Pragmatics and Pedagogy

8/2/2019 Pragmatics and Pedagogy

1/29

Pragmatics and Pedagogy: Conversational Rules and Politeness Strategies May Inhibit EffectiveTutoringAuthor(s): Natalie K. Person, Roger J. Kreuz, Rolf A. Zwaan, Arthur C. GraesserSource: Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1995), pp. 161-188Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233712 .

Accessed: 10/09/2011 21:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cognition and

Instruction.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3233712?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3233712?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/29

COGNITIONNDINSTRUCTION,995,13(2),161-188Copyright1995,Lawrencerlbaumssociates,nc.

Pragmaticsand Pedagogy:ConversationalRules and PolitenessStrategiesMayInhibitEffectiveTutoringNatalie K. Person,Roger J. Kreuz,Rolf A. Zwaan,and ArthurC. GraesserDepartmentof PsychologyUniversityof Memphis

In thisarticle,we identifyways thatGrice's(1975)conversationalules and P.BrownandLevinson's 1987) politeness trategies recommonly mployed none-to-one utoringnteractions.We examined wo cross-agedutoring orporafromresearchmethods ndalgebrautoringessions o showhowtheserulesandstrategiesanpotentiallynhance nd nhibit ffective utoring. xamples f thesecosts andbenefitsarepresentedwithina five-stepdialogue rameproposedbyGraesser ndPerson 1994).Thereappearo be differencesn theuse of thesepoliteness trategieswhenalgebrautoring rotocols recomparedwith researchmethods rotocols.Wesuggest hatpolitenesstrategiesremoreprevalentnlessconstrainedomains, venthough heirusemayinhibit ffective utoring.

Althoughtutoringhas beenemployedas a pedagogicaldevice formillennia,onlyrecentlyhas the process of tutoringbeen investigatedscientifically (Fox, 1993;Graesser&Person, 1994; Leinhardt,1987; McArthur,Stasz,&Zmuidzinas,1990;Putnam, 1987; VanLehn, 1990). An understandingof the tutoring process isimportant,becausetutoring ypicallyis more effective thanclassroom instruction.Althoughmostresearchersn this areahave referred o apositivecognitive changeas an essential partof effective tutoring(e.g., Palincsar& A. L. Brown, 1984;Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989), a universally accepteddefinition of effectivetutoring has not emerged. Researchersexamining the advantage of tutoringcomparedwithclassroominstructionhavereportedeffect sizes ranging rom .4 to2.3 standard eviationunits(Bloom, 1984; Cohen,J. A. Kulik,&C.C.Kulik, 1982;

Requests for reprintsshould be sent to Natalie K. Person, Departmentof Psychology, RhodesCollege, 2000 NorthParkway,Memphis,TN 38112. e-mail: [email protected]


3/29

162 PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSERMohan,1972).Thisadvantagexistseventhoughutorsypically renothighlytrainedCohen tal., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon,977;Graesser, 993a,1993b;Graesser&Person,1994). naddition,hisadvantages notattributableoagedifferences,because he effect sizes previously ited includeexpert,cross-aged, ndpeertutoring.Because hese effects are not due to sophisticated edagogical trategies rage differences,he truecausemust ie elsewhere.Onepossiblereason or theeffectiveness f tutoring evolvesaround hedialogue hatoccursbetween hetutorandstudent.Tutoring ialogues moresimilar o normal onversationhanis the ectureormat sedprimarilyntheclassroomResnick, 977).Thepurposeof thisarticle s to illustrate owpropertiesf conversationanpotentially id,as well as hinder, ffective utoring.

THEORETICALERSPECTIVESONCONVERSATIONThe implicitrules andstrategieshat facilitatenormal onversation erefirstdescribed y Grice(1975, 1978),whoproposedhatconversations governedby oneoverarchingule: hecooperative rinciple.Accordingo thisprinciple,participants akea "good aith" ffort o contributeo and collaboraten theconversations it proceedsClark& Schaefer, 987,1989).Grice 1975, 1978)furtheruggestedhat hiscooperations augmented y a number f conversa-tionalmaxims:quality donotsay things hatareuntrue), uantitydonotsaymoreor less than s required),elevancedonotsay things hatareextraneous),andmannerbe brief,be orderly, ndavoidobscurity ndambiguity).Other heorists aveexpandedGrice's 1975, 1978)approach. orexample,Leech 1983)suggested noverarchingoliteness rinciplewithseveralmaxims(e.g., tact,generosity,approbation,nd modesty).Leechmaintainedhat thepolitenessprinciples necessaryorGrice's 1975, 1978)cooperative rincipleto be effective n normal onversation.This nterestnlinguistic oliteness asbeenmost ullyexplored yP. BrownandLevinson 1987).In ananalysis f languages sedin threewidelydifferingculturesEnglishn the UnitedStatesandBritain,Tamil n India,andTzeltal nMayanMexico),P.Brown ndLevinsonound hatparticularoliteness trategiesareuseduniversally. heydescribed ozensof conversationaltrategieshatareusedto facilitate ocial nteraction. entralo P. BrownandLevinson's nalysisis thenotion fface,orone'sself-imageGoffman, 967). ndividualsnacultureattempto maintain positiveself-imageandtryto helpothersmaintainheirownself-images. his s notalwayspossible,however, ecause ace s frequentlyput ndanger y face-threateningcts.Suchacts nclude equests,riticisms,nddemands. achculturehas deviseda number f linguistic trategieso mitigatetheimpactof theseface-threateningcts.P. Brown ndLevinson1987)discussedhreeuperstrategieshat peakersmayemploy:positivepoliteness,negativepoliteness,andoff-record.Positivepoliteness


4/29

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY 163refers oanappreciationf thehearer'swantsandneeds. tincludesheacknowl-edgment f common roundClark&Carlson, 981;Clark, chreuder, Buttrick,1983),the acknowledgmenthatthe speaker nd hearer recooperators,ndareadinessofulfillthespeaker'swants P.Brown&Levinson, 987,p. 102).Forexample, y saying,"Thatculpturesreallybeautiful,n away,"hespeakereeksto avoiddisagreementith he istener. erhapshespeakeroesnotreallybelievethat hesculpturesbeautiful;ndbyhedgingi.e.,saying,"inaway"),hespeakeris able oprovideokenagreement ith he istener.Negativepoliteness,n comparison,ttemptso minimizempositionsn thehearer.This somewhat onfusing ermdoesnot implya lack of politenessbutrathera methodof ingratiation. egativepolitenesscan be accomplishednvariousways:Thespeakeran minimize hethreato thehearer, ivethe hearertheoptionnot to act,orcommunicatehespeaker's esirenotto impinge n thehearerP.Brown&Levinson,1987,p. 131).By saying,"Ijustwant o askyouif you canlend me a tinybit of paper,"hespeakerminimizeshe impositionon thelistenerby making herequest s understateds possible.A finalsuperstrategyiscussedby P. Brownand Levinson 1987) involvesgoing off-record.A speakermakesa statement ut does so in a vagueway,leavingthe interpretationf the comment pento the hearer Craig,Tracy,&Spisak,1986).Forexample,by saying,"It'shot in here,"hespeakerndicatesheror his desire o havesomeone akeaction,perhapsby openinga window.Thisrequests madeobliquely,however,andgives thelistener heoptionnotto act.

