Re:Shin yong - Homework ^*^

[kellogg]

Miyeong says that learning about given names and family names constitutes DEVELOPMENT and not simply learning. I am not sure about this; it seems to me that, for example, learning that boys's names tend to end in consonants and girls' names tend to end in vowels is fairly trivial, rather like learning a few words here and there, and it doesn't really make a difference in the way I represent my previous knowledge of names.

But there is one sense in which Miyeong is absolutely right. For children in elementary school, thinking in terms of general rules rather than specific examples, thinking in terms of abstract principles rather than concrete dos and don'ts, and thinking in terms of concepts rather than percepts is the NEXT ZONE of DEVELOPMENT.

Now it seems to me that the rule for distinguishing given names and family names is just such a general rule; it's an abstract principle and a concept. But precisely BECAUSE it is a concept, I don't think it can be DIRECTLY taught. The evidence I have (and Miyeong confirm‎s this) is that no amount of explanation will really help; my kids STILL call me "Kellogg" and "Mr. David" and Miyeong's students STILL say "Kimberley Teacher" no matter how much we explain.

b) The distinction between given names and family names.

Hello, I want to introduce to you our English teacher ,Mr. Greenwood and his family members.

Shinyeong--is this an imaginary situation or a real one?

        His name is Justin , (pause) Justin Greenwood.

       The name of his wife is  Amanda, (pause) Amanda  Greenwood.   What's her name?

       The name of his  father is Timothy, (pause) Timothy Greenwood.   Who?

       The name of his  mother is Catherine, (pause)  Catherine Greenwood.  Who?

       He has two brothers and one sister.

       The name of his brother is  Benjamin. (pause)  Benjami?  

        The name of his sister is   Elysia, (paurse)  Elysia?

        The name of his younger brother is Paul, (pause) Paul?

        They are the Greenwoods

        Greenwood is a family name.  Greenwood is a  ?  S:(family name)

        Justin is a given name.

        Amanda is a ?  S: (given name)

Teacher Kim uses a good idea which we have referred to  as breathing out and breathing in. With each piece of information (stressed), he asks a question (upward intonation).

But notice that these upward intonation questions are really just invitations to REPEAT the information.

What happens if we use DOWNWARD intonation questions, like this?

His name is Justin , (pause) Justin Greenwood. He's Mr. Greenwood. What about his wife,, Amanda?

       The name of his  father is Timothy, (pause) Timothy Greenwood.  Mr. Timothy or Mr. Greenwood? Why?

Now, can we get the children to grasp the general CONCEPT?

Once again, we turn to Vygotsky. Now, the first thing Vygotsky tells us is that the problem of getting children to form their own concepts exists whether we teach a foreign language or not. To do this, he goes to a teacher who has both extensive

experience in teaching poor children and a particularly sensitive understanding of language: Leo Tolstoy!

낱말의 본질과 그 의미를 비범하게 파악하고 있었던 톨스토이는 직접적으로 교사에서 학생으로 개념을 전송하려는 시도가 무익함을 너무도 명료하고 정확하게 알고 있었습니다. 그는 다른 낱말들을 이용하여 한사람에게서 다른 사람으로 낱말의 의미를 기계적으로 전이하는 것이 불가능함을 파악하고 있었습니다. 톨스토이는 스스로 가르쳐본 체험을 통해 이런 접근법의 무익함을 경험했습니다. 그는 먼저 아동의 낱말을 이야기의 언어로 번역하고 이어서 이야기의 언어를 높은 수준의 언어로 번역하는 방식으로 아동에게 문학적 언어를 가르쳤었습니다. 그는 흔히 사람들이 강요된 설명, 기억 그리고 반복을 통해 프랑스어를 가르치는 것처럼 학생에게 문학적 언어를 가르치는 것이 불가능하다는 결론을 내렸습니다. (L.N. Tolstoy, that profound connoisseur of the nature of the word and of its meaning, who recognized more clearly and more vividly than any other the impossibility of a direct and simple transmission of concepts from the master to the student, of the mechanical transfer of the meaning of a word from one head to another by means of the word, the impossibility of which he had encountered in his own pedagogical experience.) Speaking of his experience in teaching the language of belle letters to children by making them translate childish words into the language of narration and then from the language of narration into a superior level, he arrived at the conclusion that one cannot, with this kind of forced explanation, memorization and repetition, teach to the students, against their will, a literary language as if one were teaching them French.”

