Theory and Data: A Hamburger Steak Sandwich

[kellogg]

I'm not angry, Miyeong. I'm just worried. I'm worried about a couple of things:

a) The drop out rate in our graduate school is terrible, particularly in 통합교육전공. I used to think that this was mostly because grads get married or have kids or get ill, reasons that have nothing to do with an obvious mismatch between teaching and learning. But now I am not so sure.

b) A lot of the drop outs happen among people who have ALREADY FINISHED their coursework--and it looks like they can't face the thesis. But the thesis is the most fun part of the whole project; it's where YOU get to ask questions and YOU get to find out answers.

c) A couple of years ago, our grad school was producing work that was published all over the world:

2008

The ascent of the concrete: Grammatical reification in science teaching exchanges and episodes.

(Eunsook Lim)

Language and Education 22, 206-221.

2007

Rules out of roles: Some differences in play language and their developmental significance.

(Yongho Kim)

Applied Linguistics 28, 25-45.

The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks.

(Iju Guk)

Language Teaching Research 11 (3) 281-299.

The novice, the native, and the nature of foreign language teaching expertise.

(Jieun Shin)

International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (2) 159-177.

2006

Beneath higher ground: Volosinov, Vygotsky and an archaeology of indirect speech in primary English as a foreign language writing.

(Jungran Yi)

Language Awareness 15 (1) 38-52.

Task and play in the words and minds of children.

(Yongho Kim)

Journal of Applied Linguistics 3, 25-47.

Teaching talk as a game of catch.

(Minsook Kwon)

The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes 62 (2) 335-348.

These are really exciting articles--some of them are still used for teaching graduate classes in places like Ontario and San Diego and so on. The last time I looked, about one percent of ALL the articles on the sociocultural data base at Penn State University in the USA was written right here at SNUE.

And every one of them was based on thesis work done by your 선배.

But in the last few years we haven't been able to get anything published. I keep putting out articles, but they are mostly my own stuff, and not based on research work done by grads. So I am worried that we will lose our (fragile) international reputation.

That's why I'm pushing you. I know it's hard. But last week you and Amyeong showed the way forward, and even Jiyeong was trying to follow it (and she WOULD have followed it too, if she had just READ what you guys wrote and thought about it a little more before she wrote).

What I'm worried about is that other people are not reading OR writing. In other words, instead of pushing people to work, I am only pushing them to drop out.

Now, I guess I think that theoretical knowledge isn't something that we 'bring" to data. It's usually something we find by generalizing from data.

How do we look for it, though? Take a look at this. It's data from a FIRST grade class--possibly the very first day of school for some of these kids. It's in Korean, of course.

T: 조용히 우리들은 1학년 24쪽 보세요. 지금 그림마다 동그라미가 있어요. 동그라미가 조그맣게 달려있죠? 

Ss: 네.

She sometimes seems to be speaking from INSIDE the child, as if she were thinking ALONGSIDE the child, like this;

T: 여기는 너희가 그림을 보고 내가 잘 하는지 못 하는지 생각하는 거야. 너무나 내가 잘 하는 그림은 동그라미에 파란색 색연필로 칠하고 내가 잘 못 하는 그림은 빨간색으로 칠하세요. 내가 우리 집에서 정말 옷을 잘 입는지 아니면 숙제를 잘 하는지 생각해 보면서 칠하세요.

Notice that SOMETIMES the teacher uses POLITE Korean (높임말). And sometimes she doesn't. Now, you might think there isn't any rule.

But if you look carefully you will see that there IS a rule. When the teacher FINISHES an utterance (when she stands outside the utterance and outside the kids' heads) she uses the polite forms ("~어요", "~있죠", and "~세요"). But when she is INSIDE the utterance (and when she is talking from "inside" the child's head, showing the child HOW TO THINK) then she uses 반말 ("너희가", "내가", "~거야"). 

