KT : I need two boys. Who wants to be my boy friends? My boy friends. I need two boy friends. 승건? No? 승건? Oh thank you. 우진 and 승건 they are my boy friends. |
KT uses questions to ask students to join the roles. The last sentence confirms who students are by giving a clear statement about the role.
Good! Notice how 정민 셈 isolates the PRECISE bit of data she needs (using a box and bolding) and how she "codes" the utterances by linking FORM (question and statement) with FUNCTION (checking which students will join and giving information about the role).
Now, there are two very interesting points to notice about the forms and functions we see in 정민 셈's little box of data before we go on. Once again, we'll look at vocabulary and then look at larger (grammatical) issues.
First of all, she uses the term "boyfriend". This is a little bit dangerous, in view of the discussion of sexual harrassment we saw last week. KT is a teacher who is not afraid of taking risks. But of course when she does this she excludes the girls. Is this move really worth it?
Secondly, she uses the T-Anyone question form "Who wants..." to solicit rather than nominating with a command. In fact, KT uses a STATEMENT ("I need two boyfriends") and THEN a very open question ("Who wants...").This is also a dangerous move, because the risk of no answer or a dispreferred answer as we saw last week is quite high. On the other hand, avoiding commands DOES make the language MUCH more interactive and lively--and also reversible. It DOES help to reduce the difference between the language of exposure and the language of use, and KT clearly feels that the risk is worth it.
I said in class that I hoped we would be able to look at little bit at QUANTITATIVE methods of analysis as well as QUALITATIVE methods of analysis. In fact, we are doing so already. We can easily imagine a thesis which looks at whether teachers use commands, statements or questions to get attention, whether they use commands, statements, or questions to give information, and whether they use commands, statements or questions to check understanding.
Does the teacher USUALLY use the "normal" way (that is, a command to get attention, a statement to give information and a question to check understanding)? Or does the teacher use a "strange" way (e.g., a question to get attention, as she does here)? What is the effect of that strange way? Does it INCREASE the gap between exposure and use or make it smaller?
As you can see in the data below, KT also uses the commands to cast the role.
KT : Ready? (to S16) You go first. "Let's go swimming." Ready..? One, two, ready, ..., go! |
Notice that "You go first" is not a normal command. We usually say:
a) Go first!
b) Go first.
c) S16, go first! (NOT: "S16 goes first" which would not be a command but a statement)
d) You, go first!
You see the problem. Option a) is clearly a command. Option b) is a little more like a statement. Option c) is even more statement-like. And d) has ONLY a single comma, a pause in 듣기말학 교육 to tell us that it is not a statement but a command.
In 정민 셈's data, the teacher makes a command WITHOUT a comma, which looks VERY much like a STATEMENT, not a command. Oh, what a difference an invisible comma makes!
S16 does not have much choice to speak. He/she has to say what teacher has commanded to say; "Let's go swimming".
Good.
Because the lines students speak in this role play are similar among the roles, it does not seem meaningful to 'exchange' the roles among the students who have just finished the role play. However the teacher changes the role by casting new students.
Let's go swimming.
Sounds good/Sorry, I can't.
KT : (trying to choose three volunteers by the number cards) I need three people. (showing up the three cards) Come on up here! Three! |
˞硼Ȝ碔Ȝ碬Ȝ磄Ȝ磜Ȝ磴Ȝ礌Ȝ礤Ȝ
In this case, KT uses non-verbal language to change the roles by picking up the number cards.
Now we see what 정민 셈 meant when she said that this was unnecessary because the speaking roles are similar. She's not looking at things from the point of view of the children, for whom the role of inviting and the role of accepting or refusing are very different. She's looking at things from the point of view of the teacher, for whom the dialogues are all pretty much the same. She's OUTSIDE the dialogue and not INSIDE it.
Now, from the point of view of the teacher, the purpose of these open pair dialogues is not practice, but presentation: it's giving a MODEL for future work in pairs. Usually, open pair presentation is rather rough and unpolished (because it's unrehearsed and spontaneous). That means that we don't get a very clean model for closed pairwork. And THAT means that KT wants to give a few examples before she puts the kids in pairs.