What Tolstoy tells us is that the problem of using one language to get at concepts in another language is really exists whether we teach a foreign language or not: for the child it is a futile game of replacing on nonsense word with another. The concept is not in the word. The concept is in the child, and words are only a means of releasing it.

Vygotsky agrees and disagrees. He agrees that we do not get children to learn concepts just by getting them to learn words, because when children “Listen and repeat” what they repeat is the SOUND and not the MEANING. But he disagrees that the concept is in the child already and that it just needs to be allowed to blossom.

교수 문제에 대한 톨스토이의 일반적 견해의 직접적 표현인 이 입장의 틀린 측면은 이 신비로운 과정에서 직접적 간섭의 어떤 가능성도 그가 배제했다는 것에 있습니다. 톨스토이는 자신의 내적 원칙에 의해 개념 발달 과정을 제시하려했습니다. 그는 개념 발달을 교수와 분리시켰습니다. 이것은 과학적 개념 발달에서 교사를 지나치게 수동적이게 합니다. 이 입장은 톨스토이의 자신의 입장에 대한 단어적인 공식화에서, 즉 “어떤 간섭은 발달을 지체시키는 조잡하고 곤란한 힘을 발휘합니다.”  (The erroneous part of this position, directly linked to the general conception of Tolstoy on problems of teaching, is that it summarily excludes all possibility of intervention whatsoever, that it tends to abandon the process of the development of concepts to follow its own internal course, and that it separates the process of development of concepts from teaching and condemns teaching to a passive role in the problem of the development of scientific concepts. This error appears with particularly clear force in the categorical formulation according to which “All intervention is a brutal, awkward, clumsy force which retards the process of development.”)

Tolstoy compares pedagogical intervention to trying to make a flower blossom by unfolding a bud with your fingers. Surprisingly, Vygotsky, who doesn’t really like botanical metaphors, agrees. But this does not mean the teacher only sits and waits; the good gardener has a thousand ways of ensuring that a plant grows strong and healthy, in the direction of the sun and the water that will help it blossom.

이와 같이, 톨스토이는, 현학적인 방식 이 외에도, 우리가 새로운 개념을 아동에게 가르칠 수 있는 천 개의 다른 길이 있다고 믿었다. 그는 오직 하나의 길을, 즉 직접적으로, 야만스럽게, 기계적으로 개념의 꽃잎을 펼치는 것을 거부했다. 이 것은 옳다. 이 것은 논박의 여지가 없다. 이 것은 우리가 검토한 모든 이론과 실천에 의해 확증되었다. 그렇지만 톨스토이는 자발성에, 우연에, 표상과 모호한 감각 작용에, 그 내부에서 이루어지는 외부와 단절된 개념 형성의 내적 측면에 너무 많은 중요성을 부여했다. 반면에 이 과정에 미치는 직접적 영향력이 있을 개연성과 교수ㆍ학습과 발달을 너무 갈라놓았을 개연성을 과소평가했다. “So Tolstoy knows that there are a thousand other roads for teaching the child the new concept other than that of scholasticism. He only refuses one of them, that is, the mechanical, direct, and gross tearing asunder of the petals of the concept. This is right. This is indisputable. This confirm‎s all of our theoretical and our practical experience. But Tolstoy accords too much importance to spontaneity, to hazard, to the work of representation and to confused sensation, too much importance to the internal aspect, shut up inside itself, of concept formation and he minimizes too much the possibility of a direct influence upon this process, he distances overmuch teaching from development.

But Vygotsky is not just criticizing Tolstoy. Far from it!

