Is the Way to the Child's Mind Through His Stomach?

[kellogg]

Midterm Question TWO

This data is from my last year English class . At the class I taught the life cycle of pine trees in the 재량활동class. I want to reanalyze my data considering this semeste learning, that is the thinking and thought.

T: Everybody, look at the screen.

Let's read together. repeat after me.

Pine trees(.) have a(.) life cycle(.)

Ss: Pine trees(.) have a(.) life cycle.(.)

T: pine tree가 뭐였어요?

Ss: 소나무

T: HAVE?

Ss: 가지고 있다

T: 가지고 있어요? What?

Ss: 한 살이, life cycle

Above the exchange, I can see the typical structural teaching which I am very accustomed to in my class. The teacher speaks sentences and students repeat after the teacher. I can see the behavioristic teaching method such as stimulus and response.

It's interesting that Handyman calls this teaching "structural". He's RIGHT, of course. Look at the way that the teacher PAUSES after "pine trees" to emphasize the structure of the sentence.

Pausing after "pine trees" makes the children feel that there is a structural unit there, and of course, there is--the subject of the sentence.

But he also PAUSES after "have a". This is a little ODD. It's true that "have" is the verb phrase (or "predicate"). But "a" is really NOT part of this unit, is it?

What would happen if the teacher wanted to even MORE structurally? Suppose the teacher wanted to teach "Pine trees" "have" and "a life cycle"? How would the teacher draw attention to "a life cycle"? Would the teacher separate "a" from "life cycle" or put them together?

Take a look at the LAST part of the exchange. The teacher really DOES separate the sentence into subject, verb, object. What happens to the ARTICLE? Why?

In the point of Vygotsky I can see heaps or collections like pine tree, life cycle.

and level of thinking, I think, is complexives.

I agree. But I'm not sure how I would show it just using this data!

Remember that a pseudoconcept is produced by the child using the WORD from an adult and his own CONCRETE, GENERALIZED representation.

Of course, the child knows what a "pine tree" is. He has seen pine trees many times. Besides, the data shows that he knows a Korean word that means the same thing.

T: pine tree가 뭐였어요?

Ss: 소나무

So here's the first question. Is the child thinking DIRECTLY of his own concrete experience with the pine tree? Or is the child thinking of the Korean word meaning? Or is the child thinking of a Korean word meaning standing for concrete experience?

(Note: a "pine tree" in English looks quite different from a 소나무 in Korean--our pine trees are VERY tall, VERY straight, and also VERY large, while Korean pine trees tend to be like the pine trees we see in Chinese paintings! Mr. Yun is actually using some American materials which show OUR pine trees. Which do you think the child would DRAW if you asked him to draw a pine tree?

Presumably the child knows what the word "have" means, although there is no real counterpart to this verb in Korean. Do you think the child could answer:

T: What else does the pine tree have?

Or how about this?

T: What else has a life cycle? Do YOU have a life cycle?

T: Let's look at the step.

First step(.) What's the first step.

What does the teacher mean by "first step"? Does him mean:

a) The first STAGE of the life cycle?

b) The first STEP in the diagramme that the teacher is using?

You can see that "cone" is actually NOT the first stage in the life cycle of a tree!

Ss: CONE

T: How do you spell?

Ss : C(.) O(.) N(.) E(.)

Mr. Yun is right--VERY structural!

T: First step is what?

Ss: CONE

T: Next step is(.) "What's this"

인재: cone

T: 여기 떨어지는 거 보여요?

아영 : needle

T: 솔방울 보이고(.) 작은 가루가 떨어지는 거 보이지요?

Ss: 꽃가루?

T: 꽃가루가 영어로 뭐였어요?

Ss: pollen

T: How do you spell?

Ss: P(.)O(.)L(.)L(.)E(.)N

Above the exchange the teacher asks the meaning of the word in translation method from English to Korean. I think that is a metalinguistic way to confirm‎ the degree of the students' understanding. In this process the teacher wants to reformulate the word concept of korean into that English one.

Yes, I think that's right. After all, the child has a system of concepts in the native language (they do NOT include "have" or "a", but they DO include "pine tree" and--perhaps--the concept of life cycle).

