to make a sandwich. But if the sandwich is too thick, it's still hard to get your mouth around it!
So we make ANOTHER sandwich. But this sandwich is not a PARAGRAPH. It's just a sentence. Like this:
Filling her schedule she asks the students if they can join what she does ("How about you? When will you go fishing?") and the students seem to know that they have to give a reason when they refuse it, which is the role they are expected to take .
But since the students don't have set their schedule yet, they don't have a base to answer the teacher's suggestion. So the answers the teacher gets (“*&%$#@!”) are not yet appropriate for the task.
KT: 재인! When will you go fishing? S8: On Sunday. KT: On Sunday? Not Saturday with me? Let's go fishing this ... next-next Saturday ... with me ... pl KT: Let's go together. S8: Saturday ... too busy! Saturday too busy! KT: Ah, you are busy on Saturday. S8: Yes. KT: Okay. How about ... how about swimming on Sunday? I will go swimming on Sunday. S: 캐러비안베이! KT: How about you? S: Very good! |
Now the teacher asks the students to make their own schedule to use, and after the students make their own schedule, it becomes closer to the actual task because they have can answer with imaginative but more appropriate reasons.
Good.
KT: Then how about you? How about your schedule? This is my schedule. Let's make a schedule. KT: You make your schedule, please. Open your books to page ... seven ... Ss: Seven ... seventy/ Fifty! … KT: How about Saturday? What are you going to do on Saturday? S2: Camping! KT: Oh, I want to go swimming with 미정 on Sunday. KT: You will go camping on Saturday. How about Friday? S2: ... KT: No schedule on Friday? S2: English ... KT: Oh, you have English lesson? You have to go to English 학원? S2: (nodding) KT: How about Wednesday? (pointing to her schedule on the TV) Let's go shopping. S2: I have piano lesson. KT: You have a piano lesson? Oh~~~(with disappointed face) Ss: Hahaha~ KT: How about Tuesday? Let's go skating. S2: Tuesday? KT: Yes, Tuesday! On Tuesday I wanna go skating. Let's go together. S2: I have shopping. KT: Oh, you cannot go skating on Tuesday? You have to go shopping? S2: Yes! |
We can see that the student's answer is rather in a few words(sometimes just one) with grammatical mistakes, but the roles seem to be better understood while the teacher and the students had a conversation of suggestion-respond based on their schedules.
Yes, it's usual to talk about the "communication" that is going on in this "fluency" activity and to note that although the children are not really initiating in clauses, somehow they are getting "communication" done, and being "understood".
This seems to me to be fundamentally UNREALISTIC and even DISHONEST. If we are honest about what is happening, we must admit that this is NOT a planning session for any kind of summer activity. It's an English class. And the success of this activity has to be judged in terms of whether the kids are learning English or not.
Similarly, when someone can emit a long stream of language fragments, we cannot HONESTLY call this fluency; if we are honest, we will call it disfluency and incoherence. So an activity which involves only bits and pieces of language is not a fluency activity at all.
The teacher gets the students do the task as an S-S activity and the rule is not to use Korean.
KT: Ok. Everyone, let's ... let's stand up and move to ... move around. KT: Meet five friends to do something together! Speak ... no ... don't speak Korean. Speak only Engl |
There should be some more rules they have to follow like 'You have to ask based on your schedule.' or 'You have to say yes only if you are available' or 'You have to be polite and say the reason if you can't', but these are already implied while the teacher set the model in advance.
Good. Now, remember THIS, from Ms. Choe Jeongmin's work.
it's possible to make the roles MORE or LESS explicit.
RULES EXPLICIT
T: The student who gets the first five names will win the game!
T: If you have five names, you win.
T: Five names and you win!
T: Five names? You win!
T: Who has five names? You are the winner.
T: With five names, you are the most popular!
T: Find FIVE club members. And then you can make a club!
T: When you have five friends, you are the best friend in the class!
ROLES EXPLICIT
Which has a stress on VERBS [e.g. "win"] and which stresses NOUNS (e.g. "winner"? Why?
Now, one way to look at this is THEORETICAL--take a look at Mr. Park Ilhyeok's answer and you will see what I mean. Vygotsky saw the progression from explicit roles and implicit rules (role play) to explicit rules and implicit roles (rule-based games) as DEVELOPMENTAL--it has to do with the child's developing ability to abstract himself from PERCEPTS (things you can see) and attach himself to CONCEPTS (things that must be thought).
But that is really an ONTOGENETIC view. It's interesting, but it doesn't tell us what to say and how to teach, and when we try to apply it to teaching too mechanically and dogmatically we find ourselves saying things that are downright stupid, like "Use role play with third graders and fourth graders but not with fifth graders and sixth graders" or "Use rule based games with fifth graders and sixth graders but not with third graders and fourth graders". Of course, that's ridiculous: we need both with both.