Now, you might think this really has nothing to do with your data. But I think it's related in THREE ways:

a)  First of all, by using roles, imaginary characters, we can sometimes succeed in putting the children INSIDE the heads of English speaking people in much the same way that the teacher is putting herself inside the children's heads.

b) Secondly, by using the diversity of answers that OPEN questions provide, the teacher can SELECT answers that will live and answers that will die. By doing this, the teacher can make the process of REASONING explicit--in the same way as our first grade teacher is doing here.

c) In the same way, it's possible to put our analysis of the data INSIDE the data (what I will call "Method 1" below) or it's possible to put it outside the data (what I will call "Method 2" below). When we put the analysis outside the data, we put the data INSIDE a paragraph. Have a look.

I will present a data from a 5th grade class learning the second period of lesson 3 "It's Under The Table." which is continued from my first data. First. I will explain how the teacher cast the roles by asking questions. The teacher tried many ways that put students in the story. Next, I will show how the teacher made learners create the dialog with their knowledge of English and memory of former activities. The teacher gave all choices to students and just uptook and recast their responses efficiently. Finally, I will show how the teacher used listen and repeat skill to develop the situation. The teacher switched the role of saying and repeating part with the learners to check the comprehension of the look and listen part and tried to make the students remained in the story.

As usual, a very solid metaparagraph: clear, coherent, and consistently well laid out. This is the kind of stuff that gets into a thesis. This is the kind of stuff that gets published.

The rule of writing is the rule of teaching. When you choose a tense, stay with it. Don't switch tenses without a good reason, because it makes the writing les clear, less coherent, and less consistent.  

To cast the roles, the teacher introduced the character first by showing the picture on the screen which contains some not very exciting roles.

That's true. Suppose, though, we used the picture and some of the questions we looked at last time to create NEW roles:

T: What is the pencil case thinking? "I'm under the ..... Nami!" What is the table saying?

Of course, these aren't exactly EXCITING roles. But they DO allow us to get structures that we wouldn't be able to get otherwise, by ANALYZING the structures that the children learn WHOLE in the dialogue.

So the teacher was struggled to invite the students in the story. Actually, the students expected very routine listen and repeat activity so they couldn't catch up the teachers saying at first. Besides one boy said "하고 싶지 않아요" to make fun of the activity? Of the textbook? Or the teacher?. So the teacher tried to make it pair work but soon she changed her mind to cast the roles efficiently.

It seems to me that CLOSED pairwork is really dependent on learner CHOICE, on learner VOLITION, on learner WILL. It's a real test of how MOTIVATED kids are, and so it's often dangerous to use it with a group of kids who are not particularly motivated or who are ill disposed towards the activity, the textbook, or (God forbid) the teacher.

 She used teacher's power to cast the roles because, the teacher didn't expect the boys to be happy with the opposite sex roles.

A very common problem! I have often noticed it myself. In two weeks, Ms. Kim Eunshil is going to present some very interesting data showing that (e.g.) Jinho is VERY popular with ALL boys (and SOME girls) and Nami is very popular with ALL the girls...but NONE of the boys! Why?

It was quite  a direct, straightforward way to cast the roles but she had to struggle to make the students are involved the situation. Finally, the teacher divided the group by the sitting which means that is not very related to the students. Later, she noticed that boys vs girls is better way to cast the roles.

Remember we saw that by dividing the class into "volleyball teams" we can create an imaginary situation, an abstract character, that stands ABOVE all of the individuals in the team. Won't this solve the problem?

Notice that Miyeong

a) BOXES her data up. 

b) ENDS this section with data.

When you are writing a thesis, this is usually not a good idea. You usually have to:

1) introduce the data

2) give the data

3) interpret the data

How to tackle c)? Well...

Method 1) FREEZE! Remember I said that analyzing data is a way of pushing a "PAUSE" button and stopping the flow of information while we consider what to do next. It's something we have no time to do in actual teaching. But we've got time to do it right here, so let's use it.

Method 2) SANDWICH! that is, meat between two pieces of bread. We can MOVE some of your paragraph AFTER the data, so that some of the paragraph goes around the data instead of just putting the data at the end of the paragraph the way Jiyeong did it.

Method 3) HAMBURGER STEAK SANDWICH Of course, you can use BOTH methods! A "hamburger" is really a nickname for a "hamburger steak sandwich", that is, CHOPPED meat between two pieces of bread. So we put the paragraph AROUND the data, and we analyze the data as we go along. Let's try that!,

T: Let's listen and repeat. Look at this. What is that?

