The Rickshaw Puller and the Streetcar Driver

[kellogg]

Yeonsuk will say that I am very strict, but I think we should have a new rule. Teachers teach, and learners learn. Learners don't teach. So the key information and key concepts in an exchange MUST be supplied by the teacher, not by the learners.

In fact, Yeonsuk, I'm not strict enough. If the teacher ONLY supplies the key information and concepts, and the children do NOTHING, or ONLY REPEAT, I'm going to suggest that Input = Output. And if Input = Output, there is NO WAY to tell if the children have learned, or if they are simply listening and repeating.

Vygotsky was a modernist. He believed very much in the ideals of the early twentieth century, modernization, and the emancipation of labor from drudgery by MACHINES and ELECTRICITY. In Moscow in the 1920s, one of the most advanced pieces of technology was a STREETCAR. Russian children were fascinated by streetcars the way that Korean children today are fascinated by Japanese anime, and they spent a lot of time DRAWING them (in one of Vygotsky's books he has hundreds of drawings of streetcars)

Continuing on from the quotation I gave previously, Vygotsky says this:

"Every form of human labor is dual in nature. In the most primitive and in the most complex forms of human labor, the worker has a dual role to perform, on the one hand as the director and foreman of the production process and on the other as a parto fhis own machine. Consider for example, the labor of a Japanese rickshaw driver who transports passengers thorugh a city and compare it with the labor of a streetcar donductor. It is clear that hte rickshaw driver is a simple source of physical force, or thrust, substituting (himself) for the power of a horse or steam or electrical power, simply by virture of his muscular or nervous energy. But at the same time, the rickshaw driver performs another role, a role in which he could not be replaced by horse, steam, or electricity; he is not only a part of his machine , but also its lord and master, the foreman and director of his own simple workshop. He lifts the shaft, starts to move the carriage and brings it to a halt at the right time, avoids obstacles, swings around turns, and selects a desired direction. The same two components are also found in the work of a streetcard conductor. He likewise moves the braking handle or power level formone point to another by the force of his muscles and transmits signals through the mechanical impact of his foot. Thus he is also a simple part of his own machien, a part that, moreover, alters the relative position of all theo ther parts. What is far more noticeable is the streetcar conductor's other role, in which he is the director and forman of a whoel complex system of engines, brakes, and signals. From this comparison, it is evident that though both components of labor are equally present in the streetcar conductor and the rickshaw driver, they have changed places. In the rickshaw driver, the job of director and foreman plays a negligible and unremarkable role by comparison wtih phsyical labor. If teh ricksaw driver happens to get tired byt he end of the day, this exhaustion will of coruse come not from direting hte machine but rather from running in harness with the shafts. On the contrary, in the case of the streetcar conductor, physical labor is nearly nonexistent and the importance of mental labor has grown enormously. (...) In preciselythe same way, teh teacher is, on the one hand, teh driector and foreman of the social environmetn in the classrom and on the other a part of the very same environment. Whenver he takes the place of a book, of a map, or a dictionary, or a colleague, he is acting like rickshaw driver who has replaced a horse. Wherever he plays the role of the part of the educational mechanism, like a rickshaw driver, there, from teh scientific poitn of view, he is not acting like an educator. He is acting like an educator only where, in self-effacing fashion, he calls upont he services of powerful forces of hte environment, directs them, and places them in ththe service of the environment. (...) Education is realized through thestudents own epxeiremence which is wholly determined byt he environemtn, and the role of the teacher then reduces to directing and guidng the environment."

I know, I know, it's a long quotation. But it's a good one. And it says that we CANNOT subsitute ourselves for the environment and we CERTAINLY can't substitute ourselves for the learner's volition. That's the key element in all of this. So...

