Replacing Fixed Expressions (Text) with Creative Constructions (Talk)

[kellogg]

How Learners Use Creative Expression‎!s While They Turn Text into Talk in Real Classroom.

M20102513 이 미 영

Miyeong has written something VERY thoughtful and wide ranging. When you write like this, it's very easy to get lost, to make your writing too abstract (think of my worst lectures and you will see exactly what I mean).

Miyeong uses a particular strategy to keep from getting lost that I am going to call Miyeong's umbrella. What I mean by that is that she uses a BIG (LONG) title that has some pretty abstract words in it (Text, Talk, etc. which really could be titles of the whole course). Everything she writes will fit under that big umbrella.

But that's not all she does. Her umbrella has a HANDLE, you see. The handle allows her to COUNT and MEASURE talk in various ways, and to say EXACTLY what she means when says that the children turn text into talk.

What she means is simple: CHILDREN REPLACE FIXED EXPRESSIONS (TEXT) WITH CREATIVE ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTIONS (TALK). That, in a nutshell, is the whole point of course: we use the text as a way of making teh child free from the text, free to create their own texts.

When she does this, she makes possible REPLICABILITY: that means that anyone else can come along and look at her data and code it the way she coded it and get exactly the same result.

That umbrella handle means that her essay (and her thesis) is not just lesson review. It's not just an impressionistic response to a lesson. It's a true scientific enquiry, with EXTERNAL as well as INTERNAL validity.

Ⅰ. Introduction

For primary English education in Korea, we have had a kind of tendency to focus on more speaking and listening than reading and writing by our national textbook and teacher’s guide for about 10 years. This tendency often caused misunderstanding that only speaking and listening are essential skills to communicate and also we can separate the language skills when we say and teach and learn the language. When we communicate with someone, we need a kind of topic as a text and the text is not only the written form but also oral form. We need a textual trace when we talk.

Kellogg said, "And in fact, the talk is entirely text, because without this textual trace, we could not possibly reconstruct the two people who said it, who actually only talk and only exist in this text and nowhere else on this earth." and also said “The text is a trace of a non –fictional talk, by real people. In fact, it’s the trace of a talk in a talk.”(Kellogg and Li, 2010) This means the talk is the ongoing process of making text and the text is the traces left by talk.(Kellogg, D, 2010, personal communication)  Therefore, from the point of view of communication, the teacher cannot teach a language without text and the students cannot talk without text.

We can see that the first two paragraphs of the introduction are not really introductions to the paper at all, but rather introductions to our COURSE. It’s pretty hard to introduce all the issues in our course without becoming too abstract and distant from real classroom talk.

Dr. Li and I had this problem when we wrote our book, because of course we hadn’t actually met any of you yet and we only had old data from your 선배들 to work with. Dr. Li’s solution was to use literature texts (and in the example that Miyeong refers to here we are talking about Jane Eyre).

But Miyeong is right; we can say the same thing about textbook texts that we say about Jane Eyre: the talk of Jinho and Joon is, like the talk of Jane and Rochester, entirely text, because without their textual trace we could not possible construct Jinho and Joon and construe what their conversation, for they actually only talk and only exist in our textbook and nowhere else on this earth.

We CANNOT really say the same thing about the teacher and the children, because although they may spend a lot of time talking about texts, and although the transcripts that we talk about in class and the exam are also texts, they exist independently of those texts, and they go on talking and talking and talking without texts too.

However, it is certainly true that the teacher cannot teach a language without texts and the children cannot learn without text either. This is because the MEMORY of talk in the mind is a kind of text. We don’t really know how talk is “recorded” or “remembered” in the mind, but if we define a text as the “trace” that talk leaves in some medium, then it is undoubtedly true that our memory of talk (the “intake”, as opposed to the “input”, if you like that terminology) is a text, even when it is not written down at all but only exists as conscious or unconscious memory in the mind.

That’s a bit abstract for an intro, Miyeong! But don’t worry—Miyeong gets right down to business in the next paragraph.