Still, I think this very THEORETICAL, apparently ONTOGENETIC view is very useful. If we agree with Vygotsky that rule based games reflect a higher, more abstract form of thinking, then we can start with rules and "dumb them down" towards roles until the children respond. Alternatively, we can start with roles and "abstract" them until the children stop responding. This will help us find the child's NEXT zone of development (which Vygotsky refers to as the "zone of proximal development").
Of course, it's not that simple. If you look at the language that I've put there you will see that in addition to roles and rules, there's also quite a bit of vocabulary and grammar, and the more explicit the language is (whether it is rule based or role based), the more vocabulary and grammar we find. But this suggests that we are going to find the zone of next development somewhere in the MIDDLE, and that is in fact what we do find.
Ms. Shin Yura says that the rules are mostly IMPLICIT. That suggests that this is not a game, because games tend to have explicit rules. What is it?
Ss: *&^%$#@!@##$$$%% KT: Uh, who is speaking Korean? 승현, I will give you a warning. Yellow card. Don't speak Korean. KT: (helping a kid) You will do your homework ... with ...? S5: with friend. KT: with your friend? Who is your friend? S5: &^%$# KT: Write! Write your name (verbal mistake). (No, no, no! ) Write your friend's name here. KT: Five friends. You need to meet five friends. Ok? S: Julia! KT: Hello. S: Hello, Julia. 음... Sunday church! KT: Sunday? What do you mean (what did you say again)? S: Sunday let's go to church. KT: Let's go to church on Sunday? Oh, sorry, I can't. I have to go swimming with 수빈, 시온, 재인, . KT: Sorry, I have no time to go to church. S10: Teacher, hiking on Thursday! KT: (checking her schedule) Sorry, I can't. I have a tennis lesson. I have a tennis lesson, sorry. S18: Julia! KT: Hi, 승건. S18: Wednesday shopping! KT: Huh? Let's go shopping on ... S18: Wednesday! KT: Wednesday? Sounds great! S18: Yeah! S7: (approaching to T) 헤헤헤~ KT: Hi, 주현. S7: (just passing the teacher to go to his friend) S: (approaching to T with a sly smile) Hee hee~ KT: Uh, you know my schedule? S: Yes! Hehe~ Monday ... let's go piano lesson. KT: Piano lesson? S: Yes! KT: I have to go to ... 현 piano 학원. 현 piano 학원. How about you? S: *&^%$#@! KT: Oh, we have to go to different piano 학원? S: 아이~~씨! KT: Ah~! We have different schedule. Sorry, I can't. Bye! S11: You can go fishing on Saturday? KT: I'm sorry? S11: You can go fishing on Saturday? KT: On Saturday? Oh, let's go fishing on Saturday. Sounds good! KT: How about ... how about shopping on Wednesday? Let's go shopping on Wednesday, 동현. S11: Sorry, I can't. I have piano lesson. KT: Ah, you have a piano lesson? S16: (yelling to the teacher) I everything! Heeheee~ KT: 우진, why? What do you mean? What do you want to do with me? S16: I'm everything! (giggling) KT: Everything? You can do everything everyday? S16: Yes! KT: What is everything? Swimming? Camping? Piano lesson? S16: Yes! Yes! S1: (showing his schedule) My schedule! KT: What do you mean? S1: Play game, play game, KT: Computer game? KT: Everyday? S1: Yes! KT: Do you want to play computer game everyday? S1: Yes! S1: Yes! Play game, play, play, play, play game! S4: Teacher, my schedule ... play play play play play play! S: (to S4) Not academy? Not academy? KT: 시온, sorry, I can't. I don't want to play computer game. I don't like computer game. S1: But I can do everything because I can play! KT: Then ... let's play ... let's ... go ... skating on Tuesday. S1: Ok! KT: Ok? Ok, See you on Tuesday ... next Tuesday ... at 동천 school gate ... at the 동천 school gate. S1: Ok! KT: At ... What time? What time do you want to meet me? S1: 어 ... 어 ... 8 o'clock? KT: 8 o'clock in the morning? S1: No! Night! KT: At night? S1: Yes! KT: Sorry, I can't. I have no time at night to go skating. Sorry. Bye-bye! S1: Ok. S9: Teacher! I have to three friends! KT: Huh? S9: I have to three friends. KT: Ok. What? S9: I have three friends. KT: Three friends? Oh, you need (pointing to each day on the schedule) one, two, three, four, five f KT: You need to meet five friends. Write your friends' name here. S9: Ok. S8: Julia! KT: Yes! What? What? S8: (she maybe remembering the teacher's schedule) Writing name! KT: My name? Why? S8: *&^%$#@! KT: What do you want to do with me? S8: On Sunday ... (showing her schedule to T) KT: Swimming? S8: Yes! KT: Aha, can you go swimming with me on Sunday? S8: Yes! |
Ⅳ-2. The teacher monitors the task by participating the task herself and also helping them. In the data, we can see the teacher's taking to roles -one as a participant of the task(equal to the students) and as a monitor(teacher's role).