정민 셈 says that KT uses nonverbal language. But in fact she uses a clear "Open-Closed" move: a statement and then a command. It doesn't look nonverbal to me!
Second, how does the teacher control and correct errors?
There are several ways to control and correct students' errors. As written in our text book, there can be modeling, prompting, recasting.
Oh, the textbook always uses three examples of everything. But of course that's not an exhaustive list. There are millions of different ways.
In fact, there are so many different ways of dealing with errors that it's tempting to say that there isn't any system at all, and every error has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, without any generalization.
But that would make the teacher's job impossible. So we need some way of categorizing and systematizing the teacher's responses. (This too MIGHT lead us to some quantitative analysis).
Remember in "Look and Listen" our textbook set up a kind of menu of different questions, from "Looking" to "Listening".
QUESTIONS ANSWERABLE BY LOOKING
Who/what/where are they?
What are they doing?
Are they happy or sad?
QUESTIONS ANSWERABLE BY LISTENING
What are they thinking?
What are they saying?
Was your guess right or wrong?
By laying out a "range" or a "menu" of choices along a single variable, the book tries to show you that there are many many options, and that they can be related to slightly different goals.
The same thing is happening here. Kim and Kellogg try to set up a kind of RANGE, from "prevention" to "cure", in their discussion of how to deal with error.
PREVENTION (before the error)
a) modeling
b) prompting
CURE (after the error)
c) uptaking
d) recasting
In the data, we can find teacher using these three skills.
S16 : Let's...let's go... to the shopping. KT : Shopping? S4 : To the? KT : Let's go shopping? S16 : 아하, Let's go shopping. ....... S16 : Let's go swimming. |
˝<SPAN STYLE='font-family:"돋움";font-size:11.000pt;color:"#000000";line-height:19.800pt;letter-spacing:0.000pt;text-align
Good example, 정민 셈. It's actually not a simple recast. The teacher uptakes. The child responds to the uptake with a question (clear example of linguistic CONSCIOUSNESS, something Krashen would feel is superfluous, because it's a matter of learning and not acquisition). And then the teacher recasts. And the child SUCCESSFULLY masters the new structure. Brilliant.
Linguist like Krashen criticizes recasting, because he thinks it does not go forward but look backward instead of giving more comprehensible input(Mr.K p.202). He insists so because there are not enough evidence of learning from recasting.
Yes. This is the main point of dispute between Krashen and his former 제자, Michael Long and Catherine Doughty. Long and Doughty (and also Pica, Oliver, Philp, Mackey, Robinson...many others!) rejected the PURE input position and argued for the kind of "focus on form" that we see RIGHT HERE.
Who is right? The old master (Krashen) or the young students (Long, Doughty, etc.)? Well, here we have the data, and we can decide for ourselves.
However, in the data, KT recasts S16 and let S16 speak the definite sentence, after a while, S16 once again uses the correct form of the language. I think this indicates that S16 has learnt from KT's recasting.
I agree. Very well argued, 정민 셈. Bravo!
Modelling leads to less mistakes by showing students exactly what to say. Teacher models the whole 목표언어 in the beginning of the lesson with two puppets. Soon students also uses puppets and follow what they have heard. This puppets act as prompting materials as well.
But of course modelling is also a CLOSING move; it PREVENTS creativity and flexibility by closing down options. Throughout this data we've seen that the general movement of problem solving discourse is OPEN-->CLOSED, from many options to few. And modelling leads to a CLOSED-->OPEN form of discourse. Is that what we really want?
S16 : Let's go shopping! KT : Shopping? When? S16 : Saturday! KT : This Saturday? Let's go shopping this Saturday? Sounds great. |
ˠ<SPAN STYLE='font-family:"돋움";font-size:11.000pt;color:"#000000";line-height:19.800pt;letter-spacing:0.000pt;
정민 셈 is VERY good with examples. She always seems to be able to get EXACTLY the right example. Bravo!
These questions might stimulate students to speak out and help forming new knowledge.