I THINK WE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE LEARNER TALK IN ANY OF THE MATERIAL WRITTEN FOR THE MIDTER EXAM. We are teachers. Teachers teach. Teaching is not telling learners what to say. In fact, it's not even predicting what learners will say. We may organize the discourse in such a way that children are more likely to say one thing than another (e.g. use "either or" questions as opposed to open questions). But if we assume that children already know the answer then we are testing and not teaching at all, and if we tell the children answers and then ask them questions about it we are catechizing and not teaching. Vygotsky says;

The teacher’s labor, although it is not subject to the technical perfection which moves and pushes it from the rickshaw to the tram-driver, has nevertheless the same two aspects... [W]ith some exaggeration it may be said that the whole reform of contem­porary pedagogics revolves around this theme: how to reduce the role of teacher when he, just like the rickshaw-puller, plays the role of the engine and part of his own peda­gogical machine as closely as possible to zero, and how to base everything on his other role – the role of organizer of the social environment?

(1997a: 160)

T : Look at this thermometer.(showing a thermometer)

     I'll put it into hot water.

     Can you see any change?

S : 빨간 기둥이 올라가요.

T : Good. A red bar becomes longer and longer. Why does the red bar become longer and longer?

Remember that "a" is used for introducing NEW information. This is NOT new information, is it? Didn't the child see it, and notice it and remark upon it?

Also, remember that "a" means something like "one" or "any". But that's not what the teacher means here, is it?

S : because of hot water.

T : Excellent.

Is it really excellent? Water EXPANDS when it freezes. So why does the red liquid expand when it gets hot?

Wow the red bar stops. Let's read a temperature.

Notice that the teacher has a very simple rule for article use.  It works like this: the first time you say a thing, you use "a", and then afterwards you use "the".

Once upon a time there was a mountain. On the mountain was a temple. In the temple was a monk....

Julie sees a tree. In the tree, there's a kite. In the kite string, there's a bird...

We will call this the 처음점저럼 rule, after a very cheap and simple brand of 소주. The 처음처럼 rule just says First time = A, Next time = the.

Now, there's a lot of truth to this rule. But when we put it this way, it's a rule of grammar, and not a rule of discourse. The true rule (the discourse rule, the rule of life) is that the first time you SEE a thing, you IDENTIFY it as an example of something. But when you talk to somebody who can ALSO see it, you use "the", because you have both SEEN it and IDENTIFIED it already. Remember?

Julie: Look at the bird!

S : 48도 / forty-eight

T : The temperature is 48 degrees. How can we know the temperature of hot water?

S : 온도계 때문에요. / Because we used a thermometer.

T : Good. We can measure the  temperature with a thermometer.

     Tell me about thermometers.

S : We can measure the  temperature with a thermometer.

Notice that input = output. That is, all of the words in the child's answer are in the teacher's input. There is not a single word in the S answer that is not in the teacher's previous turn.

There's the problem! The teacher is providing all of the social environment of learning, and even the substance of learning. Is the teacher being a rickshaw puller or a street car conductor? 

T : Good job. We use a thermometer for measuring the temperature.  How about beakers?

S : ....

T :  Look at this beaker. On the beaker, there are scales, 눈금, like a thermometer. Tell me about beakers.

S : 양을 잴 때 써요.

A "scale" is a whole SET of lines, not a line. It's a little like the relationship between "alphabet" and "letter".

Does a beaker HAVE to have scaling lines in Korean? I thought a beaker was just the name of a container. Look at this:

http://www.myne.com/common/images/vectors/beaker.jpg

I don't see any lines!

Actually, in the experiment, the function of the beaker is NOT to measure water. In the experiment, we just put ice and water in a beaker and then add the goldfish.

Notice that the teacher doesn't use the functions of the experimental materials IN THE EXPERIMENT. But the reason why the techer is teaching these materials is that the kids are going to do an experiment with them.

Consider the way we teach games! Of course, the 지도서 has a long complex explanation. But when we see skilled teachers play games, they are much more likely to do this:

목표) First the teacher gives the AIM of the game (in the form of an AIM). "What are we playing?" "Let's play Bingo, bingo, bingo! Three in a Row!"