I think that there is something misunderstood by the teacher. The concept formation is not like a stimulus and response way, but means the higher understanding of the hierarchical order in the concept world.

Very true. But in defense of the teacher, I think he is trying to build the new concept onto old conceptual meanings.

It's not clear to me why the teacher insists on SPELLING though!

Question

a) Describe the level of thinking in the game(syncretic, complexive...)

I think the level of thinking is complxives associated with the life cycle words such as pine tree, cone, life cycle.

I can imagine a complex based on a pine tree. Do you think it's a Korean pine tree or an American one?

I can also imagine a complex based on "cone" (e.g. ice cream cones, geometric cones, party hats, and pine cones).

It's a little hard for me to see how the children could base a complex on "life cycle", since it doesn't readily suggest a concrete image.

But perhaps Mr. Yun is right, and their Korean understanding has something to do with "bicycles" and "cycling" and so on.

b) Explain how to raise the level of thinking to a higher, more conceptual level.

I think the change of the teaching technique is needed to raise the level of thinking to a higher more conceptual level.

Perhaps. I should point out, though, that using Korean concepts to build English words is a VERY high level, meta-linguistic conceptual practice. It's exactly the kind of stern, demanding teaching we associate with Handyman!

The same thing is true with Mr. Yun's insistance on SPELLING and WRITTEN LANGUAGE. Mr. Yun is insisting on the mastery of surface forms.

The real question is, though, whether doing this really affects the underlying act of THINKING. Mr. Yun has doubts. It seems very likely that kids can spell and repeat and maybe even translate without really understanding the concept of "life cycle"

First I can use the more examples to make the students to focus on the life cycle in the general way. Lots of examples make the students to form the general idea of life cycle.

Good! I agree. There are, for example, TWO different life cycles just in the life of the pine tree. And of course there is a HUMAN life cycle as well. Where do you think the teacher should begin?

Speaking of BEGINNINGS. Our teacher BEGINS with the cone. For various reasons this seems a strange place to begin. I think that the materials from America begin there because children in America play with pine cones a lot, and the author wants to begin with the child's everyday experience.

Now, in some ways, we in Korea are AHEAD　have an advantage. In America, people do not EAT pine-nuts. But we EAT pine-nuts here in Korea, and we also put them in tea.

Perhaps--the way to the child's mind is through his stomach?

Second I might use the classification game and then I develop the classification game into the life cycle game.

Do you mean classify TREES first? And then classify LIFE CYCLES?

Remember that this is a teacher who doesn't really like games very much. On the other hand, he's quite good at MIND MAPPING. Can you think of a way to do this with MIND MAPPING?

Midterm Question THREE

T : Today we think about light.

What can you see on the blackboard?

Ss : Light

T : This is a Mind map.

What can you think about light?

진아 : sun

송원 : go straight

T : Anything else?

지윤 : Magma

T : 지윤, Why do you think magma?

지윤 : Yesterday 아침자습 시간

T : I see. Anything else?

세연 : energy

T: And then

아영 : shadow

T : This time we think about…. 진아, 진아 You first think about the sun. And then think about another word. Think with the sun.

태양에서 시작해보세요

진아 : yellow, ozone

T : The sun, yellow, ozone

성민 : fire

T : This time we start with the word " energy"

형섭 : electric

다영 : wind

선정 : water

T : Good. This time we make a sentence. On the blackboard lots of words. We make a sentence with them. 문장을 만들어 봐요.

진아 : Light comes from the sun.

T : Good. Light comes from the sun. 빛은 태양에서 오지요. Anything else?

세연 : Mirror bounce off light.

T : Mirror bounces off light. What does that mean in Korean?

세연 : 반사시켜요 반사.

In Section THIRTEEN, Vygotsky notes that "complexive" thinking often results in strange juxtapositions of concrete images, because a single object can belong to many different complexes. Can you find any evidence of that in THIS data or your own?

Answer : sun, go straight, magma

Good. Very good concrete images. What is the single object that belongs to all of them?

In Section FOURTEEN, Vygotsky describes HOW a word comes to mean what it means. How does "nuclear" in "nuclear family" come to mean what it means, and how does it come to mean what the child means?

