Re:8.20 d) p.234 :"Grapa Ghene" Translate!.............Is this "invented" spelling? -JANG HOJIN-

[kellogg]

RIGHT! But remember we said last night that a "behaviorist" response like "right!" is not enough for older children.

Instead, what I want to do is to "uptake" Ms. Jang's answer. I want to pick it up and do something new with it.

FIRST, I want to use it to answer one of the critics of "Whole Language" that we read last night (actually, I think we FORGOT to read it--my fault!!!!). THEN I want to use it to create a new concept of how creativity in children develops (it may surprise you--error in imitation is an important source of creativity!)

Here's our critic. He is Dr. Ramesh Ponunu, a commentator on education for the National Review (in Washington DC):

"The controversy over how to teach reading is not a narrow, technical dispute. It is a broad, philosophic disagreement, with crucial educational implications. The phonics proponents maintain that human knowledge is gained objectively, by perceiving the facts of reality and by abstracting from those facts. These proponents, therefore, teach the child directly and systematically the basic facts--the sounds that make up every word--from which the abstract knowledge of how to read can be learned."

Well, if Ms. Jang is correct (and of course we said that she was RIGHT) then Aaron really DOES perceive the facts of reality. He hears aspiration after the /k/ sound in "Kenny". That's a fact of reality.

Aaron also recognizes (just as a Korean child would) that "k" and "g" are frequently the SAME sound, not different sounds (for example, when you say "back" and "bag", the difference is NOT in the voicing of the final consonant, because both of them are STOPS and we can't really hear them at all. The difference is in the preceding VOWEL--"back" is short, while "bag" is long! Korean children know this, because "k" and "g" are both written as ㄱ.

Actually, it's poor Mr. Ponunu who doesn't recognize the facts of language, not Aaron. Look:

"Supporters of whole language, by contrast, believe that the acquisition of knowledge is a subjective process. Influenced by John Dewey and his philosophy of Progressive education, they believe that the child must be encouraged to follow his feelings irrespective of the facts, and to have his arbitrary "opinions" regarded as valid. On this premise, the child is told to treat the "whole word" as primary, and to draw his conclusions without the necessity of learning the underlying facts. He is taught this--in spite of the overwhelming evidence, in theory and in practice, that phonics instruction works and whole language does not."

Aaron is NOT following his "feelings". He is following his perceptions. Perceptions are based on facts. But Dr. Ponunu is NOT following his perceptions. He is following his feelings about John Dewey, who he thinks is a socialist and a progressive. Being socialist and progressive means telling the children that they are right even when they are wrong.

The problem is that Aaron is NOT wrong, scientifically. His conclusions simply disagree with fixed rules about phonemes. But suppose the RULES are wrong? (They ARE, in this case: "Kenny" and "skill" do not contain the same sound, although they contain the same letter!)

Ms. Jang is also right when she says that Aaron's spelling is "invented": it's an example of creativity. But where does creativity come from, and how can we TEACH it? Here we've got a very serious problem--perhaps the most serious problem in language teaching.

If we give the children models of creativity, they will COPY them.

T: Hello, everybody!

S: Hello, everybody!

T: !!!!!

That means that they are no longer examples of creativity. They are only examples of COPYING.

Fortunately, children ALWAYS copy things IMPERFECTLY. When children repeat, they do not ONLY repeat. They also introduce VARIATION.

For example, in our example, the two words "everybody" do not mean the  same thing. Not at all! The teacher's "everybody" does not include the teacher. But the CHILDREN'S "everybody" might include the teacher. Look:

T: Hello, everybody! (= all the children)

S: Hello, everybody! (= all the OTHER children plust the teacher)

T: That's right! Hello, EVERYBODY! Say hello to ALL you friends. Now say hello to your TEACHER!

We usually think of child creativity as something almost magical. First the children imitate a lot. Then, for some reason, they start to create new things. That's how art schools teach creativity. But is that how it really works?

Vygotsky’s 2004 article "Imagination and Creativity in Chilhood" (published only very recently, so not widely understood) shows that children initially, attempting to copy their memories, merely succeed in entirely reconstructing the object they wish to draw. Even in attempting to copy exactly, the best older children can achieve is an imperfect imitation.

We might call this variation-in-itself, and compare it to the random gestures of the infant or, better, the random scribbling of the pre-schooler. In an objective sense, then, variation actually precedes exact imitation, for it is always easier to vary an action (even your own action) than to repeat it precisely.

When this kind of initially involuntary variation itself is recognized as a variation on a theme, we may call it variation-for-others and compare it to the interpretation of a grasping gesture as a pointing gesture by a mother or the moment where a child who scribbles and then decides that the scribble is a plume of smoke (Vygotsky, 1978: 56, 113). Finally, when this variation-for-others moves from the output of the action to its input, from being a result to being a motive, we may call it variation-for-itself, that is, true, will-governed creativity.

But this means that creativity is ALWAYS there--from the very beginning--in the form of variation. The only thing that happens is that it becomes CONSCIOUS of itself. And making children CONSCIOUS (and in control) of their own creativity is the teacher's job.

dk