Exploring the socio-discursive space of higher education ... · Web viewExploring the...

Lillis and Grainger Focus on student-tutor talkDraft 3/6/98

Exploring the socio-discursive space of higher education: focus on

student-tutor talk

Theresa Lillis and Karen Grainger

Sheffield Hallam University

Paper presented at Higher Education Close Up, an international conference from 6-8 July 1998 at University of Central Lancashire, Preston. This conference is jointly hosted by the Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University and the Department of Education Studies, University of Central Lancashire and is supported by the Society for Research into Higher Education

1 Background to this paper

The idea for this paper grew out of comments made by students participating in a

research project exploring their experience of making meaning in academic writing 1.

A prominent theme to emerge from this study was that of student dissatisfaction with

the limited opportunity for face-to-face talk with tutors. Where talk did occur, the

students often expressed disappointment with such talk. Implicit in the students’

stated dissatisfaction and common desire for greater opportunities to engage in such

talk was a presumed usefulness of such talk for their learning and participation in

higher education. Their comments, alongside our own unease as tutors in higher

education (henceforward HE) about the increasingly limited opportunities for talk

with students, led us to want to focus on tutor/student face-to-face talk within the

context of the current shifting socio-discursive space of the university.

2. How this paper is organized

The central argument of this paper is that there is a need to focus in detail on the

socio-discursive practices of the university in order to explore both what the

university is and does, as currently configured, as well as what it might be and do. We

are using socio-discursive space here to signal our focus on the part played by

language-as-discourse in constituting, that is in reproducing and potentially

transforming, the university as a social institution. Our interest is to explore the ways

1


in which actual discourse practices, in this paper actual talk between tutor and

student, reflect, constitute and potentially contribute to transforming the nature of the

university at the levels of the context of situation and the context of culture. In

exploring this socio-discursive space we draw on the work of Fairclough in critical

discourse analysis (see Fairclough 1992 ).

This paper is exploratory. We see it as the beginning of a larger project- both in terms

of our own work and the work within the research community- to explore the nature

of the socio-discursive space, and hence the nature of, the university.

The paper is organized around the following sections:

· an overview of key dimensions of the wide ranging relevant research on talk and

learning at school level in England, as compared with the limited research

carried out to date on talk and learning in HE

· an outline of Fairclough’s framework for analyzing socio-discursive practices

· a preliminary description of the shifting socio-discursive space of one university

· analysis of specific instances of student/tutor face-to-face talk around the teaching

and learning of one prominent institutional practice, that of academic writing.

We conclude by summarizing what our focus on face-to-face student/tutor talk tells

us about the current socio-discursive space of HE and suggest future directions for

this research.

3 Key dimensions to research focusing on tutor/student talk

3.1 School based research

Whilst the activity of talk between teachers and pupils in compulsory schooling has

been the focus of research in Britain for some time, little research has been carried

out on such talk in Britain. The aim of this section is to foreground key dimensions

emerging from school based studies which we think can usefully inform approaches

to researching this area in HE.

2


Certain interests and theoretical perspectives emerge as central in school based

research on talk and learning. These are as follows: the interactive nature of teaching

and learning; the centrality of language in and for teaching and learning; talk as

teaching and learning particular social practices.

3.1.1 The interactive nature of teaching and learning

Whilst there are differing emphases, the notion that teaching and learning are

fundamentally interactive in nature is central to much school based writings on talk

and learning. Drawing on social theories of learning, in particular the work of

Vygotsky (1986) and Bruner (1983, 1986), school based research has focused on the

importance of talk for teaching and learning in general. Barnes and Britton brought

educationalists attention to the significance of teacher-pupil interaction in teaching

and learning. They identified and critiqued a transmission model of learning, where

there is an assumed flow of information from teacher to pupil, contrasting this view

of learning/teaching with studies emphasizing a view of children as active seekers of

meaning (see for example Barnes, Britton and Rosen 1969). Their work connects with

later studies by Wells, where the comparatively limited opportunities for purposeful

pupil talk within school are compared with the wide range of possibilities for talk in

the home (see for example Wells 1985, 1986).

Axiomatic to the perspective of Barnes and Britton is to start from where the child is,

(see Bullock Report 1975: 143) . Barnes states that this is an essential part of

developing, refining, or even correcting their (pupils’) existing understanding (Barnes

1990:45) thus explaining the importance he attaches to focusing on teacher/pupil talk

in order to discuss the extent and ways in which the teacher and pupil successfully

manage to negotiate meanings.

The pioneering work of Barnes and Britton has informed much research in Britain on

talk and learning at school level to date, including focuses on peer group talk

( Phillips 1988; Westgate and Corden 1993); differing educational functions of talk

( Berrill 1988; Wells 1989; Fisher 1994; ) talk and literacy (Lunzer and Gardener

1978; Wells 1990; Wells and Chang 1986); talk and computers ( Fisher 1992; Mercer

1994 ). It has also been influential in educational policy making and practice (see

Bullock Report 1975), notably through the language across the curriculum movement

3


which, although seems to have had little impact in FE and HE in Britain, has

significantly contributed to debates at both compulsory schooling in Britain and in FE

and HE levels in both Australia and North America ( see Luke and others 1989 for

Australia; see Ackerman 1993 for North America).

3.1.2 The centrality of language in and for talking to teach/learn

A focus on learning as interactive in nature inevitably involves an exploration of the

medium of that interaction. Thus language, both what it is and what it does, was

brought to the centre of attention. The ways in which the language of talk has been

analyzed varies. Within the field of education, the work of Barnes, referred to above,

is prominent. In his analyses of student/teacher talk, he focuses on language in two

ways; language as interaction and language as resource. In exploring language as

interaction, that is what is done with and through language, he typically draws on his

understandings of schooling to describe the nature of the contributions in talk. His

principal aim is to interpret what is being done in talk, for example, the teacher

defines the topic (Barnes 1990: 42)-which is used in turn to interpret what the

participants think they are doing- it as if there were two language games: the students

were playing the Describe-the-Picture game, whereas the teacher wanted the Hunt-

the Word game (Barnes 1990:42). This work focuses on extracts of talk to highlight

how and why particular types of talk are (un)successful in teaching and learning.

Barnes argues that the encouragement of pupils’ talk in the classroom is essential to

successful teaching/learning as the teacher becomes familiar with what and how,(that

is the ways the pupil talks about an area of study) the pupil already knows. This then

is the second aspect of language that is of interest, language as resource. As a

necessary prerequisite to teaching and learning, the teacher must become familiar

with the ways of knowing and wording of the pupil. Thus Barnes place emphasis on

the language the pupils use in the classroom to describe explore, question and re-

negotiate their understanding of subject areas.