Oh, no! Way too much data. It seems to me we need QUANTITATIVE METHODS to handle this.
Hypothesis: The teacher spends MORE turns, MORE words, and LONGER words per turn in the participant role than in the managing role.
PARTICIPANT (RICKSHAW PULLER)
TURNS: ...............WORDS: .............W/T: .................
MANAGER (TRAM DRIVER)
TURNS: ...............WORDS: .............W/T: .................
But Ms. Shin DOES analyze the data functionally. Like this:
We can see the teacher's scaffolding the students' activity in a various ways as below.
reminding the roles and rules of the task |
ex) who is speaking Korean? 승현, I will give you a warning. Yellow card. Don't speak Korean. / Write! Write your name (verbal mistake). (No, no, no! ) Write your friend's name here./ You need to meet five friends. Write your friends' name here. |
prompting |
ex) You will do your homework ... with ...?, / why? What do you mean? What do you want to do with me? |
uptaking and recasting |
ex) Ah, you have a piano lesson? /Everything? You can do everything everyday? / Let's go to church on Sunday? |
modeling Monitor or participant? |
ex) Can you go swimming with me on Sunday? |
While the teacher's role is just simple when she's one of the task participants, it's more complicated when she is a monitor. The purpose of the teacher's utterances are to organize the task(reminding the roles and rules), to prompt(prompting), to control and correct the students' errors(uptaking, recasting and modeling).
When we code the data, we have to make sure the coding is CLEAR. Is modeling a participant role or a managing role? Is the model a tram driver or a rickshaw puller? Why?
Remember that the children CANNOT pay attention to the model! They are busy!
KT: How about your schedule? Can you tell us about your schedule? S4: (raises his hand) KT: 준석, thank you. Tell us about your schedule. Ss: *&^%$#@! S8: Be quiet! KT: 준석, go ahead! S4: 아 ... Sunday I play, Monday play, Tuesday play, Wednesday play, Thursday play, Saturday play. S4: All the day I play! KT: Everyday? S4: Yes! KT: You will play ... Play what? What ... what do you play? Play what? S4: Anything! KT: Anything? For example ... ? S4: 어 ... KT: Give me some example. Computer game? You will play computer game? You will play ... S4: *&^%$#@! S4: Play with my friends. KT: Play with your friends? Can you tell me your friends' name? S4: (laughter) S: 시온! KT: Uh? KT: Who who will you play with? S4: 시온! KT: 시온? with 시온? S4: 승건! 재영! 승현! 동현! KT: Uh? 승건? 재영? 승현? 동현? KT: Oh, you will play with them everyday? S4: Yes! (laughter) KT: Ok. Anybody else who can tell me about your schedule? S8: (raise her hand) KT: 재인, again? 재인? S8: On Sunday, I will go swimming with Julia teacher and 주이 ... S8: On Monday, I will go fishing. On Tuesday ... KT: Uh! You will go fishing with .... By yourself ? With no friends? S8: My family! KT: Oh, with your family. Ok, good. How about Tuesday? S8: On Tuesday I will go skating with 다영. KT: 다영? 다영! Who is 다영? (pretending to find 다영) 다영! S3: Yes! KT: Will you go skating with 재인 on Tuesday? S3: Yes! KT: Oh, good! Good! What else? S8: On Wednesday I will go shopping with 서현. KT: 서현? 서현! Will you go shopping on Wednesday? S29: Yes! KT: Ok. Good! What is next? S8: On ...... KT: On Thursday ... ? S8: On Thursday I will go hiking. KT: You will go hiking. |
Ⅳ-3. The teacher debriefs the activity by using open pairs. She gets the students tell their schedule as the outcome of the task.
The data show the teacher's utterances are different in purposes liking prompting("You will play ... Play what? What ... what do you play?", "Give me some example. Computer game? You will play computer game? You will play ..." uptaking the students utterance and giving them feedback("Oh, with your family. Ok, good.", "Ok. Good!", "You will go hiking.")
Yura is tired! She just dumps her data in a heap...and runs outside to play!
Yura...what happened to the open casts?