Manyof theseoff-recordtatementsanbeconstruedsviolations f Grice's(1975)conversational axims.Forexample,a speakermayviolatethe maximof relevanceby providinghehearerwitha hintor mayviolate he maximofquantity y overstatingr understating.he maximof qualitymaybe violatedby the use of irony,metaphors,rrhetorical uestions.The maximof mannermay be violatedby the use of vagueor ambiguoustatementsP. Brown &Levinson, 987,p.214).Inall theseways, hespeakeransave aceby deliveringface-threateningctsin an indirectway.P. BrownandLevinson's1987)analysis f politeness as become he domi-nantperspectiventhe areaof linguistic olitenessFraser, 990;Kasper, 990).Thereare,however, everaldifficultiesn applyinghistheory n empiricale-search.Most mportant,sCraig t al.(1986)pointed ut, hedozensof individualpoliteness trategies re notmutually xclusive;manyspeechactscan bejusti-fiablycoded underdifferent trategies nd even different uperstrategies.orexample,manyrequestsoractionareconventionallyndirectnegativepolite-ness)andunderstatedoff-record).Thesedifficultieshave led some researcherso proposenew approachesolinguisticpoliteness e.g., Penman's 1990]analysisof courtroom iscourse).However, o alternativechemehas receivedmuchsupport.As a result, t is notpossible to use P. Brown and Levinson's (1987) taxonomy to test empirically


5/29

164 PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN,GRAESSERsomeof the issues thattheir heoryraises.As a general ramework,owever,theapproachas clearutility.

P. BrownandLevinson's 1987)analysisof linguisticpolitenessmayhavegreat elevanceo tutoringnteractions.ccordingoP. BrownandLevinsonp.74), thedegree owhichanact s facethreatenings determinedythree actors:(a) socialdistancebetween hespeaker ndhearer,b)the relativepowerof thespeaker ndhearer, nd(c) thedegreeof impositionf the act. If socialdistanceishigh,relative owers asymmetrical,nd mpositions high, hen he"weighti-ness"of theface-threateningct is high.Forexample,a lawyer nterrogatingwidowabouther husband'smaritalnfidelitiesmightmakeheavyuse of thesestrategies.n most utoringituations,hefirst wo factorswillberelatively igh,because he tutorandstudent o notknoweachotherandthe tutor s clearly ncontrol.The thirdfactor(degreeof imposition)will vary, depending n theseriousnessf the imposition.Other esearchersaveexamined . BrownandLevinson's1987)politenessstrategiesnthecontext frequestsCraig tal.,1986),medicaldiscourseArons-son & Rundstr6m,989),and courtroom iscourse Penman,1990).Thisap-proach, owever, asnotbeenutilizedoclarify heprocess f tutoring iscourse.Yet it is likelythat he variouspoliteness trategies refrequentlymployedntutoringnteractions.

Thepurposeof this article s to illustrate ow thepoliteness trategies reused, bothpositivelyandnegatively,duringone-to-one utoring.We do notattempto quantifyhevarious olitenesstrategies,owever.Atthisearly tageof research,t is prematureo analyze trategies uantitativelyt a fine-grainedlevel (see Craiget al., 1986).The strategieswill no doubtvary considerablyamong utors, opics,andstudent opulations.Ourprimary oalat thispoint sto documentomeof theinteresting ays n whichpragmaticrinciplesnteractwiththetutoring rocess.Futuretudieswillquantifyhe useof thesestrategiesin differentutoring ontexts.The conversationalulesandpoliteness trategies iscussedn this article resummarizednTable1.Thisarticle oesnotaddressllofP.Brown ndLevinson's(1987)strategies utratherhesubset hatseemsmostgermaneo thetutoringprocess. notherwords, herulesandstrategieshatwe discusswere nductivelyselected, asedonaclosereadingf the ranscripts.omeof thecostsandbenefitsassociatedwith herulesandstrategiesrepointed utin Table1.

THECONVERSATIONALRAMEWORKFTUTORINGGraesser ndhiscolleaguesGraesser,993a,1993b;Graesser& Person,1994)examinedheframeworkf tutoringnteractions.n extensiveanalysis f tutor-ingtranscriptorporaevealed hata five-stepdialogue rame s veryprevalentduringone-to-one tutoring:


6/29

0 v 0U ~ ,, oU' *au t) t

0u

t) E Q)) v, c;~

2 ~ 't Oo , o

CL o3 3

t)) t)0

0 0

o1~* 'C v,35;

0 0Q Q

a) t)>j 3"

So _ CL0 * o

C) t) ~ o a0 0

9 1 o

t) ,


7/29

0

ob 0 > 4-4~0"o t)at

02 040.Zie

00(S

v, Q) 0,k

U42 U'

CL s CL-1 0

MU lC H0-0 H00 2

~ 0 U 00. u .G

>%1

o 0z tto

U 72

cn $.,nOr D4-&0 c' >

O ~ to -10 5

00U

cn 4. 00 0 2C ;; E 0 U'

to~

'3 (

Q) 0WQ

UE., E~~.~

45co :C: 0 e

F 2E 0Ct0 Z0

30co u nw c 04C. co 60, o o 030 l

u t,4 cz cn~L c u"3 n q

166


8/29

PRAGMATICSNDPEDAGOGY 1671. Tutor asks a question.2. Student answers the question.3. Tutorgives feedback on the answer.4. Tutorand studentcollaboratively mprovethequalityof (or embellish)theanswer.5. Tutorassesses student'sunderstanding f the answer.

An exampleof a five-step dialogueframe fromourcorpusis shown in Example1. The studentwas beingtutoredon the conceptof factorialdesigns in a researchmethodstutoringsession:Example1:Step 11.1 Tutor: So, howmanyF scoreswouldbe computed?Step 21.2 Student:Three.Step 31.3 Tutor: Three agreeingwith thestudent].Step41.4 Tutor: Andwhatnumbersreferringo a matrix f cell means]wouldyouuse?1.5 Student:Youwoulddo one forhumor oneof theindependentariables].1.6 Tutor: And whatdoes that ellyou?1.7 Student: 'mnotsure[laughs].1.8 Tutor: OK,whydo youdo anF score?What s an F score?1.9 Student:To see thesize, uh,significance?1.10 Tutor: The size of thesignificance.1.11 Student:The size of thesignificance.1.12 Tutor: Right,howstatisticallyignificant variables.1.13 Student:Right.1.14 Tutor: So,youareright,youwouldhave hree F scores]: neforcaffeine,oneforhumor, ndone for ... ?1.15 Student:The scores ... from caffeine and humor?1.16 Tutor: Interaction,he interactionf thetwo,right.1.17 Student:Umhmm.1.18 Tutor: [Explainsndependencef maineffects]Step51.19 Tutor: Do yousee whatI'msaying?1.20 Student:Um hmm.There is some flexibility in the implementationof this five-step frame. Forexample,a step may consist of more than one turn. In Example 1, Step 4 startsat 1.4 and continuesthrough1.18. It is also possible that steps may be omitted.


9/29

168 PERSON,KREUZ, WAAN,GRAESSERForexample,Step3 maynotoccur-that is, thetutormaychoosenot to supplyfeedback n the student's nswer.