From the areas of applied linguistics and sociolinguistics, there have been significant

contributions to ways of analyzing student/teacher talk. Willinsky points to a general

influence from the field of sociolinguistics on perspectives on language and learning

at school level: in particular the notion that all linguistic dialects are equal and can

thus be equally well serve the purposes of teaching and learning (Willinsky 1994: 8).

4


Educationalists interested in language have also drawn on specific areas within

sociolinguistics. For example, Swann draws on specific work within sociolinguistics

on gender to explore and analyze issues surrounding talk and gender in the classroom

(see Swann 1988; see West and Zimmerman 1983). We return to this below in 2.2.3.

There have also been significant contributions from applied linguistics in offering

ways of analyzing teacher/student talk. Sinclair and Coulthard focused on talk

between the pupil and the teacher and constructing a framework for analyzing such

talk (1975). Through this framework- lesson, transaction, exchange, move, act- they

could identify patterns of teacher-pupil interaction in the classroom. They identified a

basic exchange structure, common across classrooms, the IRF structure- initiation,

response, feedback; that is, initiation by the teacher, a response by the pupils and

feedback to that response by the teacher. Stubbs pursued this focus on discourse

analysis of classroom talk, arguing that without what he perceived as the rigour of

discourse analysis, research setting out to explore classroom talk would only be

scratching the surface of talk as data (see Stubbs 1981).

The work of Edwards and Mercer (1985) and Mercer (1995) builds on both earlier

work by Barnes and Britton, as well as the discourse oriented analyses of Sinclair,

Coulthard and Stubbs. They draw on the latter in order to identify patterns of

interaction in talk, whilst emphasizing their specific and different interest in relation

to the purpose of analysis. Thus, for example, whilst Edwards and Mercer focus on

patterns of IRFs they set out to explore their significance for knowledge making in

teaching and learning, that is, in the establishment of joint understanding (Edwards

and Mercer 1985: 10). Their interest is in talk in relation to the aim of education,

which, according to Mercer, should be as follows:

the important goal of education is not to get students to take part in the conversational exchanges of educational discourse (for example IRFs), even if this is required of them on the way. It is to get students to communicate, ‘ways with words’ which will enable them to become active members of wider communities of educated discourse. 1995:81

In exploring their interest in the purposes of particular patterns of discourse, Edwards

and Mercer draw on their understanding of classroom practices thus validating Barnes

method of drawing on researcher insights into a particular context. However, by

emphasizing their interest in the ways in which teacher pupil interaction through talk

5


facilitates the learning of educated discourse they problematic any straightforward

dichotomy between the pupils’ ‘own words’, suggested in the work of Barnes, and

those of subject areas. In Barnes emphasis on the pupils’ ‘own words’, there is an

underlying assumption of the romantic individual using her own words to make

meaning, connecting with what Maclure refers to as the liberal humanist perspective

on oracy for the develop of talk in schooling which Maclure refers to as oracy for

personal growth (1994: 140). In contrast, Edwards and Mercer’s emphasis on the

teacher as discourse guide represents an apprenticeship model of teaching and

learning, whereby the teacher apprentices pupils into the institution’s ways of

knowing. For this reason, Mercer argues that teaching involves the guided

construction of knowledge (1995). Teaching and learning the discourse, how to talk,

is viewed as central not separate, as might seem to be the case in some of the more

expressivist approaches, to language and learning, exemplified in the work of Barnes.

The work of Edwards and Mercer thus connects with ethnographic approaches

towards language and literacy and notions of language as social practice. This

apprenticeship model is one which we think is relevant in exploring the teaching and

learning of discourse conventions in HE.

3.1.3 Talk as social practice

Examples of a social practice view of pupil-teacher talk include the work of Mehan

and Hammersley in North American and British schools respectively. A social

practice view involves acknowledging that any instance of talk is not an autonomous

event but represents a particular way of wording, meaning, knowing and being at the

level of the particular context in which it takes place as well as at the broader societal

level of context. As Mehan states.

To practices social life is, literally, to work at its production, maintenance and transformation (Mehan 1990: 82)

Both Mehan and Hammersley foreground the relationship between particular features

of teacher/pupil classroom talk and features of on the institutional talking spaces- it is

the teacher who has the right to question, command, challenge and occupy the talking

space within the classroom with little opportunity for active participation on the part

of the pupil. In this frame, then, pupils are viewed as learning, not just the rules of

6


classroom talk but to accept rather than challenge dominant cultural values and

practices.

Substantial attention has focused on the ways in which pupil/teacher talk works

towards maintaining dominant gendered practices within society. For example,

teachers have been found to address girls less frequently than boys, as well as boys

demanding more responses from the teacher; in this way routine classroom interaction

contributes to the notion and practice that boys- males- have a right not only to

dominate the social space of the classroom but in society more generally ( see for

example, Spender 1982; Swann 1992).

Studies which take a social practice view involve a range of types of analysis but

involve focusing, in some way, on specific instances of talk and locating such talk

within a wider social context. Within the field of the sociology of education,

emphasis has been placed on viewing interaction at the micro level of classrooms as

predominantly instantiations of the macro level of society (see for example

Hammersley 1977). More recently, writers within the field of language/linguistics in

education problematise any straightforward reading of macro social relations from the

micro context, through an emphasis on detailed analysis of texts of interaction. Thus

Edwards and Mercer challenge the notion of teacher dominance in talk, arguing that

the different ways in which pupils engage with the teacher in talk significantly

contributes to both what and how of talk (see also the work of Sperling 1990 on

pupil/teacher talk about writing in North American classrooms).

3.2 Learning from school based studies

In setting out to explore the significance of tutor/student face-to-face talk within the

university, we have drawn on school based studies of talk both in relation to

substantive themes and methodological approaches. What we learn from the school

based studies in relation to prominent themes, includes the following:

· Teacher/pupil talk plays a significant part in teaching and learning.

· There are dominant patterns in teacher/student talk which indicate that specific

features of talk have specific functions in the context of formal education and in

7


many cases these patterns may be applicable to, and meaningful in HE as well

as the school environment.

· At the same time, what teachers and pupils do varies indicating a range of possible

types of interaction. It is not necessarily always good (or bad) to talk

· Teacher/pupil talk is not autonomous but takes place within a specific context.

This context contributes in significant ways to what the talk can do.

In relation to approaches to methodology and forms of analysis we draw in

particular on the following understandings:

· At the micro level, that is at the level of actual texts (talk as texts) it is important to

focus on patterns of talk in relation to the potential functions they serve within

the specific context of teaching and learning. However, in doing so, the insights

of the researcher/analyst are to be viewed as useful rather than a hindrance in

any interpretation of language in use.