도구) Then the teacher introduces the TOOLS of the game (in the form of the PARTS and ROLES and OBJECTS used in the game). "What is this? This is a bingo board!" "What are these?" "This is a 'Hi!' card!"

활동) Then the teacher intoduces the MOVES of the game (by taking a turn herself!) "Look! I turn over this card!"

결과) The teacher then shows the OUTCOME of the game (by offering some prize). "Three in a row! I win! Now, YOU play and win!"

■Let's play "Hi, Jinho!"

■Look! This is a 'Hi, Jinho' card. I turn it over. I say 'Hi, Jiho!'

■Now, this is a 'Hi, Ann' card. I turn it over. I say 'Hi, Ann AND Jinho!'

■And this is a 'Hi, Nami!' card. I turn it over. What do I say?

■Right! I say 'Hi, Nami, Ann, and Jinho!" and I win! Three in a row!

We can see that the teacher uses the function of the tools IN CONTEXT to explain them. We can also see that the teacher uses his/her behavior as an example to follow. What do you think? Is it a rickshaw puller or a street car conductor?

T :  That's right. We can measure an amount of water with a beaker.

      On your desk, there is some juice. Please , measure an amount of juice with a beaker.

S : (비커를 이용하여 쥬스의 양 재기)

T : How much is it?

S : It is 120 mililiter. singular or plural?

You can see that the structure of interaction here is from GENERAL (an amount of water) to CONCRETE (some juice).

T : Good job. How did you measure the amount of juice?

Correct! But...is it necessary?

S : 비커를 사용해서요. / with a beaker.

T : Ok. Tell me about a beaker, again.

S : We can measure the amount of juice with a beaker.

What do you think? Input < Output? Input > Output? Input = Output? Rickshaw or streetcar conductor?

It looks like the teacher is working TOO HARD. Let's remember the test question again:

1.     Look at the last data. Imagine that you are the teacher. You want to make sure that the children acquire more than just the names of things (test tube, beaker, thermometer). You want to make sure they acquire the conceptual structure. In particular:

a)     You want to draw attention to the conceptual structure of English (that is, plurals for general concepts, and articles for examples and specific objects).

b)    You want to use the words they use in sentences such as “We can measure the temperature with a thermometer.”

c)     You want to check comprehension by asking a GENERAL question and then a narrower one to focus on the FUNCTION of the instrument.

a) The problem is that the teacher is talking a LOT. The more she talks, the more she makes MISTAKES with articles. What can we do about this?

I think one thing we can do about it is make sure we get exactly the right structure, and then repeat it again and again and again.

T: Do you like songs? This is a song. The song's name is .... 

T: Do you like games? This is a game. The chant's name is .... 

T: Do you like chants? This is a chant. The chant's name is .... 

Here are some possiblities.

T: Now, thermometers are for measuring. What can we do with a thermometer? What do we measure with this thermometer?

T: Tell me about themometers. What are they made of? What can they do?  So what do I measure with this thermometer?

T:  Do you know about thermometers? Well, this is a thermometer. What can the thermometer do?

What do you think? Which ones are INPUT = OUTPUT? Is this a rickshaw puller or a streetcar conductor?

T : Look at this test tube. How can you use this?

S : ....

T : Let's pour some water into a test tube. and then, pour some juice into a test tube.  How's the color of juice? Does it become thicker, or lighter?, or the same?

S : It becomes lighter. / 연해졌어요

T : Yes. Can you tell me about test tubes?

S : 섞는데 사용해요.

T : Just for mixing? tell me more.

S : 색깔 변화를 봐요.

T : Yes. We can mix solutions and  observe changes with a test tube.

S : Solution?

T : Solutions are kinds of water like juice and coffee.

Of course we don't mix juice! And coffee is an emulsion, not a solution. There's always a problem mixing everyday concepts and scientific ones.

OK. Tell me about a test tube.

S : We can mix some water.

T : We can mix some solutions with a test tube. And?

S : We can observe changes.

T : Yes. We can observe changes with a test tube.

What do you think? Input = Output? Input > Output? Input < Output?