Ss: Nami. Pencil case.

Method 1) FREEZE!

Here we pause and consider the data for a moment. We don't go on to the next piece of data until we have completely understood what is going on RIGHT HERE.

Notice the diversity of answers. This allows us to EXTERNALIZE the thinking process--what was intra-mental is now inter-mental. The teacher can CHOOSE answers for uptake.

In fact, the teacher can choose DIFFERENT ways of choosing.

a) The teacher can choose the most CORRECT answer (e.g. "Nami"). If the teacher does this consistently and thoroughly we can imagine that it will really lead to an increase in ACCURACY. Suppose, though, the teacher wants an increase in FLUENCY?

b) The teacher can choose the FASTEST answer. That WILL work here, of course ("Nami"). But if the teacher does this consistently and thoroughly we can imagine that it will lead to a DECREASE in accuracy. Suppose, though the teacher wants an increase in BOTH?

c) The teacher can choose the LONGEST answer. That will work here, of course (e.g. "Pencil case"). If the teacher does this consistently and thoroughly, it will lead to an INCREASE in complexity...and that might, at least in the long run, increase accuracy and fluency as well!

T: What is that?

Ss: Nami.. TV

T: OK. TV. of course. In the TV What can you see?

Method 1) Notice the diversity of answers. This allows us to EXTERNALIZE the thinking process--what was intra-mental is now inter-mental. The teacher can CHOOSE.

Notice--no teacher uptake! What would happen if the teacher used a RECAST? ("A TV".) Do you think this might lead to increased complexity?  Accuracy?

S1:Pictures

T: Yes, Pictures. yes you can see the pictures. but Look at the first pictures. Who are they?

Ss: Nami and Nami's mom.

T: Nami and Nami's...

S: Mother

T: Mother Right.... What happen in this story? Do you remember?

S: Yeah

T: She is looking for her what?

Ss: Pencil case.

T: Ok Where was it actually?

Ss: Under the table

T: Under the table? Are you sure? It was under the table?

Doesn't it look like the teacher DISAGREES? But in fact the picture DOES show a pencil case under the table

Of course, the teacher is really right, because the VIDEO shows that Nami's pencil case is in the living room on the floor. But, confusingly, the "Listen and Repeat" picture shows Nami's pencil case under the table. So the child is giving the correct "listen and repeat" answer but the incorred "look and listen" answer.

S: On the floor

T: On the floor.

Excellent preposition use! Bravo, kids!

Right but in this picture, yes, you are right. it's under the table. Right. But.... Shhh

Fifth graders are VERY intolerant of ambiguity. What can we do about this?

T: Let's think about the real things. Let's think about the real thing.

The word "real" is rather ambiguous here, though.

 OK, I need 2 characters . I eed 2 people.(Pointing the picture on the top left of the page 25) Right.Who are they?

S: Nami..

S: Mom

T: Nami and... Nami's.... Mother. And you have to be one of them. OK? Who want (sic) to be Nami? NAmi? ..... You have to be one of them. you have to choose Nami or Nami's mother. Who want (sic) to be Nami? Yes. One and Two Students? Ok. How about Nami's mother? You have to choose. You have to choose one of them.

Notice that "have" and "want" agree in NUMBER (they are both SECOND person!) This is, of course, a grammatical mistake, and it's easy to see what causes it.

Bakhtin writes:

"When we select words in the process of constructing an utterance, we by no means always take them from the system of language in their neutral, dictionary form. We usually take them from other utterances, and mainly from utterances that are kindred to ours in genre, that is, in theme, composition or style." (1986: 87).

So we take words WARM from the lips of people we are talking to! More--when other people are not talking, we take them HOT from our own lips--we repeat! So the teacher is UPTAKING herself--she uses "have" in the second person ("you have") and then she moves on to the third person ("Who wants...?"). But she takes the word DIRECTLY, warm from her own lips, and not from the system of language in its neutral form. And that is what creates the mistake.