· At the micro/macro levels, it is important to draw on a theoretical framework of

language which enables us to explore specific instances of tutor/student talk within

complex notions of context.

We now turn to consider the predominantly implicit interest in talk between tutor and

students in he to date.

8


3.3 HE based research

3.3.1 Studies on student/tutor talk

In contrast to the wealth of school based research, there are few studies focusing on

student/tutor talk in HE in Britain. There have been some work on student and tutor

participation in tutorials, focusing predominantly on the amount of tutor talking time

as compared with talk by students (see for example Preston 1986, 1987; Broady

1986). Catt and Eke (1995), have recently outlined some of the ways in which talk

has been foregrounded as an important area for study at school level, and have argued

for the need to focus on tutor/student talk in initial teacher training. However, to date

their exploration has not included analyses of actual talk.

An area of growing research interest because of its introduction into teaching and

learning practices in HE is computer mediated learning.(see, for example, the journals

Computers in adult education and training and Journal of computer assisted learning).

Here, whilst not foregrounded, there is an implicit interest in student/tutor talk,

particularly through questions about the extent and ways in which tutors and students

participate in computer mediated interaction. In such studies interaction is typically

evaluated in quantitative terms, for example the number of participants in a

conference, the length of contribution (see for example Mowrer 1996). There have

also been attempts to explore patterns of computer mediated interaction in relation to

learning (see, for example Mason 1991 who attempts to evaluate contributions in

relation to educational value, such as, posing questions, presenting well argued point

of view; see Laurillard 1993 for perspective on educational technology in relation to

teaching and learning; see also Webb, Newman and Cochrane 1994 for attempt to

connect interactions with notions of deep and surface learning ).

A further example of an implicit interest in student/tutor talk is evident in Goldfinch’s

study setting out to explore the effectiveness of school-type classes with the

traditional lecture/tutorial organization of teaching and learning (1996). Effectiveness

was measured in terms of exam/course work results and student and staff preferences

were sought. On the basis of both results and preferences, school-type classes were

9


considered to be more effective. Whilst Goldfinch doesn’t analyze actual instances of

student/tutor talk, her comments signal the centrality of such talk in and for learning:

The main reasons for the preference ( of both staff and students) are the chance to match the teaching pace to the students, the greater freedom to ask questions, and the improved rapport between students and staff (1996: 219)

These comments implicitly point to the importance of face-to-face talk. For example,

information and clarification seeking as well as relational talk are implied in the

above quotation. We would suggest that that the particular types of talk afforded by

the school-type class are influential in both tutors and students’ preference for such

classes over the lecture/tutorial methods.

The most explicit exploration of tutor student face-to-face talk within the context of

HE that we have found is the work of Mitchell (1996). Mitchell, elucidating on

Harre's model of personal and social development has explored the ways in which

talk between tutors and students, in Fine Art ‘crits’, contributes to the construction

both of the fine Art objects the students are producing and to the students’ sense of

self(ves) as fine artists. She refers to the tutor's role as discourse leader (153) thus

echoing Mercer in foregrounding the role of the teacher in apprenticing the student

into a particular discourse. But she differs from Mercer in emphasizing student/tutor

talk as contributing to the construction of the students’ selves as artists working

within a particular discourse. We do not pursue this dimension to talk in this paper

but have begun to explore this elsewhere (see Lillis 1998).

3.3.2 The official stance: key skills

Alongside the limited analysis of student/tutor talk in HE in Britain, it is important to

acknowledge the existence of a powerful discourse on talk in HE. In official

documentation around HE practice and provision in recent years, emphasis is not on

talk in relation to learning, as in school based studies, but rather on talk as a desirable

and discrete skill (see for example the Dearing Report- see the National Committee of

Inquiry into HE 1997- and the call for communication as one of the key skills that

universities should develop). Driven by notions of economic success and

employability, emphasis has increasingly been placed on the importance of

developing discrete skills which are seen to be necessary both for the purposes of

10


academia and for the workplace (see Barnett 12994: chapter 4). The focus on key and

transferable skills has become a significant way of talking and thinking about

communication in HE. However, this focus on student development of

communication skills has been criticized for its narrow technicist stance. For

example, Barnett has criticized the official approach towards communication in

general where communication is framed in terms of means rather than as ends, and

of strategic communication rather than communication oriented to reaching a

consensus (Barnett 1992:183; see also Barnett 1994; for problematization of notion of

‘communication skills’, see Cameron 1995 ).

We would argue that given the lack of exploration of the nature of communication in

HE, set against a currently powerful official view on what communication is and

should be, there is an urgent need to focus on both actual instances of communication,

as well as desired types of communication. Our preliminary work here is intended as

a contribution.

4 A framework for exploring student-tutor talk within the socio-discursive

space of the university

As stated above (see 1) our interest is to focus on the ways in which actual discourse

practices, reflect, constitute and potentially contribute to transforming the nature of

the university. In setting out to explore the socio-discursive space of the university we

have found the work of Fairclough useful. Fairclough offers a three dimensional

framework for analyzing socio-discursive practices:

Any discursive 'event' (i.e. any instance of discourse) is seen as being simultaneously a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and instance of social practice. (1992:4)

Within this framework, talk between tutor and student is to be viewed not as

autonomous but as intimately bound up with the particular social context in which it

take place. Thus talk between student and tutor can be viewed as a specific instance

of language in use- text- which at the same time is constitutive both of tutor/student

relations at the context of situation and the context of culture of the university as a

social institution. Specific instances of talk thus work towards reproducing or

11


transforming the nature of the particular institution in which they take place. We

would also include here the existence or not of particular types of talk- in this

instance face-to-face talk between student and tutor.

In considering the dynamic relationship between the context of culture and specific

texts, Fairclough emphasizes that the conventions underlying language use in specific

contexts are not somehow neutral but are ideologically inscribed. That is, the

conventions surrounding for example who should talk, when and how reflect

dominant values and practices within society. By drawing on them in normative

ways, participants contribute to the maintenance of existing power relations. Ivanic,

drawing on Fairclough states:

A single instance of language use draws on conventions which are determined by particular values, beliefs and practices in the context of culture. The single instance of language use thereby minutely contributes to reinforcing those values, beliefs and practices, and opposing others. (Ivanic: 1998:43)

In focusing on the possibilities for, and the nature of, student/tutor talk we are

attempting to explore such talk within the context of situation and culture of HE as

currently configured, whilst at the same time attempting to explore the nature of that

context of situation and culture. In doing so, we are conscious of the need to make

visible the conventions underlying actual talk and institutional practices in order to

explore the significance of tutor/student talk in, and for, the university.

