Re:Homework 3 by 박성경

[kellogg]

Songs and Chants

-박성경-

A song from Lesson 6 of 6th grade/Topic : Asking for food or drinks

	Can I have some water ? Can I have some water? Can I have some water? I'm so thirsty. Oh, it's hot. Can I have some water? Can I have some water? Sure here you are. Oh, thank you! Can I have some bread? Can I have some bread? I'm so hungry. Oh, I'm hungry. Can I have some bread? Can I have some bread? Sure here you are. Oh, thank you!

The 6th grade's teacher guide book says that the objective of this lesson is  " Students will be able to learn expression‎!s about asking for permission of through a song." But, on my interpretation on the song above and based on the most parts of the dialogues and expression‎!s in Lesson 6 of the text book, the main objective of the song is rather about learning specific expression‎!s about asking for food or drinks than just asking for permission in general.

This is a KEY POINT, Seong-gyeong--thanks for raising it. We need to really sit down and ask ourselves if there has been ANY progress at all since the sixth national curriculum from a whole language point of view.

On paper, the improvement looks promising. Instead of "structures" we are going to teach "communicative functions". That's a MUCH more whole language position, because we won't just be teaching words or rules but instead CONTEXTS and REASONS.

But in practice, that's simply NOT the case. As Seong-gyeong points out, the children do not learn "expressions". They learn ONE sentence pattern. That sentence pattern is not "asking for permission" at all. It's this:

"Can I have some (uncountable noun)?"

Even if we DO consider this a "communicative function" (even if we DO think it is actually communicating a request of some kind) we've got problems. What happens if we want to request a countable noun?

"Can I have some hamburger?"

This sentence means that I want to eat RAW MEAT!

We CAN'T talk about "communicative functions" in ANYTHING we teach unless we can answer this question:

WHO is saying WHAT to WHOM, HOW...and WHY?

So, I focus on using this song to teach students how to ask for food or drinks when they are hungry or want something to drink in a role-play situation.

Good! Let's be REALISTIC. What we have here is a SUBSTITUTION DRILL used for BEGGING.

The first step is to get the students acquainted with the rhythm and the lyrics of the song by playing the song a couple of times and asking the students to write down or draw pictures what they hear from the song. It can be just one word or short phrases from the song when they hear the song for a couple of times.

In other words, Seong-gyeong uses the text as a DICTOGLOSS. This is a technique that is very much favored by Merrill Swain as a research technique (because it involves both analysis and synthesis--AND reading/writing/listening/speaking.

However, by writing down the text (writing down WHAT people say without writing down WHO is saying it) it becomes decontextualized. That's why Merrill Swain uses PICTURES. How does Seong-gyeong solve this problem? Is her solution realistic? Is it TIME EFFICIENT?

(We saw that Minkyeong's solution was very realistic, but not necessarily time efficient, because it involves mostly looking and listening for the majority of the class.)

The second step is to learn the lyrics, melody, and rhythm of the song. I give the students a handout where the lyrics of the song are written with some blanks in them. The students are asked to listen to the song again and fill in the blanks with missing words or expression‎!s. The following is an example:

Can I have some (        )?

Can I have some (        )?

I'm so (        ).

I don't understand. I thought the kids wrote down the lyrics already. During the dictogloss. No?

Notice that Seong-gyeong assumes that learning the lyrics is a matter of WRITING (and particularly SPELLING). Why shoudl that be the case?

We know that a GREAT DEAL of "Let's Sing" is simply "listen and repeat". We also know that "listen and repeat" can involve simply reproducing sounds and not meanings.

Does it REALLY change matters if we change it into "listen and write"? Aren't we getting even FURTHER from meanings?

The third step is to sing along. I divide the class into two teams and the groups take turns in asking and answering. For example, team A sings "Can I have some water?..." and team B sings "Sure here you are." And then, they switch the singing roles.

Good. Where are we?

a) Look and listen

b) Listen and repeat

c) Listen and answer

d) Ask and answer

e) Let's role play

How do you know? Is it possible for DIFFERENT children to be doing DIFFERENT things? How could we tell the difference?

The last step is to make changes into the song. The students in groups of 4 work together on writing new lyrics by changing the food name. They substitute ' pizza ' for ' bread '. In this activity, students find it difficult for choosing the right word suitable for the rhythm and length of the original song. The teacher must make sure that students can choose a similar syllabled word or expression‎!s to match the original rhythm of the song. When each group is finished with revising and practicing the song, they perform their revised song for the entire class and get rewards or points. 

Good! Of course, it's not JUST the syllables we need to worry about. It's the GRAMMATICAL qualities too. Look:

a) Can I have some hamburger? (sic)

b) Can I have some pizzas? (sic)

Notice that we are ASSUMING the children can learn this just by hearing it. But the problem here is really NOT grammatical but rather semantic. It returns us, once again, to this Whole Language question:

WHO is saying WHAT to WHOM, HOW and WHY?

Students can go through the stages of introducing, practicing, and reinforcing the target structures or expression‎!s through song or chant activities.

Yes, they CAN do this. But WILL they?

 So, I try to organize the three stages into song or chant activity. As songs and chants are repetitive, catchy, and imitable, they are a fun way to teach pronunciation patterns of English such as intonation, and stress implicitly. 

Of course Minkyeong says they are NOT fun. I'm very willing to accept that they are fun for some kids and not for others, and even fun for some sixth graders and not for others. What I find DIFFICULT to accept is the idea that we can teach intonation and stress without asking and answering this Whole Language question:

WHO is saying WHAT to WHOM, HOW and WHY?

In terms of sound stress, the song I chose has a problem. As the song's beat is triple time(¾), the natural beat goes in the pattern of ◎ 。 。(stressed, unstressed, unstressed).

Actually, it says that the time is common time, that is, 4/4 time. Almost ALL the songs are common time. If the song had 3/4 time, it would be a Waltz:

Try singing this to the tune of "The Blue Danube":

Can I have, can I have, can I have WATER?

Can I have, can I have, can I have BREAD?

Sure you can, Sure you can, sure you can, HAVE some.

No you can't, Go away, please just drop DEAD!

(Don't use this for morals teaching!)

According to this pattern, the stressed word can be "CAN" in the first line of " CAN I have some water? ", which can sound awkward in the natural spoken sentence. On top of it,  the song itself from CD-Rom sounds like "Can I have some water?" with the stress on "I".

No, the song begins on an upbeat, not a downbeat. But this is quite common in music; many Mozart symphonies (e.g. the G minor) begin that way.

One of the main points of using songs or chants in English learning class is to teach the natural rhythms and intonations of the English language. The teacher should choose a song or a chant which accompanies natural English phonetic sounds or at least similar English sounds.

Teachers CAN'T choose, can they?

 And also, it's import!ant to insert some competitive elements in singing activities as people, especially children perform their best when they compete against the others.

Well, that's what Minkyeong says. Is it ALWAYS true?

By the way, Happy Chuseok to all of you!

And a VERY happy Chuseok to YOU, Seong-gyeong! See what you think of the grammar of THIS:

Can I have some songpyeons?

Can I have some songpyeons?

I'm so hungry, oh, I'm hungry!

Can I have some songpyeons?

Can I have some songpyeons?

Sure! Here you are!

dk