How To GENERALIZE in the Final Exam

[kellogg]

I have chosen the given data for the bonus midterm questions. I will analyse the data according to the following three problems. First, I will discuss how the teacher explains abstract rules to children in playing games. Second, I will tell about how teacher adds action or meaning. Last, I will see how teacher insures that students have internalized the rules.

Good. Jeongmin has a good solid metaparagraph. But she doesn't try to redefine the questions in any way.

We saw that Ms. Bang took a very precise, data-first look at each question. She tended to redefine the questions according to the data, and she even got into some trouble by redefining "rote".

We also saw that Mr. Park took a much more general, question-first look at the data. He tended to think that the teacher orders everything on the menu, although by the end of his answer he did manage to focus on only ONE function (refereeing).

What about Ms. Choi? This looks like a general, question first approach. But let's find out.

First, how does the teacher explains abstract rules to children in the game? The teacher can use strategies such as; naming the game, telling students' the aim of the game, or just demonstrate it without much explanation.

Of course, the teacher CAN do that. But does she?

Notice that a mark of the general, question-first approach is to begin with POSSIBILITIES and then choose one. That's what Mr. Park did too.

The teacher names the game at the beginning of the lesson by saying "Let's play 'Snatch'". Teacher gives a name to the 'whole' before the 'part' of the game.

"Rock, paper, scissors" is named after the PARTS of the game, and so are games like "Hopscotch" and "Bingo".

Other games are named after the MOVES of the game, e.g. "Tag", "Hide and Seek", 소타기말타기, and so on.

But the WHOLE of the game is the RESULT and the RULE too. Are these included in the name "Snatch"?

What is "Snatch"? Is it:

a) Parts (tools, signs, symbols, NOUNS)?

b) Moves (operations, actions, activities, VERBS)?

c) Outcomes (winners, losers, prizes, STATEMENTS)?

d) Rules (causes, consequences, reasons, results, PRINCIPLES)?

However, this name gives information about the aim of this game; that this game's aim is to snatch something. Students will understand the context about the game before knowing the details.

Can we really say that the single word "snatch" offers a context? Remember, in "Look and Listen", we saw that contexts are not simple. They include:

a) SETTING (= time + place)

b) CHARACTERS (= names + relationships)

c) SITUATION (= unresolved problems resolveable through language)

What is the setting of "snatch"? Is it a character? What is the aim of snatching? What are the students trying to snatch? What is the result of snatching? Why do the students want to snatch it? Can we really say that the game includes the WHOLE game?

It is said in the text that having balance between naming 'the whole' and 'the part' is good.

Oh, what a sneaky textbook I wrote! I'm really ashamed of myself.

Take a look at Ms. Bang's work and my reply, or at Mr. Park's work and my reply. I have been arguing that ALL of our classes have some kind of menu:

In "Chat" we thought of a menu of options available along the "how" axis, in terms of textual "degrees of freedom" (from y/n questions to "tell me about questions).

In "Listen and Do" we thought of a menu of options available along the "who" axis in terms of interpersonal roles (from T-T to T-S to S-S).

In "Look and Listen" we thought of a menu of options available along the "what"axis, in terms of ideational transitivity (from "What are they doing?" to "What are they feeling/thinking?" to "What are they saying?")

For "Listen and Repeat", "Listen and Answer", and "Ask and Answer", we have been looking at GRAMMATICAL options, from fixed phrases to item-based constructions to creative abstract constructions.

Now, of course, "Let’s Play", as Ms. Bang says, presents us, developmentally, with the options of "rote", "role" and "rule". "Rules" are the most developmentally advanced, because they are the most abstract. For this reason, teachers tend to start by teaching the concrete objects associated with the game (e.g. the cards).

Of course, one needs to have a balance in EVERYTHING. But what is balanced? I think what is balanced is the developmental level of the children and their NEXT moment of development--the amount they can understand with help. This is, of course, what Vygotsky calls the "zone of proximal development".

But that's too general. Now Ms. Choe's answer is a little general too. She still has to come to grips with the data. Here it is.

The teacher moves to show a demonstration with the FT.

KT : Look! Let me show you how to play. Chris, one sentence please!

Notice that the KT calls it a "sentence". Not a suggestion, or an invitation, or a communicative function.

Ms. Bang commented on the ARBITRARINESS of the follow ups ("Sorry, I can't" and "Sounds good!"). Now, on the face of it, she's wrong--these follow ups are essential to the communicative function.