12


5 A preliminary description of the shifting socio-discursive space of one

university

In order to explore specific instances of talk, we need also to explore the nature of the

actual university at the levels of context of situation and culture in which student/tutor

talk does and as importantly, doesn’t take place. Therefore we offer here a brief and

preliminary description of several contextual dimensions of one new university which

we think are significant when considering the significance of talk in, and for, HE.

5.1 Increasing student numbers/decreasing opportunities for face-to-face talk

The growth in the number of students and the wider diversity of social backgrounds

of the students attending HE is well documented (see for example HEFCE Report

1996; DFEE 1998). Whilst recent available figures do not point to this increase in

numbers as having a major impact on staff-student ratios and hence the nature of

tutor/student talking spaces ( DFEE figures point to a shift from 14:1 to about 16-1),

personal accounts by tutors’ point to having to teach an increasing number of

students, alongside decreasing opportunities for face-to-face communication, either in

formally allotted tutorial time or informal opportunities because of workload. This

can be illustrated by the experience of one of us, working as a lecturer in the ‘new

university’ we are exploring. Over a period of 8 years the size of seminar groups has

nearly doubled (going from groups of about 12 in 1990, to of 18-20 in 1998).

Furthermore, the time allotted for each seminar has decreased from 2 hours to 1.5

hours. The total teaching time for each student on each unit has typically changed

from 23 hours of lectures and 46 hours of seminars in a year to 10 hours of lectures

and 15 hours of seminars. Personal tutorials have been abolished, to be replaced with

a centralized student support system. The yearly intake of students on the degree in

question has increased substantially (nearly doubled) since 1990 without any increase

in numbers of teaching staff. Not surprisingly, it is almost a daily complaint of

teaching staff that they cannot teach subjects in the same depth as a decade ago, nor

do they feel they are able to really get to know their students.

13


5.2 The real and virtual campus

Physically the ‘new university’ is in the process of shifting to the centre of the city. It

therefore stands in contrast to its principal previous location and one common to

many university sites, that is, in the leafy suburbs distant from the heart of the city.

Thus, on the face of it, the university, as well as allowing access to people from social

groups historically excluded, can be seen to be moving towards the masses. However,

there are tensions around any presumed wider access, both in relation to the nature of

students’ participation in learning in HE and evident in the university as both physical

and virtual space. We return to the former in our discussion in 5. Here we wish to

comment on the physical space against the backdrop of significant shifts towards a

virtual space.

Cursory observations of the way space is organized within this new centrally located

building indicate contradictory messages. Consider for example the implications of

staff now working in large open plan offices: unlike in older buildings with staff in

smaller offices and where students tended to knock directly on doors, students now

have to make appointments through a reception type area. In some instances, student

access is strictly prohibited.

Secondly, whilst physically the university is closer to more people’s daily activity

(the railway station, the bus station, shops, cinemas) there is a significant shift

towards the notion and practices of a ‘virtual campus’. By ‘virtual campus’, we mean

any teaching and learning practices predominantly mediated by the use of computers

and where it is assumed teacher and learner will share virtual rather than real physical

space. That this is a strategic decision is clear from official policy statements and

reflected in the nature of curriculum projects funded by the central institute of the

university to support teaching and learning.

14


5.3 Research signaling need for talk/human contact

At the same time that the above significant changes are occurring- the university

growing in size and diversity of student population, the shift towards the virtual

campus- research reports emerging from this university on the student experience in

HE point to desires for greater tutor/student face-to-face contact. Thus Ottewill’s

work (in progress) focusing on exploring the transition from school to HE, highlights

students’ desire for greater individual guidance and support from tutors; Allen and

Spriggs (in progress) in exploring the experience of part time students through

questionnaires, found that a recurring theme was the students’ desire for more face-

to-face contact with their tutors; Parmakis, in a recent study using questionnaires to

explore student retention and progression, found that there was substantial

dissatisfaction with the amount and type of tutor ‘feedback’ ( Parmakis 1997);

Johnson, in research setting out to explore students’ experience of providing feedback

to lecturers points to the students’ wish for more meaningful, participate,

relationships with tutors (see Johnson 1998).

There is also locally based research which points to tutors’ desires for more face-to-

face contact with students. Bingham, in work exploring tutors’ practices and

perspectives on open and distance learning, refers to tutors’ calls for greater student

support, effective models of student support in helping the students to use open

1NOTES

? See Lillis 1998

15


learning materials. In relation to the increasing emphasis on open and distance

learning materials, Bingham comments as follows:

There was a strong feeling that whilst the materials may replace the delivery of information, thereby challenging the traditional role of the tutor, staff now focus more on drawing out learning and understanding. (1997)

Implicit in staff comments highlighted in this report is the assumption that talk

between staff and students is the chief means of providing the support that students

need in order to achieve greater understanding, echoing Goldfinch’s study referred to

in 2.2.1

All of the above works do not focus explicitly on student/tutor face-to-face talk.

However, they implicitly signal the importance and significance attached to such talk

and, hence, we would argue of the need to explore the purposes of actual talk.

5.4 Students’ comments on the talking space

As stated in the introduction, the idea for this paper grew out of a research project not

on talk, but on student writing. The students involved in the study were all ‘non-

traditional students in their first year of an HE course2. A recurring them across

student-writers’ accounts of their experience of engaging in academic writing, was

their dissatisfaction with the kind of talking space with tutors that they encountered.

Here are some examples of their comments which point to dissatisfaction in specific

relation to the teaching and learning of the dominant literacy practice in HE, that of

essayist literacy 3. The students’ concern is to find out the demands surrounding the

essay questions they were being set;

Example 1 Tara

2 We are usng the term ‘non-traditional’ to signal that the students involved were from social groupings historically excluded from HE in Britain.

3 For elucidation and discussion of essayist literacy, see Scollon and Scollon 1981; Gee 1996.

16


He (tutor) goes on the board then and said..erm..This is how you do it, introduction, main body, conclusion, that’s it. Go off and do it now.’So we all said to ourselves ‘thanks very much, like, you’re a bloody big help.

Example 2 TaraI’ve asked loads of questions (about how to interpret ‘advise’ in the wording of the essay question) but they said, ‘you advise him’ and I said, ‘yeah, but do I speak to him so I’m giving him the advice’, or..?.He said, ‘Well, if you do that then you won’t get all the acts done.’ So..he just couldn’t be bothered I assume.

Example 3 DianeI even said to the woman in the seminar, and I said, you know when you give these questions out, it’s like you’re trying to trick students, like, that doesn’t look how, it doesn’t say, I don’t mean talk about what stereotype is, just talk about the causes and effects.