Now, "have" and "want" do not actually agree in MEANING. Which one says choice, volition, freedom? Which one says constraint, bondage, and servitude? Which is the truth from the child's point of view? And from the teacher's?

Boy1: 하고 싶지 않아..

Now, is the child making FUN? Or is the child picking up an important difference between "have" and "want" that we have missed?

T: Nami and Nami's mother... 하고 싶지 않아요? huh.. Ok.

T: OK. Let's change. In pairs, one have (sic) to be Nami and one of you have (sic) to be Nami's mother.(Walk around and point to students) You are?... Nami.. and you are?? yes, Nami's mother.

T: Ok. I am a teacher. you should listen. I'll divide into 2 groups. over here you have to be what? You are...?

Compare:

a) You have to be

b) Who want to be?

Which is right? Why?

Now compare:

c) One of you have to be

d) You have to be

Which is right? Why?

Boy1: Father..

T: Father! (giggle) Ok. you are Nami. OK..?

T: (Looking at another group)You are.. who? Nami's...?

Boy1: father

T: I know you don't like the characters. but you have to do.(look at the boy )

T: OK. Who are you?

Group1: Nami.

T: Good, How about you guys? Nami's...?

Group2: mother

Method TWO is to put some "bread" after the data. This is a VERY big piece of data, so the resulting standwich is really mostly meat. But we can try it.

It was quite  a direct, straightforward way to cast the roles but she had to struggle to make the students are involved the situation. Finally, the teacher divided the group by the sitting which means that is not very related to the students. Later, she noticed that boys vs girls is better way to cast the roles.

To learn the target expression‎!s, usually the teacher said the target sentences several times to make the students remember and uttered right after her. However she tried new ways of listen and repeat activity which is not very familiar to students. Anyway, she cast the roles and tried to build new context (actually not new but rebuild) with the students memory of knowledge. The teacher asked "What do you want to say?" to students all the times. So students showed some limited responses and the teacher caught the proper one to the situation. She used uptaking and recasting skills to confirm‎! their own saying that they have to repeat.

T: Good. OK. Who goes first?

S: Nami..

T: Nami is first? OK. Nami is first. OK. In the morning, think about yourself and your real situation t home. Nami, what do you want to say? What do you want to say in the morning? (showing yawning)

S: Good morning

S: ....

Actually, "Good morning" is a good place to start, no? Why the negative response from the teacher?

T: Nami... Listen and repeat. " Mom, what time is it?"

S: Mom, what time is it.

T: OK, Nami's mom. What do you want to say?

Girl1: It's eight.

T: It's eight? Good, listen and repeat. "It's eight o'clock."

Group2: It's eight o'clock.

T: And what do you want to say?

S3: Late.

T: OK, repeat after me. "Eight?(↑) Oh, I'm late."

Group 1:Eight?(↑) Oh, I'm late.

boy1: change, change

T: You want to change? what?

Boy1: I sleep more.

T: You want to sleep more? so what do you want to say?

Boy1: Eight is no more school.

T: Oh, I have no school today? what do you want to say?

Boy1: I go school at...

T: Nine o'clock? At 10 o'clock? OK. Anyway. I like your idea. but you have to follow me this time. everybody repeat after me. "Oh, I'm late."

Group1: Oh. I'm late.

T:(Looking at group2)

S4/S5: hurry....

T: Hurry up? ok. Repeat after me. " Hurry up!"

Group21: Hurry up!

T: And then what do you want to say?(Looking at nauthy Nami.)

Ss: I can slowly... /I can't hurry up...

S6: Where's my pencil case?

T: What?

Ss: Where's my pencil case?

T: Ah, where's my pencil case? Repeat after me. " Where is my pencil case?"

G1: Where's my pencil case?

S7: Teacher, She has a blood.(One student has a nosebleed)

In English! Very authentic use of language. Of course, it's a minor tragedy, but it's also kind of wonderful in a bloody way.

T: Oh, go to the nurse room now.

(little messy atmosphere for a while)

Ss: 재 왜 저래? 코피나..

S7: Nose blood.

Amazing, isn't it?

T: OK. Nami's mom. What do you want to say?

S7: Under the...ta...ble...

