1. An example of the integration of Knowledge
Vertical Integration(of Knowledge) tends to be intra-personal, intra-mental; It takes place within minds. 하나’s answers show how the kid develops wording into sentence through <Listen and answer> process.
T: 하나 ! Listen! I have bedrooms. Do you have bedrooms?
하나:Yes.
T: Yes? How many bedrooms do you have?
하나:....
à 하나 probably learned ‘How many’ structure at her 3rd grade days. But why does she hesitate? Maybe the addition of ‘do you have?” in the end let her puzzled.
Good thinking, Yeonshin. This didn’t occur to me. But it makes PERFECT sense, because of course of the dialogue “I have cows” which Hana learned in third grade. Very good.
Ss: 몇 개 있냐고!
하나: two.
T: Two bedrooms? Huh... How many kitchens do you have?
하나: one
à Now 하나 understood “How many______ do you have?” (sentence) needs same answer with “How many _____?” (wording), so she answered quickly.
Yes. This is an example of ‘reconstrual”. The principle is quite simple, really.
If the word “cow” can stand for an animal, then “a cow” can too, and so can “the cow”.
So a word can stand for a thing. But a word can ALSO stand for SEVERAL words.
This means that a word can be RECONSTRUED as a sentence. And a short sentence can be reconstrued as a long one.
In fact, a “tall, thin” dialogue can be reconstrued as a “short, fat” sentence. And a “short, fat” sentence can even be reconstrued as a word!
T: One kitchen. She has one kitchen.
How many living rooms?
하나: One livingroom.
à 하나 picked up ‘livingroom’ from teacher talk.(But she transformed it into ‘singular’ form by herself.) Because she found out teacher wanted her to use the noun about house as well as number. She upgraded her one word answer into noun phrase.
Excellent. She reconstrued lexis as grammar.
T: One livingroom. Oh! We are not same. Hana's house is not same with my house. Sorry. Sit down please, Hana.
à Here, pragmatic meaning is a matter. 하나 answered all questions correctly in semantic view, but the result in pragmatic view showed that 하나 is not the family member whom T wants to find.
Yes, there is a slight conflict between the semantic meanings of the cards (“meaning”) and the pragmatic meanings of the game (“theme”). Is this important? Yes, I think it is.
But I don’t think it’s important the way that “communicative language teaching” always claimed it was. “Communicative” language teachers were fixated on a model of “communication” between native speakers. Games and play are not “real communication”. They are only a means for teaching “real communication”.
This is all very well for linguists. But we are not linguists; we are elementary school teachers. In our elementary school world, games and play ARE real communication. From the child’s point of view, the semantic meanings are simply a means for carrying out the game.
That is the child’s point of view! And I am no longer so sure that it is wrong.
2. An example of the integration of Skills
When a learner takes the SAME wordings and meanings across from one medium of language use to another, it is “Horizontal integration”(of Skills). In the data, Teacher interacted with 3 students, but the whole students looked the interaction and became familiar to the frequent key questions such as “Do you have_____?”, “How many _______?”(Listening) Right after that, Teacher wanted to change T-S activity to S-S activity. T selected 숙현 as a questioner. 숙현 took the same wordings from listening to SPEAKING.
Excellent use of a definition and examples. Notice how clear this makes Yeonshin’s argument: definition—example. This is a very good pattern to follow in thesis writing.
숙현: 다솜, Do you have bedroom?
다솜: ....
Ss: yes 라고 그래
다솜: yes
숙현: How many bedroom?
다솜: three
T: three bedrooms
숙현: Do you have kitchen?
다솜: one
T: one kitchen
숙현: Do you have backyard?
다솜:yes.
숙현: How many backyard?
다솜: one backyard
숙현: (smiling and turning to the teacher) same.
T: Good. 숙현 and 다솜 are family. They live in the same house.
T: Now everyone will do the same.
When you find the family, come to the front and sit over here.
( Some students stand up here and there)
In the conclusion, there was an integration of “Listening and Speaking” in this class. (숙현 didn’t use plural form, but teacher didn’t point out that error. Maybe teacher focused on fluency rather than accuracy.)
Maybe! But fluency and accuracy are very POORLY defined; I don’t know if teachers really think about the difference very much. Often they are simply focused on simpler and clearer differences, e.g.
a) The difference between silence and speaking
b) The difference between speaking in Korean and speaking in English.
The teacher USUALLY wants the kids to speak rather than be silent (unless the classroom is too noisy). The teacher USUALLY wants the children to speak in English and not Korean (at least in English class!) That’s plenty of work for the teacher right there.
I am like you, Yeonshin! You assume that the teacher is USUALLY doing the right thing. So I think if teachers tend to ignore the difference between fluency and accuracy, they are probably doing the right thing.
3. What is the difference?
Intergrating knowledge is about the hierarchy of sounds, wordings, meanings. It can be used in planning utterance systematically. Actually kids will automatically use formula expressions like “How many ____?”, “One ____” to achieve authentic objective (i.e Finding their family member). But here, all noun words about home integrate into wordings, and those wordings integrate into both semantic, practical meaning.
Once again, Yeonshin gives us a very thoughtful definition and then goes on to give examples. Very readable, very clear, and at the same time very profound.