Example 4 NadiaN: I'm not really taking them (the verbal and written comments made by the tutor ) into account.T: Ignoring her? Why?N: Ignoring her basically. If I could go and talk to her about it then maybe I'd take them into consideration, but I'm glad I actually changed from her to somebody else.(My emphasis).

Example 1 is an extreme example of the monologic talking space between student and

tutor; the tutor makes only a minimal effort to teach the students the conventions

surrounding student essay writing and makes no attempt to find out students’ current

state of understanding about such rules in order to, build bridges between existing and

new knowledge/practices. In the remaining three examples, whilst there are

opportunities for individual face-to-face talk between students and tutors, there is

clearly dissatisfaction with such talk. In example 2, whilst there is space for

questioning and answering, the student feels frustrated by the lack of shared meanings

about the nature of the task and assumes minimal interest on the part of the tutor. In

example 3, the student is again frustrated but this time by what she views as the

apparent unwillingness on the part of the tutor to simply state things as they are.

Example 4 indicates clearly that the student desires a different kind of talking space

with the tutor. Here Nadia doesn’t view the tutor’s talk as meaningful ‘talk’; for

although she has talked with the tutor she states if I could go and talk to here about it.

She clearly desires a different type of talking relationship, even though she is not

explicit about what this might be/involve.

17


From our preliminary exploration of the nature of the socio-discursive space in

relation to face-to-face student/tutor talk, we suggest that within the increasingly

complex and shifting socio-discursive space of the university, there is increased

institutional emphasis on reducing the possibilities for face-to-face talk between

individual students and tutors alongside significant indications of a desire for such

talk, on the part of both tutors and students.

In the next section we focus on instances of talk to explore what it is in talk that

students , and tutors, may desire. We acknowledge that there will be many reasons

that students and tutors desire face-to-face talk, not least talk as a form of human

contact (see Ashworth 1998). However, our aim here is to explore why talk may be

desired in relation to the teaching and learning of the particular literacy practice

demanded in HE, which we refer to throughout as essayist literacy (see endnote 3).

From this study and studies elsewhere the conventions surrounding essayist literacy

are not transparent and are not easily taught/learned. They are particularly not easily

taught/learned through type of talking space student-writers reported.

6. Talking to teach and learn

As stated in the introduction, the idea for this paper grew out of a research project

exploring students’ experiences around academic writing (see Lillis 1998). Alongside

the research aims of the study, a further explicit aim was for the tutor-researcher

(henceforward in this paper referred to as tutor) to teach the student-writer the

conventions of student academic writing. The talk between student-writer and tutor-

thus represents the type of institutional opportunities for talk that both students, in

this study and in the studies mentioned in 4.3 , seem to desire, although, it is

important to add, feel they do not have. Our aim in this section is to explore specific

extracts of talk between one student and the tutor in order what is being done in the

talk and how such talk constitutes (or not) teaching and learning.

6.1 Talking to do academic literacy with Sara

18


A major concern of all the students in the study was how to respond to the ‘essay

question’. Much tutor/student talk therefore focused on exploring whether the student

seemed to be responding in, what the tutor considered to be, an appropriate way to

the essay question. In this section we will focus on extracts from talk between one

tutor, Theresa with one student, Sara. The extracts have been selected because they

contain specific features and purposes which were common across tutor/student talk.

In the extracts the tutor and student are talking about Sara’s draft responses to the

following essay question:

Essay question

Discuss the ways in which different linguistic environments affect the development of bilingualism in pre-school (under 5 years) children.

19


Extracts from text Talk about text12345678910

I hope that by the end of this assignment I may have come to some sort of conclusion, as to why some children are proficient in some languages and notothers. (Se2d1: 40-44)

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243

T: That doesn’t seem to me to be really what you’re doing.(Re-reads section)S: What about linguistically capable?T: But you’re talking about a specific group of children aren’t you?S: Bilingual children.T: Right, so I think you need to be specific here as to why someS: [bilingual children, would that be better?T: Well let’s try and follow that through.Some bilingual children areS: [well, yeah. I mean some bilingual children are proficient in some languages and not others.T: But if you’ve already called them bilingual, you’ve got a problem there.S: Yeah, well but the business about what is bilingual though. I mean, who is considered a bilingual, when are you bilingual?T: Right okay, let’s take it like that.(T re-reads section)T: Have you come to any conclusion about what might be the best environment?S: Yes. I mean, there were some things in there that I thought that’s a good idea, I could use that myself.T: Well, don’t you think then that what you’re saying is I may have come to some sort of conclusion as to why certain environment help children to become bilingual more than others. Isn’t that what you’re doing?...S: I think that’s probably what I’m trying to say but I haven’t written it down properly.T. It’s just that, what you’ve written here is too vague. (T reads extract) The second reason given here should be the key.(contd)

20


Extract from text Talk about text contd.1112131415

what effects different environments have on their development (Se2d1:55)

444546474849505152

S: Yeah ( sounds unsure).So if I said erm that by the end of the assignment I may have some ideaT: [as to why some children...S: erm...T: develop bilingual skills and what effect that has on their development. I mean that’s what you’re talking about,

21


5354555657585960

aren’t you?S: How they develop bilingual skills.T: YeahS: Can I write that down or I’ll forget.S: (Writes) As to why, no... how some children develop bilingual skills.T: I think that’s much more what you’re saying... and then what effects.S: Yeah. ( Writes) (Se2disd1side 2:268).

4

4 Conventions used for transcribing the talk. , ?Conventions of punctuation used to

indicate in writing my understanding of the sense of the spoken words (see Halliday

1989:90) Tinitial of person speakingunderliningword

stressed[overlaps/interruptions...long pause (longer than 2 seconds)(sounds

unsure)transcriber’s comments for additional description*unclear speech---gap in data

transcribed

REFERENCES

Ackerman, J. (1993) The promise of writing to learn, Written communication, 10,3:

334-370.

Allen, J. and Spriggs, L.. In progress. The part-time student experience.

Arnberg, L. (1987) Raising children bilingually: the pre-school years, Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Ashworth, P. (1998) Aspects of the contemporary experience of university life:

technical rationality versus humanism, Professorial lecture, Sheffield Hallam

University.

Barnes, D., Britton, J. and Rosen, H. (1969) Language, the learner and the school,

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Barnes, D. (1990) Oral language and learning. In S. Hynds and D. L. Rubin eds.

Perspectives on talk and learning, Urbana,Ill: NCTE.

------------ (1992) The role of talk in learning. In K. Norman ed. Thinking voices,

London: Hodder and Stoughton.