This paper shows how one teacher integrates talk and text in 3 stages of the lesson: "Look and Listen", "Listen and Repeat", and "Listen and Answer". We will look at how the teacher can put herself both inside and outside the story in order to make the students be inside the story as well as to elicit the target expression‎!s and how the learners turn texts into talk. The teacher uses the picture from the textbook in "Look and Listen", some pictures in "Listen and Repeat", and finally just imagine for the last part of this lesson to elicit talk.  This process shows also while the teacher develops the stages to help the students use creative abstract constructions, the learners use fixed expression‎!s, item-based combinations and creative abstract constructions in each stages continuously.

One of the problems with starting with a very abstract intro is that it makes it a little hard to settle down to business. Ideally, we should be able to find some COMMON PROBLEM here—some common element that we will be able to use to unite ALL of the three sections despite the very diverse techniques the teacher uses (pictures, imagination, fixed expression‎!s, etc.)

This common problem is, of course, the foundation of a good thesis topic. It’s abstract enough to engage with the main issues of your major (Elementary English Education, or Integrated Language Teaching). It’s general enough to be seen in a wide variety of data, both in your class and in the classrooms of your colleagues (that is, it has EXTERNAL VALIDITY). But it’s also concrete enough to be seen in data and coded reliably (that is, it has INTERNAL VALIDITY).

Some common problems our classmates have used are:

a)     the gap between exposure and use,

b)    the role of the teacher (modeling, controlling errors, organizing production etc), and

c)     the communicative functions of teacher talk (getting attention, giving information, checking understanding).  

Two other approaches have emerged in our work:

a)                    Some classmates have NOT tried to begin with a specific problem at all, instead just talked about the data and allowed issues to emerge. This can be very difficult; it’s very easy for all of us to get wrapped up in this detail or that detail (the kids are SO cute! There is SO much noise! The teacher is SO busy!). And sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.

b)                    Some classmates have tried to begin with the very general topic of “integrating text and talk”. I think this is a little like choosing “integrated teaching” as a thesis topic. It’s going to be a little difficult to connect it to data.

Now, I think ALL of these approaches CAN yield a good final paper and CAN make a good thesis. But I don’t think they are equal. It seems to me that the common problem approach is a LOT easier. I think that Miyeong has chosen a very steep path. But you can see that she’s a strong walker!

To begin with, I will analyze how the teacher uses the picture of the text book to set the scene and create characters in the whole lesson. This shows how the teacher uses open-type questions and closed-type questions to create the scene and characters. Next, I will look at how the teacher casts the roles and develops the situations to put the students inside the story and how the teacher teaches the lines with the materials and put the students inside of the story which means the process of turning text into talk by the students. Finally, I will analyze how the teacher helps the students use fixed expression‎!s, item-based combinations and creative abstract constructions in the "Listen and Answer" stages.

The teacher plays three different roles: a picture guide, a play director, and a questioner. What do all of these things have in common?

They all have IMAGERY in common: a picture is an image, a role is an image, and a story is a sequence of images. If we put it in these terms, the main problem is how does the teacher introduce the element of TIME and MOVEMENT in a picture and turn the picture into a STORY.

They all have QUESTIONS in common: the teacher guides by asking open questions, the teacher develops situations by asking questions, and the teacher helps students understand by asking questions too. If we put it in these terms the main problem is how we go from open “guiding” questions to closed “helping” questions.

Ⅱ. Setting the scene

- How the teacher uses questions to set the scene and creates characters? 

    To figure out "how the teacher set the scene" I counted all the teachers questions at the every stage and classified with open-type or closed-type questions. I focused on the meaning and considered the context to classify the questions. I divided the questions as the meaning but I cleared some exceptions below the chart.