The heartof thetutoring rocesscanbe found n thelast two stepsof thisdialoguerame.During tep4, thetutorand tudent laboraten the deasraisedin the earlier teps.In a classroom, owever, hiselaborations less likelytooccuror to be individuallyailored o a particulartudent. n addition,Step5allows he tutor o monitorloselythestudent's nderstanding.nceagain, hismonitorings less likelyto occur n a classroometting.Mehan1979)reportedhatonlythefirst hree tepsoccurnnormal lassroominstruction. iven headvantagesf tutoringverclassroomnstruction,t seemsreasonableo assume hatSteps4 and5 areespecially mportantn correctingandrepairing nowledge eficits. nparticular,t isduring tep4 that hetutoringsessionbecomes rulycollaborative. hat s, both tutorand student ontributecrucialpiecesof informationo arriveat thecorrect olution Graesser, 993b;Graesser&Person, 994; ora related oint, eeResnick, almon,Zeitz,Wathen,& Holowchak, 993).In Step 5, however,relativelyittle informations ex-changed;he tutorattemptso assess the student's raspof thetopicat hand.This reliance n the student's elf-assessments problematic,ecause tudentsarerarelyable to calibrateheirowncomprehensionChi,Bassok,Lewis,Rei-mann,&Glaser, 989;Epstein,Glenberg,&Bradley, 984;Glenberg,Wilkinson,& Epstein,1982;Person,Graesser,Magliano,& Kreuz,1994;Weaver,1990).In theremainderf thisarticle,we show how Grice's 1975,1978)conver-sationalulesandP.BrownandLevinson's1987)politenesstrategiesositivelyandnegatively ffect hepedagogical rocessnthefive-step utoringrame.Wedraw xamplesrom wodifferentutoring omains,whicharedescribedndetailin the next section.

TWOTUTORING AMPLESWe examined wodifferentutoring orpora: ollegestudentsearning esearchmethods nd eventh radersearning lgebra.Wechose hesecorporaorvariousreasons.First, hesecorporawereanalyzed reviouslyn the context f questionaskingandansweringGraesser,993a,1993b;Graesser, erson,&Huber, 992,1993).Second,hesecorporareexamples fcross-ageutoring, hich s the ormof tutoring ommonn most schoolsystems Cohenet al., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon,1977).Third,hesecorpora redrawnromverydifferentutoring omains;healgebra utoringanbethought f as arelatively losed-world omainCollins,Warnock,Aeillo,& Miller,1975;Fox, 1993)comparedwithresearchmethodstutoring, hichhas essspecified oundaries.tmaybe thecasethathepolitenessstrategies reviously escribedmayoperate ifferently, ependingn thetypeoftutoringdomain.


10/29

PRAGMATICSNDPEDAGOGY 169Sample1:CollegeStudentsLearning esearchMethods

Students and tutors. Tutoring rotocolswere collected rom 27 under-graduatestudents enrolled in a psychology researchmethods class at the Uni-versityof Memphis.All studentsparticipatedn the tutoringsessions in ordertofulfill a course requirement.The tutoringprotocols, therefore, were a repre-sentative ollege samplerather hana samplerestrictedo studentswho werehavingdifficulty.The tutorsweresix psychology raduatetudentswho had each receivedanA in bothan undergraduatend a graduateesearchmethods ourse.Each ofthesegraduatetudents ad tutored n a few occasionsprior o this studybutnotin the areaof researchmethods.Learningmaterials. The course nstructorelected ix topicsthatarenor-mally roublesomeorstudentsna researchmethods ourse.A listwaspreparedfor eachof the six topics; hree o five relevantubtopicswerealso includednthe list. The tutorswere instructedo coverthesetopicsandsubtopicsn thetutoringessions.Thetopicsandsubtopicswereas follows:

Variables: Operationalefinitions,ypesof scales,andvaluesof variables.Graphs: Frequencyistributions,lottingmeans,andhistograms.Statistics: Decisionmatrices, ypeI andTypeIIerrors, tests,andprob-abilities.Hypothesisesting:Formulatinghypothesis,racticalonstraints,ontrol roups,design,andstatisticalnalyses.Factorial esigns: Independentariables, ependentariables,tatistics,mainef-fects, cells,and nteractions.Interactions: Independentariables,maineffects, ypesof interactions,ndstatisticalignificance.The students were exposed to the material on two occasions prior to theirparticipation n the tutoringsessions. First, each topic was covered in a lectureby the instructorbefore the topic was covered in the tutoringsession. Second,each student was requiredto read specific pages in a research methods text(Methodsin Behavioral Research, Cozby, 1989) prior to the tutoringsession.This ensuredthat the students would have some familiaritywith the topics andprovidedmore common groundfor the tutoringsession.Procedure. Each studentparticipatedn two types of tutoringsessions: un-structuredor"normal")utoringessionsandstructuredutoringessions.Thismanipulation,ncludedo address therpedagogicalssues seeGraesser,993a),is not addressed n this article.


11/29

170 PERSON,KREUZ, WAAN,GRAESSERThreeof the tutorswereassigned o the unstructuredutoring essions.Inthesesessions, he tutorswere not givena specificformat o follow.Whena

student ntered hetutoringoom, he studentwasinstructedo sit in view of acamera nd o readaloud helist of topics.Thetutoringession henproceededin thedirectionhat hetutorandstudent aw fit.The other hree utorswereassigned o the structuredutoring essions.Inthese utoringessions,utors nd tudentsworkedhrough set ofpredeterminedproblems elevant o thetopicsandsubtopicsprovided n their ist.All six ofthe tutorswerealso nstructedoencouragetudent uestionsnd oavoid implylecturingo thestudent. ach utoringessionwasvideotapednd astedapproxi-mately60 min.Eachof the27 students articipatedn fourtutoringessions.A counterbal-ancing chemewasdesignedo that a)a student everhadthesame utorwice,(b) eachtutor overedall six topics,(c) eachtutorwasassigned o 18 tutoringsessions,and d)a student articipatedn twounstructuredutoringessionsandtwo structuredutoringessions.Therefore,achtutor nstructedhreestudentson eachof the six topics,whichyielded108 tutoringessions.Twenty-five fthetutoringessionscouldnot be transcribedueto audioproblems.

Sample2:SeventhGradersLearning lgebraStudentsand tutors. Thissample onsisted f 22tutoringessionsnwhichhigh school students utored eventhgraders nrolledat a middleschool inMemphis.This corpus ncludedall of the algebra utoring essionsfromtheschoolduring 1-month eriod.Algebraeachers dentified 3 seventhgraderswhowerehavingdifficultyntheircourses.Thetutorswere10localhighschoolstudentswho normallyprovided utoring ervicesfor the middle school. On

average,hetutors ad9 hrofprior lgebrautoring xperience. ike heresearchmethods ample,healgebraamplewasanexample f cross-ageutoring. hissample,however, ifferedrom heresearchmethods amplen that heseventhgraders articipatedn thetutoringessionsnorder oremediateheirknowledgedeficitsratherhan or coursecredit.Tutoring opics and sessions. Mostof the tutoringessionsfocusedonthree opicsthatarefrequentlyroublesomeo seventh-gradelgebra tudents.These includeda) positiveandnegativenumbers,b) fractions, nd(c) con-

structing lgebraic quationsromwordproblems.Thesetopicsweretypicallyassociatedwithhomework roblems, xaminationtems,or a chaptern thealgebraext.Tutorsandstudentsrequentlyeferredo this material uring hetutoringessions.Thetutoringessions astedapproximately5 min,which sroughly comparable o the research methods sessions. Each session was video-taped by a researchassistantfrom the Universityof Memphis.