22


In exploring extracts of talk, we are drawing on those methods of analysis from

school based studies which use the researcher’s’ insights into a particular context, as

well as seeking to identify particular discourse patterns within the talk.

This episode of talk includes a number of features common across the talk between

the student-writers and the tutor. In the above talk episode, the institutionally

sanctioned teacher and student talking roles, which have been emphasized in analyses

of school based talk, are prominent. The tutor controls the opening and closing of the

Barnett, R. (1992) Improving higher education. Total quality care, Buckingham:OUP

------------ (1994) The limits of competence. Knowledge, higher education and

society, Buckingham: OUP.

Berrill, D. (1988) Anecdote and the development of oral argument in sixteen-year

olds. In Maclure, Phillips and Wilkinson eds..

Bingham, R. (1997) Supporting the move to open and distance learning, Interim

report, Learning and teaching institute, Sheffield Hallam University.

Broady, M. (1986) The conduct of seminars. In D. Bligh ed. Teach thinking by

discussion, SRHE/NFER: Nelson.

Bruner, J. (1983) Child’s talk, London: OUP.

----------- (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds, London: Harvard University Press.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987) Politeness: some universals in language use,

Cambridge: CUP.

Bullock Report (1975) A language for life, London: HMSO.

Catt, R. and Eke, J. (1995) Classroom talk in higher education: enabling learning

through a reflective analysis of practice, IETI, 32, 4: 362-369.

National Committee for Inquiry

DFEE (1998) Departmental report, London: The Stationery Office Ltd..

23


sequence. In general, the tutor controls the talk by assuming her institutional right to

ask questions and make evaluations of the student-writer’s comments: there are

obvious, although extended, initiation-response-feedback patterns (IRF), for example

at lines 1-7, 25-41, where the tutor acts as questioner and evaluator of Sara’s work

(for IRF see Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; for similar pattern, IRE , see Mehan 1979);

the tutor engages in what Edwards and Mercer call cued elicitation at lines 12-16 (see

Edwards and Mercer 1987: chapter 7; Mercer 1995: 26-27) where she guides Sara’s

contribution by seeking to elicit specific responses; and cued elicitation as part of

Edwards, D. and Mercer, N. (1987) Common knowledge. The development of

undestanding in the classroom, London/New York: Methuen.

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and social change, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fisher, E. (1993) Distinctive features of pupil-pupil classroom talk and their

relationship to learning: how discursive text exploration might be encouraged,

Language and education: 7,4: 239-257.

Gee, J. (1996, 2nd edn.) Social linguistics and literacies. Ideologies in discourses,

Basingstoke: Falmer Press.

Goldfinch, J. (1996) The effectiveness of school-type classes compared to the

traditional lecture/tutorial method for teaching quantitative methods to business

students, Studies in higher education, 21,2: 207-220.

Hammersley, M. (1977) School learning: the cultural resources required by pupils to

answer a teacher’s question. In P. Woods and M. Hammersley eds. School

experience, London: Croom Helm.

Harris, M. (1986) Teaching one-to-one. The writing conference, Urbana, IL: National

Council of Teachers of English.

HEFCE (1996) Widening access to higher education. A report by the HEFCE’s

advisory group on access and participation, Bristol: HEFCE.

Ivanic, R. (1998) Writing and identity. The discoursal construction of identity in

academic writing, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

24


modelling written text (see lines 47-53); and joint modelling with the student-writer;

the tutor controls the opening and closing of the sequence. We are using modelling

here to mean instances in talk where the student and tutor rehearse sections of written

text orally (this is in line with examples of modelling given by Harris 1986: 66-69).

There is evidence of the tutor attempting to minimize her directive role through

different types of hedging: for example, that doesn’t seem to me to be really what

you’re doing (line 1); don’t you think ( line 31), isn’t that (line 35) , I mean (line 52).

Johnson, R.(1998) Student feedback as technical control. Student feedback as

technology of communication, Paper presented to SEDA Learning Technologiey

Network Conference, University of Southampton, April 1998.

Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking university teaching. A framework for the effective

use of educational technology, New York/London: Routledge.

Lillis, T. (1997) New voices in academia? The regulative nature of academic writing

conventions, Language and education, 11,3: 182-199.

---------- (1998) Making meaning in academic writing. A study with ten women

student-writers, Unpublished PhD thesis, Sheffield Hallam University.

Luke, A., Gilbert, P., Rowe, K., Gilbert, R., Ward, G. and Baldauf, Jr, R. (1989) An

evaluation of literacy strategies in two Australian sites, Canberra: department of

Employment, education and training.

Lunzer, E.A. and Gardener, K (eds) (1978) The effective uses of reading, London:

Heinemann.

MacLure, M., Phillips, T. and Wilkinson, A. (1988) (eds) Oracy matters. The

development of talking and listening in education, Milton Keynes: OUP.

MacLure, M. (1994) Talking in class: four rationales for the rise of oracy in the UK.

In B. Stierer and J. Maybin eds..

Mason, R. (1991) Analysing computer conferencing interactions, Computers in adult

education and training, 2,3: 161-172.

25


Whilst some of these exchanges take on a particular significance for the teaching and

learning of essayist literacy as we discuss below, they are also politeness strategies;

paying attention to Sara’s negative face wants through hedging allows the tutor the

possibility of re-directing Sara’s text without directly rejecting her text and views (see

Brown and Levinson 1987). The negative tags in the sequence - don’t you think, isn’t

that what you’re doing, aren’t you?- are indications of the tutor’s attempt to persuade

her to take up the directives.

Mehan, H. (1979) Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom, Cambridge

Mass.: Harvard University Press.

------------ (1990) The school’s work of sorting students. In D. Boden and D.H.

Zimmerman eds. Talk and social structure, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mercer, N. (1995) The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and

learners, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mitchell, S. (1996) Institutions, individuals and talk: the construction of identity in

Fine Art, Journal of art and design education, 15, 2: 143-154.

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) Higher education in the

learning society. Report of the National Committee, Crown Copyright.

Ottewill, R. In progress. Student motivation, Sheffield Business School, Sheffield

Hallam University.

Parmakis, J. (1997) Promoting student success. An investigation into the retention

and progression of first year students at Sheffield Hallam University, Learning and

Teaching Institute, Sheffield Hallam University.

Preston, G. (1986) A review of the teaching and learning strategies used in the

teaching of history at Bath College of Higher Education, Unpublished Med

dissertation, University of Bath.

Preston, G. (1987) Computer conferencing: can it help to improve the quality of face-

to-face group discussion?, Learning resources journal, 3,3: 115-124.