T: Table? Under the table. OK, Nami's mom.(because of the noise the teacher skipped last listen and repeat) Shhh... Shh.. I want to check your memory. Nami. At the beginning, what do you say?

G1: ....

T: Very first. What do you say?

Boy1: HAAmm. Mom, what time is it?

T: Yes, altogether.

G1: Whaamm. Mom, what time is it?

T: OK. How about Nami's mom?

G2:It's eight o'clock.

T: It's eight o'clock? OK. Nami.

G1: Eight?(Surprising voice↑) I'm late.

T: OK. (Look at G2)

G2: Hurry up!

T: Hurry up. OK. What did she say?

G1: Where is my pencil case?

T: And??

G2: It's under the table.

T: Good. Nami. What do you want to say next?

Boy1: Thank you.

T: Good. Repeat after me. Thank you Mom.

G1: Thank you mom. Bye bye(giggle)

T: OK. What do you want to say?

G2: mom.. umm. You're welcome.

Here, Miyeong uses the Sandwich method. Like the lesson, it's really quite successful. And also like the lesson, it's not perfect!

Again, her sandwich is a little thick, which means that her commentary is rather general and descriptive--if she really wants to be theoretical, then she will probably need more bread and less meat.

One way to add bread is precisely to think about the ways in which the lesson is "not perfect", that is, to think CRITICALLY about what happened and to consider how things could have been different. After all, the "critical" is really just the negative side of the ideal, and both the critical and the ideal are part of the theoretical.

The teacher developed the situation with her reversed listen and repeat skills. At first, the teacher asked the students' sentences and then she make them listen and repeat. However as time goes by, she naturally repeated the students sentences. Totally the students say something and the teacher repeated the students saying. It's quite efficient because the teacher recasted the students very first sentences already.Also teacher can check the students' comprehension and vocabulary through this procedure. So through this activity the students can listen, think and say naturally. In this stage the teacher uses the competition strategy to draw more participations. And then the teacher lead the students to second situation. Also she noticed that new grouping is more effectfive in getting them to join the story.

T: You're welcome. Good. OK. Let's make it perfect. Clap 1 time. 2 times. ....

Do you remember all dialog?

Ss: (nodded their heads)

T: Really?

S7: some part.

T: OK. Nami... Ready... Action!

G1: wah wah wah... What time is it?

G2: It's eight o'clock.

G1: Eight? OH, I'm late.

G2: Hurry up!

G1: Where is my pencil case?

G2: It's under the table.

G1: Thank you mom.

G2: You're welcome.

T: OK, Very good job! very good job. ok. Which team is better than the other?

S7: teacher, it's not fair.. .. because....(G2 wasn't very participated in the dialog)

S1: Nami!

T: This team? This team? OK....(Smiled) Look at the second picture. OK. Shhh... Now....I'm going to choose one team and i'm going to give a sticker. ok?

S1: Call!

T: You can compete. but you have to say altogether.

T: Shh..(Pointing the second picture on the screen) Who are they?

Ss: Nami's father and Nami's mother..

T: Yes, Nami's father and Nami's mother. OK. Who want to be Nami's father?

Boys: 남자..

T: Boys vs girls. ok?

S1: Thank you.

T: OK. Who want (sic) to be Nami's father?

Boys: (raised their hands)

T: OK. All boys. How about Nami's mother? Good. All girls, you are Nami's mother. You can compete. Boys vs. girls.

T: Shh..... This time, Boys first! Boy!

A-myeong! See what you've done!

You can see that what Bakhtin says is quite true. Miyeong is taking "Boy!" warm from A-myeong's lips!

 What do you want to say in the morning?

S2: Where's my watch?

T: You want to say "Where's my watch in the morning?" When you wake up, you have to say "Where's my watch?"

Ss: (Giggle)

T: What do you want to say?

S1: What time is it?

T: What time is it? Do you like this way? OK. All boys. Listen and Repeat! "What time is it?"(with yawning)

B: What time is it?

T: Ok. Nami's mother.

S6: It's nine.

T: It's nine o'clock? OK. All girls. Listen and Repeat. All girs. " It's nine o'clock."