12/29

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY 171TranscriptionndCoding ftheTutoringessionsTranscribers eceived a 1-hrtrainingsession on how to transcribe he videotapes.Theywere instructed o transcribe he entiretutoring essions verbatim, ncludingall "ums,""ahs,"wordfragments,brokensentences,andpauses.The transcribersspecified whether an utterance was made by the studentor tutor.In addition,transcribers lso noted messages that appearedon the markerboard,hand ges-tures,headnods, andsimultaneous peech acts that occurredbetweenthe studentand tutor. Each transcriptionwas verified for accuracy by a research assistantwho spot-checkedrandomsegments of each of the videotapes.

EXAMPLESROM HEPROTOCOLSIn this section, we provide examples of the positive and negative consequencesof the conversationalrules and politeness strategiesin the tutoring corporade-scribed earlier.The following paragraphs llustratethe use of these rules andstrategieswithinthe five-step dialogue frameproposed by Graesserand Person(1994).

Step1:TutorAsksa QuestionTypically, a tutoring exchange is initiatedby a question posed by the tutor.Depending on the tutoringdomain, the question may be relatively open-endedor relatively constrained. The topics addressed by the tutors in the researchmethods sessions lacked the specificity of the topics addressed in the algebratutoringsessions. Example 2 shows a typical topic from the research methodscorpus:

Example2:2.1 Tutor: OK. All right.So, we'vespecifiedourhypothesis.OK. Whatelsedo we need to do beforewe perform t test or anF test?This can be contrastedwith a Step 1 questionfrom the algebracorpus:

Example3:3.1 Tutor: Let'stryanother ne.Ah,numberight, henumberf seatson thenew 525 airliner s a 36% ncrease ver the oldmodel.The newplane eats374passengers. owmanypassengersidtheold modelseat?

In Example 2, the tutor gave the studenta great deal of latitude in specifyinghow to move from a hypothesisto a statisticalanalysis.Forexample,the studenthad the optionto declare a populationor a sampleor to define operationally he


13/29

172 PERSON,KREUZ, WAAN,GRAESSERdependentmeasure. nExample , however,hetutorwasrequesting numericresponsehat he student ad to generate y applyingheappropriatequation.AppropriatenswersweremuchmoreconstrainednExample than nExample2. Althoughtoversimplifiesmatters, ereafter e assumehatalgebras a moreconstrained,losed-world omain han s the researchmethodsdomain.The conversationalules andpoliteness trategies rovidedn Table1 bothfacilitate nd nhibithetutoring rocess.Forexample, t thisearlystage n thefive-step rame, hetutormay attempto putthe student teaseby minimizingtheimpositionf his orherquestion.This is demonstratednExample , whichwas drawn roma researchmethods essionon factorial esigns:

Example :4.1 Tutor: Youcan ell mea littlebitabout hereasonsorusinganexperimentwithmore han wo levels of anindependentariable.In fact,Example illustrates t least threepoliteness trategies t worksimul-taneously: he tutorwasbeingoptimistic"Youcantellme"),understatingherequest "alittlebit"),andminimizinghe imposition f the request "alittlebit").By doingall thesethings, he tutorwasfacilitatinghe student's esponse.The tutorwas indicatinghatthe studentknew the answer,andthe tutorwastellingthestudent hateven a minimal esponsewouldbe appropriate.n theotherhand, he tutor's equestmayhavebeenunclearhowmuchdoesthetutorwant oknow?), nd he utormayhavesetthestudent pforfailurebyassumingthat he studentwouldbe able to provide herequestednformation).Sometimeshetutor ndstudentmustnegotiatenorderoproduce questionthat he student ananswer.Graesser1993a,1993b)documentedhat,when hetutorasksmultiplequestions, heybecomeprogressivelymoresimpleuntilthestudent an providea response.As a result, he studentultimately nswersaquestionhathasbeengreatly implified.Thiscanbe seen inExample , drawnfroma researchmethods essionon variables:

Example5:5.1 Tutor: What ypeof scale would hatbe?5.2 Student:Oh,letme think,whichone.I don'tknow.5.3 Tutor: Tryto think.Nominalor... ?5.4 Student: rdinal,eah.InExample , thestudenthad answeredorrectly utonlyafter he number fpossibleanswers adbeenreduced ythe tutor.Thisexample lso demonstratesthe use of ellipsisandthe giving of hintsto simplifythe question. f thesestrategies versimplifyhetutor'squestions, studentmayneverbe challengedto answerquestions n thefrontier f hisorherknowledge.Tutorsoccasionallypose questionsthatare unclearorvague,so thatthestudentmay encounterdifficulty in attempting o providean answer.In such cases, the


14/29

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY 173tutormay apologize, as illustrated n Example6, drawnfroma researchmethodssession on formulatinga hypothesis:

Example :6.1 Tutor: What s the effectof no limited elation ersus imited elation?6.2 Student:Whatdo youmean?6.3 Tutor: I'm sorry. knewI was asking hewrongquestion. 've gottabecareful.. um,there's omethinghatmakes correlationalethodnot so wonderful...] andsomethinghatmakes heexperimentalmethodwonderful.Do youknowwhat hatwouldbe?The tutor apologized to acknowledge explicitly the incorrect and potentiallyconfusingquestionat 6.1. By apologizing,the tutordemonstrated er sensitivityto the student's need for clarity.Therewould seem to be little cost in apologizingfor a mistake on the partof the tutor.If the tutorcontinuedto do this, however,the studentmay have begun to doubt the credibilityof the tutor.

Step2:StudentAnswersheQuestionDuringStep 2, the studentmakes his or her initialattempt o answer the tutor'squestion.By definition,the tutorplays a relativelypassive role, althoughmuchof the tutor's effort during Step 1 is directed at constructinga questionthat thestudentcan answer. Clearly, the student's answer will affect the feedback thatthe tutorprovides (see Griffin & Humphrey,1978). Our focus here,however, ishow tutors use conversationalrules andpoliteness strategies.Because the tutordoes not participate n Step 2, we do not discuss this step in furtherdetail.

Step3:TutorGivesFeedback nthe AnswerClear,discriminating,and accurate eedbackby the tutoris presumablyessentialfor effective tutoring.Previousresearch,however,has shown thattutorsprovide,with roughly equal likelihood, both positive and negative feedback to students'error-ridden nswers(Graesser,1993b).Vague answerson thepartof the studentare normally met with positive feedback from the tutor ratherthan negativefeedback (Graesser,1993b). Why do tutorsprovide positive feedback in thesecases? It seems likely that tutors avoid negative feedbackas much as possible,becauseit is very face threatening or the student.Consequently, his conventionof normalconversationmay inhibitthe effectiveness of the tutoringprocess.Example7 illustratesinappropriateeedbackby the tutor,drawnfrom a re-search methods session on variables:

Example :7.1 Tutor: What s an inferentialtatistic?