26


All of the tutor’s contributions are directed at pushing Sara towards constructing a

unifying central focus, as demanded in essayist literacy. The tutor does this notably

by introducing wordings from the essay question in her talk and eliciting them from

Sara: at lines 4-6, towards the group of people intended to be the focus of the

question, children being brought up bilingually; at lines 25-36, towards the particular

dimension of their experience to be explored, that is, their environment. The tutor

ignores Sara’s comments at line 28-30 on the usefulness of the text by Arnberg she is

drawing on (Arnberg 1987) in order to steer her towards a central focus on the effect

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.B. K. (1981) Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic

communication, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards analysis of discourse: the English used

by teachers and pupils, Oxford: OUP.

Sperling, M. (1990) I want to talk to each of you: collaboration and the teacher-

student writing conference, Research in the teaching of English, 24, 3: 279-321.

Swann, J. (1988) Talk control: an illustration from the classroom of problems in

analyzing male dominance of conversation, in J. Coates and D. Cameron eds. Women

in their speech communities, London/New York: Longman.

Stierer, B. and Maybin, J. (1994) (eds.) Language, literacy and learning in

educational practice, Clevedon:Multilingual Matters/OUP.

Stubbs, M. (1981) Scratching the surface: linguistic data in educational research. In

C. Adelman ed. Uttering, muttering: collecting, using and reporting talk for social

and educational research, London: Grant McIntyre.

Swann, J. (1988) Talk control: an illustration from the classroom of problems in

analyzing male dominance of conversation. In J. Coates and D. Cameron eds. Women

in their speech communities, London: Longman.

----------- (1992) Girls, boys and language, Oxford: Blackwell .

Vygotsky, l. (1986) Thought and language, trans. A. Kozulin, Camb. Mass: MIT

Press.

27


of the environment on the development of bilingualism. Having established the focus

in terms of who and what, the tutor works with Sara to model text which she might

include in her essay, at lines 40-58.

For her part, Sara actively works with the tutor in the talk by responding to direct

questions (for example at lines 6 and 28) offering suggestions (lines 3 and 9)

introducing her own questions about a term (19), introducing her own opinion on a

source text (lines 28-30), echoing the tutor’s comment that there are problems with

Webb, B.M, Newman., D.R. and Cochrane, C. (1994) The role of computers in

improving student learning, in. G. Gibbs ed. Improving student learning. Theory and

practice ,Oxford. Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Wells, G. (1985) Language development in the pre-school years, Cambridge: CUP.

----------- (1986) The meaning makers, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

---------- (1989) Language in the classroom: literacy and collaborative talk, Language

and education, 3,4: 251-273.

---------- (1990) talk about text: where literacy is learned and taught, Curriculum

inquiry 20, 4: 369-405.

Wells, G. and Chang, G.L. (1986) From speech to writing: some evidence on the

relationship between oracy and literacy. In A. Wilkinson ed. The writing of writing,

Milton Keynes: OUP.

West, C. and Zimmerman, D. (1983) Small insults: a study of interruptions in cross-

sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae and N.

Henley eds. Language, gender and society,: Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Westgate, D. and Corden, R. (1993) ‘What we thought about things’: expectations,

context and small-group talk, Language and education, 7, 2: 115-126.

Willinsky, J. (1994) Introducing the new literacy. In B. Stierer and J. Maybin eds..

28


the way she is using the word bilingual (line 19), working with the tutor to model text

(lines 44-54).

A feature common across the tutor’s talk with student-writers is her repetition of

wordings from the essay question. This is a seemingly obvious way of constructing

unity within the practice of essayist literacy, but is not necessarily something the

student-writers think of doing. In the figure below, we outline the way in which the

tutor cues key wordings from the essay question for Sara to include in her written

text.

Working at constructing textual unity: wordings from essay question in student-tutor talk

Student- Sara Tutor- Theresa

children (text) cues ‘bilingual’ (line 5, spoken)

bilingual children(spoken)

repetition bilingual children and

introduces proficient (from text and

essay question)

takes up develop

repetition bilingual children (line 12)

introduces environment

repetition environment

introduces develop and development

The arrows indicate the introduction and take up of specific wordings in the talk and

although not the focus of the discussion here, these wordings are also taken up by

Sara in her final written draft .

29


A significant feature of the talk in extract 1 above, and a significant means by which

the tutor talks the student into this practice, is the way in which the tutor-researcher,

insists that she knows what the student-writer is trying to say as compared with what

the student-writer actually does say, either orally or in her written text. This connects

closely with what Edwards and Mercer, in their analysis of school-teacher talk, have

called reconstructive paraphrasing (Edwards and Mercer 1985: chapter 7) . This is a

process whereby the tutor reconstructs the meanings the student is making in order to

bring them in line with institutionally preferred meanings. Thus, in the episode above,

the tutor opens and closes this episode by suggesting that she knows what Sara is

trying to say as compared with what she has written. The tutor also does this at line 1

That doesn’t seem to me to be really what you’re doing; at line 31, don’t you think

that what you’re saying is; at line 52, I mean that’s what you’re talking about, aren’t

you; at line 59 I think that’s much more what you’re saying. In closing the episode the

tutor suggests that all of the talk has been about making Sara’s intended meanings

textually explicit. Sara’s comment at line 37, I think that’s probably what I’m trying

to say but I haven’t written it down properly indicates that she is willing to accept the

tutor’s interpretation of what she is saying, although probably indicates her doubt

about whether the tutor, and perhaps she, knows her intended meanings. It may be the

case that, based on a reading of her notes, headings, rough drafts the tutor was

convinced that she understood the question and that much of her material was

relevant. However, knowing that Sara understood the intention of the question and

that much of her draft was relevant, is different from knowing what it is she is trying

to mean/meant at any one moment in time. In working at securing an institutionally

acceptable focus, the talk exemplifies what Edwards and Mercer refer to as the

teacher’s dilemma (Edwards and Mercer 1985:130), where the teacher is often

engaged in the balancing act of listening out for what the student might want to mean

whilst at the same time working at imposing a particular way of meaning.

How this dilemma is enacted can be further illustrated in the following extract, from

the same talk session as above. The tutor opens the sequence by questioning the

relevance of Sara’s definition of bilingualism -which we had begun to explore in the

talk above- to the essay question.