G: It's nine o'clock.

T: OK. Boys win. Because boys' voices are much...

S: Lower?

T: louder. How about next? What do you want to say?

B1: Nine?

B2: hurry up.

B3: I'm late.

T: You're late. Right. so you what do you want to say?

B4: I'm late.

T : I'm late for.....work. All boys!.....

Bs: Oh, I'm late

T: "Oh, I'm late." OK. How about mother?

Gs: Hurry up!

T: Hurry up, OK. How about boi.. oh, how about Nami's father?

Bs: Where is my watch?

T: Where is my watch? And?

Gs: It's on the TV.(few students mumbled sounds like "It's under the TV")

T: It's under the TV? On the TV?

Gs: It's ON the TV./ B1: in the TV(giggle)

T: OK, What's next?

Bs: Thanks.

T: Thanks. And then?

Gs: Watch out!

T: Watch out! Watch out. What happen?

Bs: Ohhhh.. Ouch!

T: Ouch! OK. Is that all? Ouch? OK, then?

Gs: Are you alright?

T: And then? Nami's father?

Bs: Oh, no.

T: Oh, No. and Nami's mother

Gs: Be careful!

T: Be careful. and Nami's father.

Bs:I go to the hospital.

T: I have to go to the hospital.

Bs:(giggle)

T: Ok. You remember all? All the dialog? Are you ready?

Ss: Yeah.

T: OK. Ready..

Ss: Go!

Boys: Wah. Wah, Wah, Wah.(yawing). What time is it?

Girls: It's nine o'clock.

Bs: Oh, I'm late!

Gs: Hurry up!

Bs:Where is my watch?

Gs:It's on the TV.

Bs: Thanks.

Gs: Watch out!

Bs: Ouch!

Gs: Are you alright?

Bs: No.

Gs: Be careful.

Bs: I have to go to hospital(sic).

T: OK. Good. Very good job. and what do you think? Which team is better?

Ss: Boys! Girls!

T: OK. Let's review the first one. All boys, you are Nami. Oh. Let's switch. All girls, you are?

Gs: Nami.

T: Right. All boys, you are??

Bs: Nami's mother.

T: Good. Are you ready? Do you all remember? Girls first!

Good! Now, let's try "method TWO, the sandwich. We move some of the paragraph above HERE:

Totally the students say something and the teacher repeated the students saying. It's quite efficient because the teacher recasted the students very first sentences already.Also teacher can check the students' comprehension and vocabulary through this procedure. So through this activity the students can listen, think and say naturally. In this stage the teacher uses the competition strategy to draw more participations. And then the teacher lead the students to second situation. Also she noticed that new grouping is more effectfive in getting them to join the story.

The sandwich is still a little thick, and the commentary is rather general and descriptive--if she really wants to be theoretical, then she will probably need more bread and less meat.

One way to add bread is precisely to think about the ways in which the lesson is "not perfect", that is, to think CRITICALLY about what happened and to consider how things could have been different. After all, the "critical" is really just the negative side of the ideal, and both the critical and the ideal are part of the theoretical.

Perhaps more bread and less meat? But perhaps not--you can see that Miyeong really DOES have the "thesis" idea--she knows that it takes a LOT of meat and a LOT of bread to make a thesis.

//

[이미영]

Yep. I didn't put some enough bread to my sandwiches. Actually i was so busy to just transcript my lesson. However, the very interesting thing is that this work make me more concentrate to my own lesson and teacher talk even though it was so painful and shameful process as you said. ^^
And now i know i have to cut off the extra meat from my stuff. Thank you very much! professor~!

[11기신지영]

Every time I see my name in your writing, it hurts..ㅠㅠ

[kellogg]

Don't throw away the meat that you cut, Miyeong! It might be very useful on your final and also on your thesis. There are very important ways of dealing with too much meat (they are called quantitative research methods). But there's no point in counting anything unless you know WHAT you are counting (that is, the QUALITY of what you are counting). Jiyeong--even LATE homework and 대충대충 homework is better than nothing! When you have something to work with, we can always make it better. But as Lear says (when he goes mad!) "Nothing will come from nothing!