|
interaction |
Number |
Percent | |
CD |
Marked |
102 |
23.8 |
NA |
82 |
19.2 | |
Unmarked |
244 |
57.0 | |
total |
428 |
100.0 | |
SS |
Marked |
74 |
15.7 |
NA |
226 |
47.9 | |
Unmarked |
172 |
36.4 | |
total |
472 |
100.0 | |
TS |
Marked |
15 |
3.0 |
NA |
427 |
84.6 | |
Unmarked |
63 |
12.5 | |
total |
505 |
100.0 |
Notice that there are MORE TURNS in the TS condition (505 vs. 428 vs. 472). Why do you think that is?
Think about "tall and thin" vs. "short and fat". Which condition is "tall and thin"? Why? Which is "short and fat"? Why? what about SS interaction? Is it short and thin or tall and fat? Why?
In some ways the use of "fragment" is a little unfortunate. What we really mean is "inter-mental" vs. "intra-mental". And of course Vygotsky says that what is inter-mental today will be intra-mental tomorrow.
Vygotsky continues;
오직 이 둘 사이에서만 우리는 주어진 교과를 학습할 수 있는 최적의 시기를 찾을 수 있다. 교육학은 아동 발달의 어제가 아니라 내일을 지향해야 한다. 오직 이런 식으로만 우리는 근접발달영역에 존재하는 발달의 과정에 생명을 불어넣을 수 있을 것이다.
As we see the S-S activity has more marked and unmarked themes in the students sentences. Marked theme structures in SS are 74 out of 472(15.7%) and unmarked theme are 172 out of 472(36.4%) to compare only 15 marked theme out of 505(3%)and 63 out of 505(12.5%) in TS interaction. It shows some results below.
1. Huge NA in TS discussion so there are a lot of fragments in T-S discussion.
Right.
2. Unmarked theme structures are a lot more than marked theme in both interactions.
Compare:
UNMARKED THEME IN COMMANDS:
T: Kick the ball.
MARKED THEME IN COMMANDS:
T: You kick the ball.
UNMARKED THEME IN STATEMENTS:
T: He kicked the ball.
MARKED THEME IN STATEMENTS:
T: The ball he kicked.
UNMARKED THEME IN QUESTIONS:
T: What did he kick?
MARKED THEME IN QUESTIONS:
T: He kicked what?
Halliday doesn't refer to the marked theme as a MISTAKE, and it's not a mistake. But it's unusual, for the simple reason that the FUNCTION of a command is to thematize a verb, the FUNCTION of a statement is to thematize a noun phrase acting as a subject, and the FUNCTION of a question is to thematize the missing information, the finite, and the subject.
There can be VERY powerful reasons BEYOND the clause that make us thematize something else, however. One of these is the fact that the speakers have, as their first language, Korean--consider how COMMON marked themes are in teacher questions!
3. S-S interaction has more structured(marked and unmakred) sentences than the TS discussion.
So we can see that Ms. Lee's hypothesis was correct, at least as far as theme is concerned.
So we can have some questions here like this:
1. Why are there a lot of fragments in TS discussion?
2. How and why do the students use thematic structured sentenced in each interactions?
3. Why does SS Role play cause more structured sentences than the TS interaction?
These questions are all related to each other so that when we examine the data, we can find some relative reasons.
Q1. Extract 4
T: I don't like?
Ss: Julie
T: I don't?
Ss: like Julie
In the whole study, I thought this was the most telling piece of data of all.
Viewed INTRA-mentally, there isn't a single complete sentence--the teacher doesn't use complete sentences and neither do the kids.
Viewed INTER-mentally, there are TWO complete sentences, and they are exactly the same.
And yet they are very different. In one case, the teacher inter-mentally thematizes the WHOLE sentence except for the complement. But in the second sentence, the she inter-mentally thematizes ONLY the mood.
As you see the teacher and Students make one structure together so when we combine two utterances together we get a unmarked structure. Right. We also can think the students do not need to repeat the teacher's clause to answer. They say only one word(yes, no, name, place..etc). Like this TS activity has a lot of fragments.
Exactly.
Q2. Extract28
1)Roleplay
Dad: Caillou! both way
Caillou : Daddy, look at both way again!
Dad: Caillou, watch out!
2)TS disscussion
T: Yes, Caillou's daddy and Caillou. We look..
Ss: We look
SH: left, right
T: We look left and right, both ways. 그 다음에 we look both ways again.
This shows why the SS activity has more structured sentences as well. It's because TS activity comes before the SS activity so it helps the students say the sentence well and the students have to initiate and respond by themselves in SS activity even though sometimes those sentences are just memorized.
I think when we look at the data carefully, we have to say that the children remember almost everything, but they memorize almost nothing. That is, they remember the characters, the settings, the situations, the doings, the feelings, the thinkings...but not the sayings. The sayings are RECONSTRUCTED on the basis of what they remember, not memorized, and that explains the HUGE discrepancies we find between the target text and the final product.
Extract 29
Leo's mom : Caillou! Leo! Are you hungry?
Caillou: Yes, I'm hungry.
Mom: Rosie want to...play
Cy : with
Mom: With ...you.
Caillou: No! I'm not play with her!
Mom: Caillou!
And now we can see Ms. Lee's secret. She is PRETENDING to be a lazy, procrastinating student. But in fact what she is REALLY doing is using all that extra time to look up Jo Hyoseon's thesis on our school website and getting perfect access to all of its rich data. Very sneaky!
Now, you can see from her (new) data, that "No! I'm not play with her!"is not a MEMORIZED sentence. It's a remembered one. We can tell because the child has not yet analyzed "I'm".
What about "Rosie want to play...."?
Extract 23
Caillou : Rosie it's a play...
T: with me?
Caillou: with me?
Rosie : Yes.
These data also shows some tendencies of the students' sentences. The first one is that the students put some names in front of the sentence. It's because they can avoid uncertain pronoun to certain character to make it clear.
Good. Hyosun remarks, in her discussion of why the children like to use commands:
"First of all, children tend to omit the subject of a clause in statements, especially when the subject is a pronoun in the third person. Children have a strong tendency to choose names over pronouns to refer to the third person." (p. 68)
The second is they prefer polarity thematic structures with many of "Yes/No" questions. Because they can ask follow up question with this simple way.
Yes, but there's another reason, which Hyosun talks about on pp. 76-77:
"One of the reasons can be that the question form is fixed unlike other process verb questions because the relational verb questions are always addressed to the other person, so it starts with 'Are you-?' all the time in students' role play, but not the third person or the first person. For example, 'Are you ready?' or 'Are you hungry?'are common patterns in students' question in the role play."
This helps students move to the next initiation in Role play. The third one is the students make questions with just changing intonation. Changing and restructuring sentence to make a question is not easy to them so they prefer this and even teachers. These cause higher marked theme structures in S-S activity.
Right. On p. 77, Hyosun is discussing why the children hardly ever use the verb "want" (we saw this in Song and Kellogg, too--remember?). She says:
"As you can see from the data, the children try to make a question, but they choose to express it with rising intonation."
Q3. As I thought above, if we should count the structured sentence in TS activity in different way, we may get different result. Moreover, the students got helps from TS activity already and they have to initiate, respond and follow up by themselves. That's why the SS activity has more structured sentences.
Yes, this is essential to answering our fundamental paradox. Why are the ROLE PLAYS more successful than the teacher discussions? They might be more successful precisely because of the teacher discussions!
dk