30


Extracts from text Talk about text12345678910

1112131415161718

I personally maintain the idea that if a person can communicate in all the languages they possess and can in turn be understood may resume the title of a bilingual (Se2d1:69-74)

how does a child become a bilingual?There are various situations in which children can actually become bilingual.(Se2d1:188-189)

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243

S reads text.S:That’s my view and what I think for a person to considered bilingual.T: Why is this bit relevant to the question?S: (S rereads section) Well it depends, because here’s different types of bilingual children, well looking through, there’s active, passive and another one, three different sorts of, if you like, proficiency in bilingualism. There’s one, the passive one where the child can, er, communicate, you know, in the other language but cannot read and write, you know, and there’s the active, active yeah, I think, where the child can actually read and write in the other language, I thinkT: [well, don’t forget, we’re talking about children under five. So reading and writing is not that relevant.S: I mean in future, these things will obviously affect the childT: [right fineS: [I mean these are the first stepping stones towards being a balanced bilingual and you’ve got to consider this before you actually go into it.T: Right, so somehow we need a link between what you’ve said here. It may be, in order to become bilingual using this definition, the linguistic environment in which the child finds itself will be of crucial importance. You’ve got to link this to where the essay is going. Just now you’ve explained it, you’ve said depending on where you want to go, that has major implications for the sorts of linguistic environment you’re going to try and set up. So that needs to go there(S.marks her text.T reads heading.).contd.

31


Extract from text contd. Talk about text contd.444546474849505152535455565758596061

T: For a child to become bilingual in the long term there will be major implications for the sort of linguistic environment that is required, or something like that. I’m just thinking that you talk here about different situations. So you need to say something about the range ofS [different situationsT: [which will have implications for the type of bilingualism which they will develop. Somehow you need that link there.Do you see what I mean?S: Yeah (sounds unsure)T: Or not?S: Definitely. I see what you mean. (Se 2disd1:5)

This extract has typical features of student-tutor talk found in the previous extract: the

tutor directing the sequence through IRFs at lines ; modelling text; using, what we

understand in this institutional context as, directives- don’t forget, you need, you’ve

got to.

There is also an instance of reconstructive paraphrasing which is central in the tutor’s

attempts at securing an acceptable unity within essayist literacy. Thus, at line 4, the

tutor is still not sure what Sara’s intended meaning is or indeed whether Sara has an

intended meaning or is working at meaning. The tutor pursues her reference to

reading and writing, rejecting its relevance. Sara responds by explaining why it is

relevant. Her wording in future seems to enable the tutor to get closer to what she

understands to be her intended meaning. The tutor reflects this back to her at lines 32-

41 pushing it textually closer to the central focus of the essay question -the

development of bilingualism- with the wordings in order to become bilingual.

In this sequence, then the tutor and student-writer move from a written personal

definition of bilingual couched in general terms- can communicate in all the

languages they possess- to a verbal statement where Sara demonstrates her knowledge

32


of the more complex definitions of bilingual; to a verbal explanation/clue in future-as

to why Sara considers reference to reading and writing to be relevant, alongside an

ambiguous use of these things; to the tutor’s transformation in order to become

bilingual and then move to textual modelling.

In re-examining the wordings in this extract, Theresa found it difficult to explain how

or why she came to understand in future as in order to become bilingual or to know

what sense she was making of Sara’s these things and these. What do these things,

these refer to? Reading, writing, active passive bilingual? It may be that these non-

specific wordings indicate that Sara is working at meaning making at the moment of

talk, whilst Theresa as tutor, am drawing on what Gee refers to as the guessing

principle to work at sense making within this context:

We can only make judgements about what others (and ourselves) mean by a word used on a given occasion by guessing what other words the word is mean t to exclude or not exclude. (Gee 1996:74)

But clearly such guessing is influenced by another of Gee’s principles, that of

context. In the talk with Sara, Theresa as tutor is not only trying to understand what

Sara is saying but drawing heavily on what she considers to be acceptable for her to

do within the practice of essayist literacy and within the field of Language Studies, in

order to make sense, in particular to construct what counts as textual unity. An

indication of this is at line 36, when the tutor says Just now you’ve explained it,

you’ve said depending on where you want to go. She had, in fact, said, in future .

This seems to be an instance of making meaning which involves the following

dynamic: the student-writer making meaning at the moment of talk; the tutor

investing a student-writer’s words with a particular meaning in accordance with a

particular area of study, which is in turn bound up with the socio-discursive context

of essayist literacy ; the tutor then modelling written text orally. Although she has her

doubts, Sara colludes with what the tutor is doing, because as someone learning the

rules she is prepared to follow the tutor in the doing of essayist literacy, although

unsure about the reasons.

7 Conclusion: What a focus on student-tutor talk tells us

33


Based on a preliminary exploration of the socio-discursive space of one university,

we would argue that there is a substantial shift away from the practice of tutors and

students engaging in face-to-face talk, the significance of which has yet to be fully

understood. On the basis of analysis of actual instances of student/tutor talk we

suggest that such face-to-face talk plays a central part in the teaching and learning

process in the following ways.

· Talk between a tutor- a knowledgeable insider- and a student who is unfamiliar

with particular educational practices, in this case, academic writing, enables the

student to engage in specific educational practices, the practice of academic

writing. This is consistent with the apprenticeship model of teacher-pupil in

interaction discussed by Mercer (see 2.1.2).

· Particular discourse patterns of the talk signal the doing of this practice-

reconstructive paraphrasing, cued elicitation, textual modelling. We would

suggest that it is talk as doing teaching and learning which marks such talk as

useful and desirable for teaching and learning, as compared with talk which

emphasizes the telling of how to do something.

· Providing institutional space for students and tutors to engage in the doing of

educational practices is of particular importance to those students who are least

familiar with dominant practices in HE. Talk as doing may facilitate access to

the university’s symbolic resources, and significantly enhance the participation

of so called ‘non-traditional’ students, that is students who may be least familiar

with the discourse conventions of HE.

In arguing for talk as apprenticeship into the discourse practices of HE, as a means

of ensuring access to the university’s symbolic resources, we are conscious of the

inherent paradox in such an apprenticeship. For whilst such apprenticeship may

ensure access, it also constitutes socialization into dominant practices of HE,

potentially excluding alternative ways of knowing, being and doing within the

university (see Lillis 1997). The potential for tutor/student talk to be

transformative is to be explored elsewhere.

34


Given the lack of explicit analysis of student/tutor talk in HE alongside the existence

of a powerful official discourse on the nature and function of communication in

general in HE, we would like to conclude by calling for further and more extensive

studies of actual instances of talk to be carried out. In particular, there is a need to

critically explore the ways in which the (lack of) opportunities for particular types of

talk between students and tutors contributes to the nature of student participation in

HE and the nature of HE itself.

35

Exploring the socio-discursive space of higher education ... · Web viewExploring the...

Documents

Transcript of Exploring the socio-discursive space of higher education ... · Web viewExploring the...