And that's not all! Notice that prompting, unlike modelling, allows a little more OPEN-CLOSED discourse to develop over the exchange. We saw that one of the purposes for the "bridge of questions" in "Look and Listen" was not to model speaking but also to model THINKING, to teach the kids how to identify important roles and important processes FOR THEMSELVES. You can see that prompting stands further away from that goal than modelling.
KT uses modelling throughout the lesson. When a student has difficulties doing one's role, she whispers the lines to say.
Let's MOVE this example to the other modelling example, so that we have all the modelling examples together.
This isn't ALWAYS a good thing to do. You can see that I often like to just leave the data as it is and go through it line by line.
But 정민 셈's method is a little different, and it's a good method. She wants to CODE and CATEGORIZE the data. So it makes sense to put ALL the examples of modelling (successful and not so successful) together, and then move on to prompting, and see if that solves problems that modelling does not solve.
I think these modelling in this part ares only to help students memorize the language however does not encourage them for further understandings.
KT : (whispering) Sounds great! S6 : Sounds great! KT : (whispering) I like computer game. S6 : I like computer game. |
Try putting this back with the other modelling example, 정민 셈. There is no reason to follow the order of the data slavishly, and in fact there is SO MUCH data to analyze that if you follow the order of the data your analysis will get insanely complicated.
Third, how does the teacher move from frozen pairs to pairs, from "Remember and repeat" to "think and answer?"
In the beginning of the lesson, KT models 'swimming, hiking, and shopping'. When the first students pair did their role play, they just copied the teacher by using the word 'swimming, hiking and shopping'. However, later on, KT asks students to choose the verb they want to use.
KT : You go first. Ok? How about camping? Camping? S8 : (shaking her head) KT : No? KT : hiking? S8 : Hiking. KT : How about you? What do you want to do? S : Fishing, hiking. KT : Ok. Two, you. you choose two things... ....... KT : Ok. One, two, ready, go! |
A clear example of "CLOSED-->OPEN".
Finally students become able to say such as 'let's play computer game (sic), let's go camping'. Teacher leads the role-play to more opened activity than the beginning.
"Let's play computer game (sic)" is an incorrect version of something the kids learned as Fourth Graders ("Let's play computer games"). It's not an example of learning, but of remembering, and it's not a very good example either!
Suggestion
It was interesting that two characters do paper rock scissor to decide what to do in the weekend. I think it is useful to have students' attention and interest.
Yes, but in fact there are THREE characters (Ann, Joon, and Jinho) and Rock Paper Scissors is included in the chant ("Let's Chant"). This explains, by the way, why KT asks for two boyfriends!
In the middle of the lesson, KT says "sorry, I have the piano lesson" for three times. I think she tried to teach students giving a reason for refusing the invitation. She continues saying "I have a lot of homework to do". However, in the final activity done by students, they go back to paper rock scissor to decide what to do.
True--but of course the communicative function is different. In one case, you "save face" for the inviter by expressing regret--and the dialogue shows this function by having Ann re-invite Jinho to go swimming the next day. But in the other case, you decide fairly between three options.
The last activity would have been better if the lines are more authentic. Talking about the things what is more likely to happen to students in the weekend. For example, instead of going to 'shopping, hiking, or camping', maybe 'draw pictures together, eat 떡볶이, watch tv'. When considering '의사소통기능‘ or 'authenticity' in the language, I think it is also meaningful to emphasizing giving reasons about their refusal.
Wait a minute. Is "communicative function" the same thing as "autheticity"? It seems to me that not only they are different, but in many ways they are OPPOSITES.
"Authentic" language is the language of "real life", the language that kids really use. That means that all authentic language is really Korean. We can translate it into English, but of course when we do this it becomes less authentic, and it loses its communicative function.
Communicative function is what we DO with English. Now, because we use English in classrooms, there are really only THREE "authentic" communicative functions, and they ALL belong to the teacher: getting attention, giving information, and checking understanding.
So in order to teach communicative functions we NEED imaginary situations. There simply isn't any other way to reduce the distance between the teacher's language and the children's language, between the language of exposure and the language of use. From the child's point of view, authenticity is really the ENEMY of communicative function.
정민 셈, like Mr. Park, assumes that authenticity is GOOD. But isn't it possible that authenticity is really BAD?