이 모든 것에서 우리가 관심을 가지는 것은 톨스토이식 생각의 잘못된 측면과 그를 드러내는 것이 아니다. 최종적으로 그의 이론이 전해준 진리의 낱알은, 평형의 법칙에 따라 걷기를 아이에게 가르치려는 시도와 같이, 새로운 개념의 꽃잎을 벗겨내는 것이 불가능하다는 것이다. 우리의 관심을 끄는 것은 낱말과 개념이 아동의 자산이 되는 그 순간에 새로운 낱말과의 첫 만남으로부터 나아가는 길은 복잡한 내적 심리 과정이라는 완벽하게 정확한 관념이다. 이 과정은 혼란스러운 표상으로부터 시작되어 새로운 낱말을 점진적으로 이해하게 된다는 것, 아동 스스로 그것을 사용하게 된다는 것 그리고 그것을 효과적으로 동화하는 것으로 종결된다는 것을 함축한다. 우리가 아동이 자신에게 새로운 낱말의 의미를 처음으로 배우게 되는 순간, 개념 발달 과정은 완결된 것이 아니라 단지 시작된 것이라고 말했을 때, 우리는 철저하게 똑같은 발상을 표현한 것이었다. 첫 번째 측면에 대해서, 현재의 장에서 사용하고 있는 작업가설의 적절성과 효율성을 실험적으로 검증하려는 현재는 연구는 우리가 개념을 아동에게 가르칠 수 있는 길이 톨스토이가 이야기한 천 개로 한정되지 않는다는 것, 아동에게 새로운 개념과 낱말 형식을 신중하게 교수ㆍ학습하는 것은 가능할 뿐만 아니라 이미 아동에게 형성되어 있었던 개념을 더 높은 수준의 발달로 나아가게 한다는 것, 그리고 학교 교수ㆍ학습 과정에서 개념에 직접적으로 영향을 미치는 것이 가능하다는 것을 보여주고 있다. 그러나 이러한 영향은, 우리 연구가 보여주는 바와 같이, 과학적 개념 발달의 끝이 아니라 시작일 뿐이며 적절한 개념 발달 과정을 배제하는 것이 아니라 발달 과정에 새로운 방향을 제시하고 학교의 궁극적 목적에서 볼 때 교수ㆍ학습과 발달 과정에 아주 새롭고 호의적인 관계를 성립하게 한다. (“That which interests us is not the second erroneous aspect of Tolstoyan thinking and its elaboration, but the grain of truth in his position, which leads to the conclusion of the impossibility of tearing out the new concept from its petals, analogous to the impossibility of teaching the child to walk according to the laws of equilibrium. That which interests us is the completely true idea that the road which goes from the first encounter with the new concept to the moment when the concept becomes the property of the child is a complex internal psychic process which implies in itself the progressive comprehension of the new word beginning with a confused representation, its use on the part of the child and only in the end does it result in real assimilation. At bottom we tried to express the same idea when we said that the moment in which the child learns for the first time the meaning of a word which is new to him the process of concept development has not finished, but only just begun. With regard to the first aspect of the present research, which in practice has as a task the experimental verification of the truthfulness and fruitfulness of the working hypothesis developed in the present chapter, we will show not only the thousands of other roads of which Tolstoy speaks but also the deliberate instruction to the student of new concepts and new word forms is not only possible but can result in a higher development of the concepts the child has, already formed, and that it is possible to work directly on concepts in the process of school learning. This work, moreover, as our research will show, does not constitute the end but only the initiation of the development of the scientific concepts and not only does not exclude the proper process of his development but gives it a new direct and establishes between the process of learning and the process of development a relationship which is quite new and favorable from the point of view of the ultimate goals of schooling.

This makes sense. After all, classrooms are NOT a place where things are subconsciously learned. They are places where people consciously, deliberately, and after a good deal of struggle learn the points on the agenda, just as the children in Ms. Won’s lesson finally figured what the point of the lesson was. The “natural” classroom is not a playground; it’s a classroom. It’s a place to learn concepts, and not just a place to be “exposed to” language.

But, on the face of it, we have a contradiction. Earlier, Vygotsky said it was NOT possible to teach concepts directly; trying to do this teaches the SOUND of the words but not the MEANING. Here, Vygotsky says exactly the opposite, school classrooms make it quite possible to “directly work on concepts in the process of school learning”. Which is it?

It is both! The Russian word oбучeния means both teaching and learning, and above all it means the process whereby teaching turns into learning. Vygotsky notes that this process only begins when the child encounters (or, as Professor Yi would say, is “exposed” to the foreign language word. It is not even completed when the child says the word (or, as Professor Yi would say, with “use”).

Rather, the process is only completed when the true concept behind the word is formed by the child, when the word becomes a concept for the child and not simply a way of getting things done (a syncretism), or a sound object (complex). That process only begins with teaching, and it does not end with learning, but only with development.

That is why Vygotsky says that it is not possible to “teach” concepts directly, but it is possible to directly “work on” them. That is why Vygotsky says that the key problem of concept formation, at least for the school age child, is that of conscious awareness, of deliberate and volitional mastery of the concept.

[꾸러기]

It is a imaginary situation.
When I say "Benjamin? ", the students say "Greenwood"
When I say "Elysia? " , the students say "Greenwood "
I want to make the students repeat the family name and have the concept of family name.
( The name of his father is Timothy, (pause) Timothy Greenwood. Mr. Timothy or Mr. Greenwood? Why? )
I like your suggestion because it is more clear guidance. Thank you for your advice.