Look and Listen(n=39)		Listen and Repeat(n=12)		Listen and Answer(47)
Open type Questions	Closed type Questions	Open type Questions	Closed type Questions	Open type Questions	Closed type Questions
T: "What do you think? How do you feel?" S:@#$%#	T: Let's go and see it, Let's go and see what? S: Let's go and see uh,, Namdaemun.	T: When do you see very tall man, how can you say? Ss: What a tall man.	T: What a beautiful...? S2: girl.	T: What happen? Ss:깽..하하..꽝..끼익.	T: I am a foreigner and you are? S1: Jinho.
24	15	3	9	4	43

 This table shows that the teacher uses open-type questions more than closed-type questions at the beginning of the lesson "Look and Listen" and gradually uses more closed-type questions at the last of the lesson. This means that the teacher uses open-type questions to set the scenes and create characters. In other words it means also she invites the students to be involved in the setting and makes them more motivated. For building motivation, this open-type question could be successful, but the learners' answers are not clear (T:"What do you think? How do you feel?"/ S: @#$%#) because the students cannot express their thoughts in English fluently yet.

Look at this example:

T: OK. Do you remember anything from the dialog?

Ss: Yes.

T: Can you tell me anything about the dialog?

Ss: (giggling)

S2: Uh... They rode a cable car and went to the tower and..They went to the tower and they met some foreigners. and They saw a very big city and...

Naturally the students respond with just yes/no or giggling and mumbling, even when the teacher asks "Can you tell me anything about the dialog?" to make the students free from the dialog. However unexpectedly one girl explains almost the whole story from the dialog with creative abstract construction (e.g. "Uh... They rode a cable car and went to the tower and..They went to the tower and they met some foreigners. and They saw a very big city and......."). Even before the teacher sets the scene and creates the characters, the S2 does it by herself. However, all the other students except S2 cannot do it here. The teacher changes her open-type questions to closed-type questions for other students.

Notice Miyeong’s METHOD: she begins with quantitative data. She notices the trends in the data. Then she tries to EXPLAIN the trends by using a particularly telling bit of transcript. In this way she is able to combine descriptive methods and heuristic ones (or, as people like to say, quantitative methods and qualitative ones).

The teacher checks the students' understanding by asking both open-typed questions and closed-type questions.

T: Yes, you can see the people. Who are they?

S6: They are Jinho … (sic)

You need to explain whether this is an open-type question or a closed-type question and why, don’t you?

When the students get closed-type questions they can answer well. ("T: Yes, you can see the people. Who are they? / S6: They are Jinho... ").

Notice that the quoting of data here is redundant; you just gave it.

 Even though the students cannot make grammatical right answers, the meaning of the answer is right here. Therefore, when the teacher builds the scene and characters enough she uses more closed-type questions for other purposes of the activity. The teacher asked about some details using closed-type questions to check students' understanding (T: You can see what? / S6: Tower.)and makes them select their own answer from their imaginations.( T: How can I go there?/ S6: Uhh.. Take a cable car.)

OK—what about the open questions, though?

However, when we examine the "Listen and Answer" in more detail, we can find a teacher's strategy to help them use creative abstract construction by asking closed-type questions. The teacher extended the "Listen and repeat" part to the "Listen and Answer" so she brings characters from the textbook and casts roles and make a story with student's saying at the first exchange. At the second exchange, she doesn't use any material as a picture or listening script from the book but she casts roles for her and the students to build a story. For the final exchange, she brings characters from the creative imaginary situation (e.g. "T: Ok. Let's change the setting. You are Ga-In elementary school students. And I'm a real foreigner who visits your school here. Think about. You are on the playground.")

Now here’s a problem. If we consider the “text” in the textbook to be PURELY the characters and the roles and the lines of the dialogue, we have to admit that EVERYTHING except for a few lines of the dialogue has now disappeared.

It’s tempting to look at this and say that there is really no text at all; it’s pure talk. So there is no integration of text and talk, only the replacement of text without talk with talk without text.

Is that true? Or is there some way in which the text (in the textbook) is nevertheless present in the Gain elementary school playground role play.