15/29

174 PERSON,KREUZ, WAAN,GRAESSER7.2 Student:A statistichatgivesyouinformationbout omethinghat'sgonnahappen.Orcouldhappen, ossibly.7.3 Tutor: Also,somethinghat'skindof implicitwith nferentialtatisticshatpeople endnot to thinkabout s [...] that f peoplewentout andsurveyed ndsurveyedhatthey'dget the same informations astatistic....

At 7.2, the student's answer was incorrect. He seemed to have confused theconceptsof predictability ndgeneralizability.At 7.3, the tutorviolatedthe maximof quality (i.e., assuming that the tutor realized that the student's answer wasincorrect).We would arguethat the tutor should violate the maxims of quantityand mannerin order to provide effective feedback. That is, the tutor needs toprovide much more information,because the student's answer is error-ridden.Perhaps he tutor ailed to provide appropriateeedbackbecause she was attempt-ing to avoid disagreementwith the student. The student,however, may havemistakenlybelieved thathis answer was correct,becausethe tutorused the wordalso, rather han no at 7.3. A more appropriate nswerat 7.3 would have been,"No, inferentialstatistics refers to the ability to generalizeto a populationfroma sampleand not what may happenin the future."We can contrastExample 7 with Example 8 (from an algebra session onfractions),in which the tutorgave appropriateeedbackthat addressedthe stu-dent's misconception:

Example .8.1 Tutor: Let'strythisone:5/lsthsminusnegative /6ths.8.2 Student:Uh,thisone would ust go like that pointingopreviouslyworkedproblem]?8.3 Tutor: Well,um,actually, o, no, youcouldn'tdo that.Sorry.The feedbackin Example8 was more appropriate, lthoughpoliteness, trate-gies were still being employed:The tutorapologized(perhaps llowingthe studentto save face after an error).When a student commits an error in a tutoringsession, the tutor has theresponsibility o acknowledgeand correctthe error.Because, by definition,thisis a face-threateningact, it seems likely that the politeness strategieswill beemployed to make the feedback less aversive. In Example 9, drawn from aresearch methods session on graphing,a student had constructed a frequencypolygon but had not labeled the axes. The tutorattempted o make the student

realizethis on herown. Because he chose to be conventionally ndirect,however,this requireda numberof turns to accomplish:Example :9.1 Tutor: OK, you've got the rightnumbers.9.2 Student:Yeah,OK,I justneeded ..


16/29

PRAGMATICSNDPEDAGOGY 1759.3 Tutor: OK, s thereanythinglse about hisgraphhatyouwouldwant odo beforeyoufinish? mean,doyouconsider hisfinished?9.4 Student: guessI could,I coulddrawa line ...9.5 Tutor: What f youwalkedupto thisgraph ndyouhadneverseen[it]?9.6 Student:Oh,I guessI should abel hese[points o theaxes].9.7 Tutor: Yeah,yeah.

Althoughsome might arguethatstudents shouldbe encouraged o discover suchproblemson theirown, in this example the studentfocused on a less importanterrorin her graph(i.e., drawinga line to connect the points on the graph).Bybeing conventionally indirect,the tutor createdambiguityand took time awayfrom correctingthe more importantproblem.The problemof being too indirecthas been noted in other domains. In theirstudy of Swedish allergists, Aronsson and Rundstr6m(1989) mentioned thatallergistsmust frequentlyask patientsto remove theirclothes. Clearly, this is aface-threateningact; and the allergists,as expected, made theirrequest in veryindirect ways. This led to confusion on the patients' part, because they weretypicallyleft unsure whetherto remove theirclothes at all or how muchclothingto remove.As we have seen previously,thereareexamplesin this step in which the tutorusedmultiplepolitenessstrategies o addressstudent'serrors.Example10, drawnfrom analgebrasession on variables,shows the simultaneoususe of two negativepolitenessstrategies:be conventionally ndirectand state the face-threatening ctas a generalrule:

Example 0:10.1 Tutor: ... OK, now,what t is, justFOIL.OK,FOIL. t stands or"first,outside, nside, ast."OK,so whatyou do is you take[the]firstone, right?Youmultiplyhesetwo,andyoutake theoutside, heinside,andthelast.Do yousee how thatworks?10.2 Student:Here's hewayI'vedone t[studentmumblesolutionotheproblemfromthebookto himself].10.3 Tutor: Right.Well,seethat's newayto do it,but hey ikethis[theFOILmethod];his s really hewaymostpeople ike to do it [elaborateson reasons].

At 10.3, the tutorerroneouslytold the student that his method works, when infact it does not. This is typicalof how a tutorcorrectsa problem,albeitindirectly.First,the tutoragrees with the studentbut thengoes on to qualifythis agreement(in this case, by statingthe face-threatening ct as a generalrule). This is prob-lematic, because the studentmay, nonetheless, continue to cling to his or hermisconception.


17/29

176 PERSON,REUZ,WAAN,RAESSERStep4:Tutor nd StudentCollaborativelymproveheQualityf theAnswerStudentsypically rovide eryabbreviatednswers o questions.Tutors,here-fore,find it necessaryo encouragehem o elaborateheirresponsesGraesser,1993a, 1993b;Graesser& Person,1994).As a result, he constructionf ananswer an be thought f as a collaborativectivity n whichthe student ndtutorwork ogethero construct nacceptablenswer Graesser,993a,1993b;Kreuz& Roberts, 993;Resnick t al., 1993).The tutor anuse several trategieso facilitate hisprocess.Forexample,hetutormay providea hint,ask an embedded uestion, r employa scaffoldingtechniquen order o increasehe likelihood f a student'sesponse.Whenusedto extreme,however, hesestrategies ncourage assive earning.Example11,drawn rom a researchmethods ession on interactions,hows an embeddedquestion t 11.3.

Example 1:11.1 Tutor: ... All right,et'stryanother ne. Let'ssaywe had,oh,wait.Firstof all, let's translatehisin termsof ourexperiment.11.2 Student:OK.11.3 Tutor: OK.Whatdoesthismeanas faras typeof drug?11.4 Student:t hadno effect.11.5 Tutor: Inotherwords,usingcornflakes.. were no different hanusingmoodflakes. herefore,moodflakesmustnot havebeena realdrug.Allright!Goodob.

Example 11 shows some of the costs associatedwith encouraging he student'sresponses.At 11.5, the tutorexaggerated y providing xcessivepraiseeventhough he student'snputwas minimal.Onceagain,use of oversimplifiedm-beddedquestions,ombinedwithexcessivepraise,may eadto a relatively as-sive roleon thepartof the student.The tutor sometimes contributes nformation hatconfuses the student,as inExample 12. The various types of scales (nominal,ordinal, interval,and ratio)were being discussed in a researchmethods session on variables:Example 2:12.1 Tutor: OK,theway I rememberhat,um,whenI was trying o learn twas... I knew nFrench hewordblacks noir,N-O-I-R, ndyoucanremembert thatway.12.2 Student:Well,yeah,yeah.12.3 Tutor: So youcan thinkof noir,N-O-I-R.12.4 Student: o whatdoesthat,whatdoesblackhaveto do withnominal?