Answer : 낱말(word) 이 의미를 지니게 되는 것은 아동이 낱말에 대한 복합체적인 특성을 이해하고 문장에서 사용하는 경우이다.

세연 : Mirror bounce off light.

세연 : 반사시켜요 반사.

위 문장에서 세연이는 반사(bounce off)라는 의미를 문장에서 사용하고 있다.

Once again, we have an interesting problem. A concept is an act of thinking, a thinking process. When the child uses an English concept, there is some evidence of English thinking (e.g. use of plurals and articles and so on). But what about if the child is simply mapping an English sound onto a Korean meaning?

In Section FIFTEEN, Vygotsky says that everyday words are generalized representations and not concepts. Can you find any examples in the data?

Answer : sun, go straight, energy, electric

I can easily imagine a "generalized representation" of the sun, based on seeing the sun (almost) every day. I can also imagine a generalized representation of "go straight" (and in fact we've got several of these in our textbook, particularly Fifth Grade, Lesson Four).

But where does the child find a "generalized representation" of "energy"? How can the child visualize a generalized representation of "electric"?

Isn't it more likely that the child is renaming a Korean concept here? (Does the child know that "electric" is not a thing?)

In Section SIXTEEN, Vygotsky says there is a second, independent root of concept formation, in addition to generalized representations. What is it? Can you find any evidence of it in the data?

Answer : a second, independent root of concept formation은 추상화(abstraction)이다. 이는 일반화된 특성이 한단계 높은 추상화 단계로 이행되는 과정이다. 즉 일반화, 추상화, 개념의로의 발달을 의미한다.(vygostsky)

세연 : Mirror bounce off light.

세연 : 반사시켜요 반사.

위 예문에서 세연이는 반사라는 낱말을 추상화는 과정이라 생각할 수 있다.

In Section SEVENTEEN, Vygotsky suddenly introduces ANOTHER stage of concept formation: the potential concept. What is the "potential concept"in this data? Is it a potential concept for the teacher or for the students?

Answer : 잠재적 개념(potential concept)이란 진개념(real concept)의로 이행 전단계로 생각할 수 있다. 개념 형성 하위 단계의 두축인 일반화와 추상화 단계에서 추상화 과정이 진행중인 단계로 생가되어진다.

세연 : Mirror bounce off light.

세연 : 반사시켜요 반사.

위 예문에서 세연이가 빛의 개념중 반사를 추상화 하는 단계인지는 확신할 수 는 없지만 반사라는 낱말의 사용을 "potential concept"의 하나라고 생각할 수도 있을 것 같다.

Suppose the teacher wants to focus on GENERALIZATION.

세연 : Mirror bounce off light.

T: Good! Now, do ALL mirrors bounce light? ALL of them? Or only ONE of them?

세연 : All.

T: Right! So we say MIRRORS BOUNCE LIGHT, or MIRRORS REFLECT LIGHT. What reflects light? Mirrors do! What do mirrors do? Mirrors reflect light. What do mirrors reflect? Light!

In Section EIGHTEEN, Vygotsky arguesthat both generalization and judgment (abstraction) are necessary to concept formation. Take a careful look at the data. Which is lacking? How could the teacher provide it?

Answer : 추상화 단계가 부족하다고 할 수 있다. 일반화란 복합체적인 특성의 공통적인 요소의 심상의 구축이라고 생각하고 추상화가 이를 보다 높은 단계인 일반화의 고등적인 단계라고 생각된다.(Vygotsky)

When we look at Ms. Yi's data, we see that she uses "reflect" as well as "bounce off". The two words don't REALLY mean the same thing.

RIGHT: The ball bounces off the wall.l

RIGHT: The light bounces off the mirror.

RIGHT: The light reflects off the mirror. The mirror reflects the light.

WRONG: The ball reflects off the wall (sic). The wall reflects the ball. (sic)

You can see that the word "bounces off" is more GENERAL than the word "reflect" (it can be used in more cases, and it includes a concrete image, namely the ball).

But the word "reflect" is more ABSTRACT than the word "bounce off". It can only be used in a small subset of cases, and it does not include a clear, concrete image.