The first story is about the pictures so the students cannot make rich creative expression‎!s well but some try. But in that case, the teacher should use complicated sentence that the students don't learn yet so it's not very successful. Here we need some examples from data. It makes the teacher set the scene differently. In the second story, there are more creative expression‎!s and of course there are some mistakes however the teacher does not correct them all because those are not the target expression‎!s  so she uptake a little and pass it. The students use their all knowledge of English to express their thinking and to tease the teacher. However, it still cannot make rich context for target expression‎!s.

Listen and Answer	Exchange 1		Exchange 2		Exchange 3
	Open type Questions T: What happen? Ss:깽..하하..꽝..끼익.	4	Open type Questions	0	Open type Questions	0
	Closed type Questions T: You can see what? S6: Tower.	17	Closed type Questions T: I am a foreigner and you are? S1: Jinho.	18*(7)	Closed type Questions T: Where is her classroom? S1: in the..? T: Where? S1: Hurry, Hurry! S6: Next door! S4:Go straight.	8*(7)

As you see the table, the teacher doesn't ask open-type questions much through whole stage. Interestingly, she tries to make the students use more creative expression‎!s but she asked closed-type questions a lot.

T: Where is her class room?

S1: in the..?

T: (You are on the playground.)

S6: 3층이 영어로 뭐지?

It shows she asked details with closed-type questions but the students have to answer with their own idea. They have to create the story and talk. Those questions do not have any right answers so it's a little different from other closed-type questions. The teacher uses closed-type questions to get the students' real talk. Actually she helps students to build a text to talk with very closed-type questions by narrowing down the choices from the context. It is also related to putting the students and the teachers both inside of the story.

Good.

Ⅲ. Casting roles

- How the teacher casts roles as putting students and herself inside of the story?

I counted all the utterances from the teacher and the students and divided into inside of the story or outside of the story. For this, I considered being a role even though the teacher doesn't cast role for students. It means if the students answer the questions as being a one role in the text, I put the answers into inside of the story.

Look and Listen			Listen and Repeat			Listen and Answer
T	Inside	0	T	Inside T: Yes, it's very tall.	10	Ex 1	T	Inside T: Are you alright?	2
								Outside T: Repeat. What a nice day!	79
							Ss	Inside G1: What a nice day!	35
								Outside Ss: Nami's mom.	11
	Outside T: Yes, you can see the people. who are they?	122		Outside T: Yes, she is very beautiful. Look at this.	55
						Ex 2	T	Inside T: Where can I take a cable car?	15
								Outside T: You want to be a foreigner?	40
	Inside	0		Inside Ss: What a tall tower.	29
Ss			Ss				Ss	Inside Ss: Who are you?	18
								Outside S6: 3층이 영어로 뭐지?	3
						Ex 3	T	Inside T: Yes, It's in the school of course, but I want to go! where is it?	18
	Outside Ss: They are in the cable car.	65		Outside s: 벌새야.	10
								Outside T: OK, Good job.	24
							Ss	Inside S6: On the floor!	24
								Outside S11: 배쓰룸이 아니고 배드룸이야?	5

As the result of the table above the teacher tends to put her outside of the text but the students tend to be inside of the story while they do the activities.

Is it a result of the table?

“As we see in the table above…”             “Note in the table above that….”

“We can see in the table above that…”      “One may observe that….”

“As the table above shows…”                 “As shown in Table Two above…”

 She creates the scene again with the pictures to make students discourse. As you see, the teacher and the students are totally outside of the story at the L&L stages. At this moment the teacher focuses on the setting and students' comprehension so they are outside of the story. During the whole stages the teacher tends to be outside of the story and the students are almost inside the story. She puts the students inside of the story to make them discourse.

T: OK. I'll divide into 2 groups like this. You are? What do you want? Jinho or Peter?

G1: Jinho..

The teacher also puts herself inside and outside of the story at the same time to join the conversation and help some students. She does 2 roles at that moment.

S1: How can I help ...