Here is a mnemonic thathas gone sadly awry. The tutorattempted o providethe studentwith a memory aid, but she did not make sufficientlyclear how it


18/29

PRAGMATICSNDPEDAGOGY 177appliedo thenames f thescales.Theconfusionrosebecausehetutor re-supposedommonround-thats, that he student new hat herelationshipbetweenhespellingf noirand henames f thescaleswasarbitrary.Tutorsrequentlyothestudents'ork or hemnatutoringession. utorsoften ask questions hatprovide oo much informationa violationof Grice's[1975]maxim f quantity),hichessens hecognitiveurdenorthestudent.Example 3,drawnromanalgebrautoringessiononfractions,llustrateshis:

Example 3:13.1 Tutor: Andyouwant o multiplyhatby ... ?13.2 Student: , 42.13.3 Tutor: Yeah.Inthisexample,hetutorprovidedheoperationnformation,ndallthe studenthad to do was provide he numbers.Onemightexpectthis strategyo occurduringheearlystagesof a tutoringession,whenthe student as notyet mas-tered he material. f the tutoradhered o thisstrategyhroughouthe tutoringsession,however, hemisconceptionsf the studentmightneverhave beenad-dressed,andthe studentwouldrely on the tutor o supply he structure f thedialogue.A moreappropriate ethod or laterstages n thetutoringession s shownin Example14, in which he tutorand studentwerediscussinghenextstepincomputing t test:

Example 4:14.1 Tutor: We aregoingto use the scores?14.2 Student:Yeah.14.3 Tutor: OK,What's he firstthingwe need to do?14.4 Student:Youhaveto write he scoresdown.It getsmorecomplicated.14.5 Tutor: OK, you would, we would need all of those scores. So, um, whatwouldwe do whenwe'vegot all thescores?14.6 Student:Um,OK,youhave a mean?14.7 Tutor: OK....Inthisexample,hetutornever aidmore han hestudent adalreadyaid.Thiscouldbe thought f as a violation f themaximof quantity, ecause he tutor'srepetitionsrenotsupplying ew nformation.his echnique,owever, romotesactive earning y forcing he student o do most of the work.Thestudent's nswern the nextexamplellustrates violation f relevance,because hestudentocusedon a relativelyminordetail n thetutor'squestion.Example 15 is drawn from a researchmethods session on variables.


19/29

178 PERSON,REUZ,WAAN,RAESSERExample 5:15.1 Tutor: WhywouldNIMHnotgive me five milliondollars o do a corre-lational tudy?15.2 Student: Cause t's, well,that'sa lot of money.15.3 Tutor: Say$1,500.It's asidefrom hemoney ssue, f, OK...

At 15.3, the tutor dealt with this violation by explicitly redirecting he studentaway from the irrelevantaspectof the question. AlthoughExample15 illustratesa violation of relevance by the student, it is important o note that the tutoradhered o the maxim of relevance.On the otherhand,tutorsmayneed to violate the maximof relevancein orderto introducematerialthat facilitatesthe student'sunderstanding f the topic athand. The tutormay provide background nformation,new examples, or alter-nativeexplanations n order to ensure studentcomprehension, ven though theymay appearto be irrelevant.If, for example, a tutorproposes a confoundingvariableto explainan experimental esult,the new variablemay seem irrelevantto the topic at hand, until the student realizes the underlyingrelationship.Forexample,a tutormay ask the studentwhethertwo groupsof subjectswere testedat the same time of day. This question will appear rrelevantuntil the studentrealizes that time of day may affect dependentmeasures such as reaction time.

Collins and his colleagues (1977, 1985; Stevens, Collins, & Goldin, 1982)dissected theprocessof Socratictutoringas an importantpedagogical technique.In Socratictutoring, he tutordoes not correctan errorcommittedby the student;rather, he tutor asks a sequenceof carefully selected questionsthatexpose thestudent'smisconceptions.Interestingly, or the tutor o employSocratictutoring,the tutormust violate the maxim of quality,becausethe tutor, n effect, is actingas if the error s correct.Example16 illustratesSocratictutoring hatbegins duringStep 2. It occurredduringadiscussionof how to designa studythat would determine herelationship

between divorcedparentsand depressedchildren.Ethically, this could only beaccomplishedby using a correlationalapproach.Example 6:16.1 Tutor: Tell me first,ah, what kind of experimentwould it be? I mean,whatmethod?Wouldt be ... areyougoing o haveanexperimentaldesign?16.2 Student:Yes.16.3 Tutor: Youare?16.4 Student: robablyo, um,becausenot all children,f they'redepressed regoingto be ... you'renotgoingto be ableto look atanydataondepressedhildren.Well, I mean, et me startover.Youcanlookat dataon depressedhildren ndwhether rnottheirparents redivorced, ut f youwanted o really estyourhypothesis,t wouldbe betterf youconducted nexperimentalesearch esign.


20/29

PRAGMATICSNDPEDAGOGY 17916.5 Tutor: OK,I'm curious,OK,now how would we go aboutdoingthat?OK,thisis all upto you.

Duringthe next several turns,the studentstruggledto explainhis answer,whilethe tutor provided minimal input (e.g., "um hmm," "OK").Socratic tutoringrequires hatthe tutormaintain hestudent's alse beliefs untilit becomes obviousto the student that these beliefs are false. After several such turns, the tutorintervenes:Example 6 (continued):16.11 Tutor. ... and,I don't,I couldbewrong,butareyoumanipulatingny-

thing?16.12 Student:No, you'reabsolutelyight.No, I'mnot.Socratic utoring s rare n mosttutoring nteractions,becausethismethodrequiresa high level of domainknowledge, as well as a greatdeal of tutoringexperienceon the part of the tutor (Collins et al., 1975). Socratic tutoringmay also beuncommonbecause it forces tutorsto violatenormalconversational ules:in thiscase, the maxim of quality.In othercases, Socratic tutoringinvolves violating the maxim of relevance,becausethe tutor ntroducesa seeminglyirrelevant dea thatwill, ideally,redirectthe student's line of thinking.Collins (1977), for example,providedan exampleof a violation of relevance:

17.1 Tutor: Where n NorthAmerica o youthinkricemightbe grown?17.2 Student:Louisiana.17.3 Tutor: Whythere?17.4 Student: laceswhere here s a lotof water. think icerequiresheabilityto selectively loodfields.17.5 Tutor: OK. Do you think here'sa lot of rice in, say, WashingtonndOregon?17.6 Student:Aha,I don'tthink o.17.7 Tutor: Why?17.8 Student:There'sa lot of waterupthere oo,butthere's woreasons.First,the climate sn'tconducive, ndsecond,I don'tthink he land isflatenough.You'vegotto haveflat landso youcanflood a lot ofit, unlessyou terracet. (p. 351)

In 17.3, the tutor asked a questionto ensurethatthe student'sreasoningwasfocused on the relevantsteps in the causal chain for growing rice. That is, riceneeds to be flooded. In 17.4, the student statedthatrice grows in "places witha lot of water."The tutorimmediatelychose counterexamples WashingtonandOregon) hatmighthave seemedirrelevant o thestudent.However,this statementforced the studentto think of othercausal factors besides water.