But not in the game! They are essential in role play, but not in rule play.

FT : OK.

KT : On your head! Put hands on your head.

FT : Let's go swimming.

KT : Let's go swimming... Where is the swimming card?

Which utterance suggests ROLE PLAY? Which one suggests RULE PLAY? How are they different?

KT : (grabbing a card) Oh, sounds good!

Ss : @#%@#$%&

KT shows how to play the game by demonstration before giving explanation about the abstract rules. The above demonstration seems more concrete than below.

Doesn't the explanation REFER to the demonstration? Doesn't it RECONSTRUE the demonstration?

Of course, it doesn't really refer to it as separable parts, acts, and results. That is because the children don't really have the GRAMMATICAL ability to analyze what the FT says (many children cannot even tell that "stand up" is two words and not one). But the teacher can help, by separating the explanation into parts, moves, and outcomes. Let's see if she does that.

FT : The first one who finds is the winner. Parts, moves, or outcomes?

KT : Wait! wait!

FT : If you win, if you win, you can say, "sounds good" Parts, moves, or outcomes?

FT : If you lose, you say, "Sorry I can't." Parts, moves, or outcomes?

Here comes the naming of the 'winner', the 'part'.

Is the winner part, move, or outcome?

Now students are able to understand who wins in this game. Isn't the key problem understanding HOW to win and not WHO wins?

After a while, FT explains the rule once again in shorter sentences.

FT : Everyone, the winner, the winner says "Sounds good!"

FT : The loser says "Sorry I can't"

Good. We'll call this kind of restatement a "reconstrual". We'll say that complex GRAMMAR is reconstrued as complex DISCOURSE, because one long turn becomes two short ones.

From demonstration to the explanation, and to the end of the game(students have internalized the rules and the teacher checks who the winner/loser is), I can see that the explanation flows from the concrete to the abstract, and I think this also gives an answer for the question number two.

Very true. But at the same time, we go from "anyone can win" to "X won!" Is that "closed to open" or "open to closed"? Why?

Rote seems the utterance students speak; "Sounds good", or "Sorry, I can't". Role of the winner is to say "sounds good", and the role of the loser is to say "sorry, I can't".

Take a look at what Ms. Bang says on this point. She agrees with you. But look at what Mr. Bak said too. He disagrees; he puts the "rote" portion of the game at the beginning of the game (actually, outside the game proper).

The abstract rule of this game is to win by snatching the cards first. Students seem to understand the rule by teacher's demonstration-explanation-playing the actual game.

Yes, and this is interesting, because it suggests that the rule is NOT directly taught but rather CONSTRUCTED on the basis of an example.

Last, how does the teacher insures that rules have been internalized? As seen above, the FT summarizes the rule twice in the lesson. There is another important rule in the game, and this rule, KT and FT reminds students again and again during the lesson by saying "Hands on your head".

Yes. But then why is "Hands on your head" not an example of ROTE use?

KT also acts as a referee in the game. KT's role as a referee encourages students to speak out.

Good point. Mr. Bak agrees with you.

In the data, KT also plays the "Snatch" with a student.

FT : Let's go swimming.

KT : Let's go swimming. (snatching the card quickly) Oh, yeah! Sounds good.

Ss : @#$#@^

KT : Sounds good!(looking at her partner)

S : Sorry, I can't.

KT stared at the student who was not saying what he should say. It is not sure what happened to student's mind, but suddenly he spoke out the required language in the game.

KT's role as a referee is shown in next situation too.

KT : (tapping the table to get Ss's attention) are you ready?

(pointing to some kids) Oh, they are not ready.

KT : 경원! Be ready.

KT : 준석, 경원, 유라, 나영! What are you doing?

KT keeps her eyes on students to make them concentrate in the game.

A very abrupt ending. Here are two alternatives.

a) Ms. Choe BEGINS with "can do" statements about what might be possible and then ends with a straight factual description. She COULD, of course, go the OPPOSITE direction: start with the data and then move to other possiblities; start with what the teacher actually does (since that is what the exam question actually asks for) and then move in the direction of what she could have done.

b) Remember that for the final exam we will need to GENERALIZE across several answers. We saw earlier that Ms. Hong gets into trouble because she acts as a rickshaw puller as well as a tram driver in "Listen and Repeat" and "Listen and Answer" and even 'Ask and Answer'. For example, her way of monitoring pairwork is actually to PARTICIPATE, which gets in the way of her monitoring.

Can the teacher act as a referee if she is also playing the game?