T: She said "How can I help you?" (points to S1) OK.

T: Ah...I want to meet Miss. Pepper.

One interesting thing is that when the students are outside of the story, some students speak Korean to say to other pupils like (s: 벌새야) but it rarely happen so it doesn't influence to the main stream of being inside of the story.

Ss: What..a small bird.

s: 벌새야..

T: (You are on the playground.)

S6: 3층이 영어로 뭐지?

On the contrary to the teacher tends to be outside of the story to help students, the students are outside of the story when they don't understand or need some help. Usually when the students are outside, they tend to use Korean to pupils. The good thing of being outside of the story is that the teacher can give some grammatical help to them and they can say more objectively.

Miyeong points out that the difference between inside the story and outside the story is really a FUNCTIONAL difference—OUTSIDE the story the teacher functions as helper, while inside she must function as a character and interlocutory.

Form, of course, follows function. As Miyeong noted earlier, language outside the story tends to be complex. This is one reason why outside the story the children have recourse to Korean, and Miyeong finds that the teacher talk is too difficult to convert easily into the language of use.

Ⅳ. Creative Abstract construction

- How the learners use Creative Abstract Constructions in each stage?

I chose some replies from the students as a form of sentence to figure out which sentence is fixed expression‎!, item-based combination or creative abstract construction. I deleted the repeating sentence and counted only the first one when it repeated and some incomplete sentences as creative abstract constructions. Here is the result of this.

Look and Listen			Listen and Repeat			Listen and Answer
Fixed Expression‎!s S1: Thank you.	Complete	11	Fixed Expression‎!s	c	0	Fixed Expression‎!s S9: Hurry up? --- S1: Watch out! -- Group1 : Ouch!	C	2
	Incomplete	0		I	0		I	8
Item-based combinations S1: Let's go and see uh.. Namdaemun.	C	2	Item-based combinations Ss: What a small bird.	C	17	Item-based combinations G1: What a big tower! G1: What a nice day!	C	7
	I	0		I	1		I	0
Creative abstract constructions S2: Uh... They rode a cable car and went to the tower and.. they went to the tower and they met some foreigners.	C	5	Creative abstract constructions Ss: What a nice beach!	c	4	Creative abstract constructions S6: Look at that? S6: Uhh,, Take a cable car. Ss: Uh.. It's 10... a thousand...It's 10 dollars. S1: How can I help... S2: Oh, I'm sorry. Miss Pepper met... S4: It's near the World.	C	9
	I	7		I	0		I	16

        The students answer with various expression‎!s to the teacher's questions and creative abstract constructions are shown through whole process. At the "Look and Listen" part, the teacher asks more open-type questions and obviously the students reply with creative abstract constructions.

It’s not obvious! There’s a lot of data that shows that children are quite capable of answering open questions with one word, or some fixed expression‎!, or no answer at all!

The "Listen and Answer" part includes a kind of role-play as a T-S activity so the students use more creative abstract constructions.

This too is not obvious. There’s plenty of data showing that children respond to role plays with fixed expression‎!s or item-based combinations.

However, at the "Listen and Repeat" part the students can use some item-based combinations more than Creative abstract combinations.

        When we examine the real data more, we can figure out the teacher casts roles at the "Listen and answer" and doesn't cast any role for the "Listen and Repeat" stages and she shows some materials and make them guess and repeat her. Then the teacher tries to draw the pattern of the target expression‎!s by asking some questions which I have underlined below and the students reply with item-based combinations which is highlighted.

T: when you see that very tall tower, how can you say?

Ss: what a tall tower.

T: What a tall tower. Good. When you see very tall man, how can you say?

Ss: What a tall man.

T: What a tall man. Or.. Umm.. How about very big cow?

Ss: What a big cow.

Good use of illustrative examples.

Through this very simple activity, students recognize the basic rule of the sentence already. if the teacher wants to provide real context to say the target expression‎!s, she has to provide the situation of the sentence, the meaning of the exclamation mark. So the teacher goes to the "look and speak" activity with some shocking pictures to present the feeling.

T: what do you want to say? (Showing the tall tower)

Ss: What a tall tower.

T: What a tall tower. Good. OK, listen and repeat. "What a tall tower!"

Ss: What a tall tower.

T: Yes, it's very tall.

Ss: Yes, it's very tall.

As you see, almost all sentences are item-based combinations. The teacher focuses on "What a _____ ______!" expression‎! for 2 reasons. The one is that she wants to present the structure of the target sentence and the other one is to make the students understand the situations when they say the sentence. For the first purpose, the teacher’s repeating activity is quite successful but this is not for the second purpose. The students can notice the structure but not the real use of this sentence. They just repeat the teacher's accent. It can be successful to draw the students' attentions but not follow up conversation. This reveals follow up activities. I also notice here is the sentences are not real conversation because, those are not expression‎!s from their thought. It's just description. During whole exchange of this repetitive activity, one student tries to make a fun with this but meaningfully here.

T: Yes, it's very beautiful. OK.(showing a beautiful girl)

S6: What a beautiful man.

T: What a beautiful man?

S6: What a crazy woman.

Ss: woman.

This is a conscious recognition of the way item-based combinations recontextualize fixed expression‎!s. That is, after all, how item-based combinations are developed.

The S6 is a boy so when he sees the pretty girl picture he tries to be naughty and avoid female character with the utterance ("What a beautiful man!"). The teacher uptakes his utterance right after he says. However, he does not change his mind to make a fun with that and replies ("What a crazy woman!") while the other students fix his wrong expression‎! for the picture. Anyway he escapes from the boring job, making item-based combinations with pictures and finally makes a creative abstract construction.

Interestingly, even though the teacher asked the fixed expression‎!s, some students say some item-combinations already.

S2: What a big tower?

T: What a big tower!

The student says the item-based combinations unintentionally but it shows they understand the meaning of the expression‎!s. Another interesting thing is that when I listen to the dialog, I also thought there is "What a big city" sentence but there isn't. The student who says "What a big city." totally understand the whole story and the pattern of the target expression‎!. In this stage, only few students can express their understanding with item-base combinations except the one who can explain the story. It shows that the fixed expression‎!s are presented by students' memory and the teacher cannot check the students understanding but only can check just hearing itself.

It seems to me that the distinction between fixed expression‎!s, item-based combinations, and creative abstract constructions really involves how much CONTROL the child has over the sentence.

FIXED EXPRESSION‎!: Control OUTSIDE the expression‎! but not INSIDE the expression‎!. That is, the child is in control of whether to use the expression‎! or not (or whether to use one expression‎! or another, whether to say “yes” or “no”). But once the child has decided to use an expression‎!, the child cannot change that expression‎! he or she can only use the expression‎! as it is, because it is unanalyzed and functions as a single word. “What a big pig!” but not “What a big tower!”

ITEM-BASED COMBINATION: Control OUTSIDE the expression‎! and at ONE point inside the expression‎!. The child is in control of whether or not to use the expression‎! and can also change the expression‎! at ONE point inside it, Instead of saying “What a big pig!” the child can say “What a big tower!”

CREATIVE ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTION: Control at EVERY point inside the expression‎!. The child is in control and can potentially change the expression‎! at any point. The child could say, for example, “Such a big tower!” or “What big towers!” or “What a big tower it is/was!” etc.

Of course, most creative abstract constructions are ERRORS!

Miyeong expresses this idea rather differently, by saying that the child has UNDERSTANDING. I’m not sure I agree with this; it’s often the case that children UNDERSTAND fixed expression‎!s. But what they cannot do is control and change them into new expression‎!s that they have never heard before.

When we think about the quality of CAC in this data, we can get some result from the table here.

Look and Listen			Listen and Repeat			Listen and Answer
Fixed Expression‎!s	C	11	Fixed Expression‎!s	c	0	Fixed Expression‎!s	C	2
	I	0		I	0		I	8
Item-based combinations	C	2	Item-based combinations	C	17	Item-based combinations	C	7
	I	0		I	1		I	0
Creative abstract constructions	C	5	Creative abstract constructions	c	4	Creative abstract constructions	C	9
	I	7		I	0		I	16

If you look at Jiyeong’s tables, you will see that she uses PERCENTAGES. There is a big advantage to doing this. If we do not use percentages, or proportions, or ratios of some kind, then the longest episode will have the most of everything, and we will learn almost nothing about the MAKE-UP of the episodes except that some episodes are long and others are short. We knew that already!

As you see the table, the students use more incomplete CAC than complete CAC. It happens through whole lesson so even though the number of CAC at the "Listen and Answer" stages is more than the number of CAC at the other stages it does not mean that the students develop their target language gradually. Actually the longest and grammatically correct CAC from one student at begin (S2: Uh... They rode a cable car and went to the tower and..They went to the tower and they met some foreigners. and They saw a very big city and..).

The CACs from the “Listen and Answer” are tend to be short and incomplete so the rate of incomplete sentence is almost same with at the begin (the rate of complete CAC sentence of whole CAC sentence at L&L: 42%) and the last of the lesson (the rate of complete CAC sentence of whole CAC sentence at L&A: 36%).

It would be nice to have some GENERALIZATION that links this section to the overall themes of the paper. The problem is that as we saw, Miyeong’s overall themes are a little GENERAL, and it’s hard to go from concrete data to a very abstract theme.

Ⅴ. Conclusion

- From text to talk

The aim of this paper has been to examine real classroom data to figure out how to elicit talk from the text by teacher's strategies and how the learner uses creative expression‎!s in the lesson. For the first step, the teacher uses various types of questions to set the scene and create characters. This means she brings some text to make a talk from it with the students. She uses open-type questions to draw students’ attentions and invites them into the story, and gradually uses more closed-type questions to check students' understanding and also to create CAC utterances from the students. The teacher's another distinct strategy to make a talk from the text is putting herself and the students inside and outside of the story. When they both are inside of the story, they got cast and being a character and use target expression‎!s. When the teacher is outside of the story, she is a storyteller or helper to the students but when the students are outside of the story, they tend to speak Korean more and also they need some grammatical or vocabulary help.

Notice that HERE Miyeong is ignoring her quantitative data and simply restating the themes of her introduction. But the quantitative data is really what is new, both in her conclusion and in her paper as a whole.

The students use fixed-expression‎!s, item-based combinations, and creative abstract combinations through the whole lesson. They say fixed-expression‎!s a lot through whole lesson. They use CAC at the last of the lesson the most, but when we look into the quality of the sentence, unexpectedly the teacher can get the better one at the beginning of the lesson.

This is quite consistent with what Jieyong, and Bak Hyeyeong and Lim Eunsook and Seo Chaeheun found.

 It is related to the teacher's open-type question strategy. The students use more creative expression‎!s when they get the open-type questions but their lack of the knowledge of language and skills makes less result of the number of CAC utterances.

Are you sure? It might also be related to the use of pictures, actually.

To develop the text to the talk for the communication, the teacher tries to make a role and invite the students inside of the story and make them develop the talk by themselves. In the data, we can see the teacher cannot reach the level of Student-Student activity and the students get limited chance to talk. However, students’ CAC is very meaningful to teachers. If the teacher develops the activity to the free to talk by themselves, we can get more good result from the lesson.

Nice work, Miyeong! It’s been a great walk along the beach. I think you’ve left some footprints that will not wash away for a long while.

And here’s the final question to consider. Volosinov says somewhere that the mind itself is a text. I disagree, really; when I look in my mind I find it is mostly talk and not text, because it’s very much a work in progress. But perhaps MEMORY is a text. No?

//

[이미영]

Memory is a text because it is a trace of talk and mind i think. Am i right?