21/29

180 PERSON,KREUZ, WAAN,GRAESSERIn the classroom,teachersmay attemptto explain difficult concepts by ap-pealing to a conceptual metaphor(i.e., the atom is like the solar system). One

advantageto this approach s that a difficult concept may be simplified for thestudents.Themetaphor,however,may lead to even more severemisconceptions.Feltovich,Spiro,andCoulson(1989) showed thatteachersoften use inappropriatemetaphors o explain difficult concepts. We have found that a similarproblemoccursduringtutoring.In Example 18, the tutor and the studentwere discussingmain effects and interactions.This tutorfrequentlychose to use a metaphor norder to determine the presence of a main effect in a graph.The tutor wouldsuggest that the studentvisually collapse togetherthe lines in the graph;if theresulting ine hada slope, this impliedthepresenceof a main effect. This methodwas referred o as the "squish"metaphor:

Example18:18.1 Tutor: Butthere resomeneat ricksobeingable ofigureoutgraphically[whether maineffectof a variables depicted].... Well,now wecanget fromhere[cell means] o a graph, ight?18.2 Student:Um hum.18.3 Tutor: 'Cause nceyou'reat thegraph,t's realeasytofigureout f there'sa maineffectforA, a maineffect forB, andaninteraction.18.4 Student:fthey'reparallel,well ... If they'reparallel,here's o interaction.18.5 Tutor: ... UUm, e would do what's called collapsing the two lines. I callit kinda quishingem.... Whatyouwoulddo,if thislineis hori-zontal points onew,squishedine]... we would aythat here snomain ffect or A.Butsince t'snothorizontalnd s ata certainanglewhereoneendis different rom he other ndpoint,henyoucansaythat here s a maineffect for A. OK,let'ssee,how aboutthis [drawswolineson a graph hatdepicta maineffectfor theA variable]?s therea maineffectforA?

18.6 Student:No.The student'sanswer was incorrect(thereis a main effect for A), even thoughthe tutorhad provideda supposedlyhelpful methodfor determining he answer.Does this meanthattutorsshouldalways avoidtheuse of metaphors?Example19, drawnfrom a session on Type I and Type II errors n the researchmethodstutoringcorpus,demonstrates he utility of a conceptualmetaphor:

Example19:19.1 Tutor: You don'tsee it,but t's there pointingo a decisionmatrixn thetext].Hereyouseeit, and t's notthere.... ThewayI, I'll tellyouthewayI remembert. A TypeI error s like um... you'rehallu-cinating ..19.2 Student:Um hum.


22/29

PRAGMATICSNDPEDAGOGY 18119.3 Tutor: ... yousee somethinghat'snotthere.TypeIIerror s likeyou'reblind.It's there,butyoudon'tsee it, andthat's hewayI always

rememberhese[laughs].19.4 Student:Oh,so let me write hesedown,hallucinationndblindness.The tutor and studentspent the next several turnsworking throughan exampleto determine whether a Type I or a Type II errorwas present.It is interestingto point out that, later in this discussion, the following exchange occurred:

Example 9 (continued):19.19 Tutor: Um,does thatmake t a littleclearer?19.20 Student:Yes.19.21 Tutor: OK....19.22 Student: .. becauseyou reallyneed somethingike that.., analogies,yeah.

Clearly,some metaphorsworkbetter hanothers.Tutorsmustjudiciouslychoosethose metaphorsthat are clear, helpful, and accurateand avoid metaphors hatdo not satisfy these criteria.Tutorsand studentsmay elect to introducea new concept by statingit as ageneralrule. This has the beneficial effect of minimizing the impositionof thenew informationon the hearer.In otherwords, instead of saying, "Do this,"thespeaker says, "Most people do this." Example 20, from a research methodssession on interactions, llustratesthe studentoffering a contribution ndirectly.The tutorhadforgottenanimportant rinciple, n thiscase, the numberof intervalson a Likert scale.

Example20:20.1 Tutor: Andour evelof psychotic.Let'ssaywehavea 10-pointcale orthat.20.2 Student:OK.20.3 Tutor: So ...20.4 Student:Whathappenedo themagicsix?![laughs]20.5 Tutor: Oh,OK.20.6 Student: Nameof instructor's] agicsix!20.7 Tutor: Themagicsix. OK,I forgot hemagicsix.20.8 Student:Great.20.9 Tutor: So, let's saywe have a 6-point cale.20.10 Student:OK.By invoking the name of the instructor, he studentprovided a face-saving ra-tionale for the use of a 6-point scale. Instead of directlyquestioningthe tutor'sselectionof a 10-pointscale, the studentwas ableto expressheropinion indirectlyin the form of a generalrule.


23/29

182 PERSON,REUZ,WAAN,RAESSERIt should be clear thatStep 4 is a collaborativeprocess:The tutor andstudentworktogetherto constructan answer.Inaddition,violations of theconversational

rules and politeness strategiesoccur. Some violations are made by the student,and some are made by the tutor.As we have shown, some tutor violations maybe desirable for effective tutoring.

Step5:TutorAssesses Student'sUnderstandingof the AnswerInthisstep,the tutorcouldencourage hestudent o identifyany specific problemsthat still remainat this stage in the tutoringprocess.Instead,tutorstypicallyaskvery general,yes-no questionsthatdo not tapthe student'smisconceptions.Forexample, tutorstypically ask:

Example 1:21.1 Tutor: Andthenyou'reOK. Areyouwith me?or

Example 2:22.1 Tutor: ... so youunderstandhat,right?In otherwords, the tutorsareadhering o Grice's (1975) maximof quantityevenwhen they should not. That is, the tutors make global statementsabout thestudent's comprehension nstead of asking questions regardingspecific issuesthat have alreadybeen addressed.This problemis very common in the tutoringcorpus and suggests an overrelianceon students' self-assessment. In normalconversation,it is assumed that individualsare accurate n assessing their ownknowledge (e.g., what they ate for lunch and to whom they are married),andlisteners do not challenge these reports. In tutoring, however, the student isoperatingon the frontierof his or her knowledge, and self-assessmentsmay bemuch less accurate.Therefore,the tutor should violate the maxim of quantityfrequently.A much betterapproachappearsin Example 23, drawnfrom a session onconstructingalgebraicequationsfrom word problems:

Example 3:23.1 Tutor: Do youhaveanyproblemwith thesekindsof wordproblemsre-ferringo a section n thebook]?Where heysay-23.2 Student:interrupts]h,notreally.23.3 Tutor: You don't?You don't?You don'thaveanytroublewiththat?23.4 Student:No.


24/29

PRAGMATICSNDPEDAGOGY 18323.5 Tutor: Let'sjustdo one of them.Um,Danearned 56, whichwas twicemore hanwhatJimearned.Nowyou're upposedo writeanequa-

tion.23.6 Student:Ah,I can'twrite heequations.The tutordiscovered he student'sdeficitsonly by repeatedlyquerying he student.Even this is insufficient; t was not until the student was challengedto performthatthe deficit was made manifest.Example 23 includesmanyviolationsof thepoliteness strategies(avoid disagreement,be optimistic, and minimize imposi-tion), but these violations were necessaryto expose the student's deficits.Sometimes a lack of common ground between the student and tutor mayadverselyaffect the tutoring nteraction.Specifically, the tutormay erroneouslyassume that the studentpossesses informationthat the student does not. Thispresuppositionof common groundcan be seen clearly in Example 24, drawnfrom an algebrasession on wordproblems:

Example24:24.1 Tutor: Now thatyou'veworked hem,let's trynumber14. It's a littledifferent nebut,ah, t's a lot liketheother wo.A bottleofProduceTimeapple uicecontains 4 ouncesandcosts99 cents.FarmFreshjuice,availablen bottleshat ontain negallon,oroneeighty-eight[$1.88]each;ah,which s the betterbuy?24.2 Student:Howmanyounces,um,arein a gallon?24.3 Tutor: Ouncespergallon,good question.You haven'thad these n tablesbefore....In this example, the tutorpresupposed hat the student knew how many ouncesare in a gallon. The studentdid not know, however, and asked the tutorfor theinformation. t is moretypical,however,for a student o hide his orherknowledgedeficits from the tutor, leading to a breakdownin effective tutoring.Tutors,therefore,should exercise cautionwhen they make presuppositionsabout whatthe tutor and student both know.Even when a concept or idea has been explicitly mentioned in a tutoringsession, the tutorcannotbe certain hatthe studentboth understands nd remem-bers the information.This can be contrastedwith normalconversation n whichcontributionsby bothparticipants re assumed to be in the commongroundandcompletely understood(Clark & Schaefer, 1989). Tutors, therefore,must becareful not to carryover this conversationalassumption nto tutoringsessions.Tutorsoccasionally preparestudents for a difficult problem by being pessi-mistic aboutwhether he studentcan solve theproblem.Example25, drawn roma session on variables, llustratesthis:

Example25:25.1 Tutor: OK,this one is probably littleharder han he firstone.25.2 Student:Yeah[laughs].


25/29

184 PERSON,KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSERThismethodmayhave unwantedonsequences. orexample, t maylead thestudent o believe hat ailure s expectedor evenacceptable. hismaylead toa diminutionf efforton thepartof the student.

CONCLUSIONSWe havesuggestedhattutoring an be examined y employinghestrategiesandmaxims hat haracterizeormal onversation.Wearenotclaiming, owever,thattutorial nd conversationalialoguearethe same.Discourseexists on acontinuum, ith nteractive,ormal onversationt one endand ess interactivediscoursee.g.,classroomectures ndspeeches) tthe other.Tutoring iscourseclearlyfalls somewhere etween hesetwo extremesandprobably esemblesconversationmorecloselythanclassroom iscourse. f this claimis true, t isnotsurprisinghat utors elyontheimplicit rinciplesf ordinaryonversation.As we haveshown,Grice's 1975,1978)conversationalulesandP.BrownandLevinson's1987)politeness trategiesffect hetutoring rocessnpositiveandnegativeways.Tutorshould, herefore,e cognizant f thesecostsandbenefits,because uchawarenessmayenhancehe overalleffectiveness f tutoring.Some stepsof the tutoringprocessare more vulnerableo conversationalmissteps hanothers.DuringStep 1, for example, he tutorandstudentmustnegotiate mutuallyomprehensibleuestionhatwillbeexpanded uringatersteps.During tep4, the tutormustelaboraten thestudent's nswer ndaddressthe student's nowledgedeficits.These two stagesare crucial or the tutoringprocess,butthere s a high probabilityhat ace-threateningctsmayoccur.Asa result,we foundmanyexamples f Grice's onversationalulesandP. BrownandLevinson's1987)politeness trategiesn thesesteps.Theremaybefunctional ifferencesnhow theserulesandstrategies peratein thetutoring omain.Grice's 1975, 1978)analysis ocuseson the contentofutterancese.g., quantity ndquality),whereasP. BrownandLevinson's 1987)approachddresseshe socialand nterpersonalimensionsf discourse.Futureresearchmayprofitablyxplorehow theserulesandstrategiesnteract,ndsuchafine-grainednalysismayofferadditionalnsightsnto hispedagogicalrocess.DomainDifferencesWe found hat he researchmethods ndalgebrautoringessionsdifferedromeach other n severalways. In particular,he tutors n the researchmethodssessionsseemed o relyon thepoliteness trategiesmorethandid the algebratutors.Thisfinding annotbe attributedo differencesn thestatusof thetutorsacross hetutoring omains,becausebothsampleswereexamplesof cross-agetutoringFitz-Gibbon,977).Thisdifference lsocannotbe attributedo differ-ences in the expertise of the tutors,because most of the algebratutorsand all


26/29

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY 185of the researchmethods utorshadneverpreviously ervedas tutors n theirrespective ubjects.This is, in fact,typicalof the tutoringhatoccurs n mostschoolsettings Cohenet al., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon,977).Otherdifferences etween he researchmethods ndalgebraessionsmayberesponsibleor the observeddifferences. orexample,we cannotruleout theeffectof agedifferences etween he twogroups f tutors.Wesuggest,however,that he differencesnpoliteness trategy semaybeattributableo the domainsof thetutoringessions.The researchmethodsdomain an be thought f as anopen-worldomain:Thequestions ndanswers onotexistwithinwell-definedparameters.n contrast,he algebradomaincanbe considered closed-worlddomain:Thequestionsand answersare typicallywell-definedCollinset al.,1975), and one can readilydistinguishbetweengood and bad answers.Forexample,t is far easier o elicit the answer o analgebrawordproblemhan tis to elicit thedrawbacksf acorrelationalesign.The answers redifferent, swell, because here s no ambiguity ssociatedwith a numeric esponse:Thestudentwhosays,"The nswersfive," anreceive lear-cuteedback.ncontrast,thestudentwhosays,"It's ess powerful,"bouta correlationalesignmaynotcompletelyunderstandhe underlying rinciples, nd the tutormustfollowupon the student's agueanswer o ensurehis or herunderstanding.Forthesereasons, hetutors andstudents)n open-world omainsmayrelyheavilyon the conversationalulesandpolitenesstrategieshat acilitate ormalconversation. s we haveshown,however,heserulesandstrategiesancreatepedagogical roblems,ven whentheyareemployedo expeditenormal ocialinteraction.Establishing roundRules nTutoringAs manyresearchersavedemonstrated,tudentsmusthaveprerequisitenfor-mationnorder oprofit romaneducationalxperienceGagn6, 977;VanLehn,1987).Forexample, tudentsequireelevant ackgroundnowledgenorder ocomprehendextbook nformationMcKeown,Beck, Sinatra,& Loxterman,1992).In a similarway, studentsmusthavean understandingf the tutoringprocessbeforea tutoringessionbegins.Specifically,we believe hat utorsandstudents hould stablish onversationalround ulesprior o thetutoringnter-action.Thestudenthouldbe madeaware hat he tutorwill usenegative eed-back,that the "normal"ules of conversationmaybe violated e.g., the tutormay say,"No,youranswer s wrong"), ndthat hestudents expected o takea veryactiverole in the tutoring rocess. n thisway,knowledgedeficitsmaybe moreeasily exposedandmoreeasilycorrected. hetutoring rocess houldbe moreefficient.As mentioned arlier,most of the effortin Step4 of the tutorialdialogueframe (studentand tutor collaboratively improve the quality of the answer) iscontributedby the tutor.We suggest thattutors mplementstrategiesthatencour-


27/29

186 PERSON, KREUZ,ZWAAN, GRAESSERage the active participationof the studentratherthan the tutorsupplyingmostof the information.A trulycollaborativeexchangeduringStep 4 allows for moreactive involvementon the partof the student,as well as moreopportunities orthe tutor to identifythe student'sknowledge deficits. The reasonthese activitiesdo not frequentlyoccurduringStep 4 may be the overreliance,by both tutorandstudent,on theconversational ules andpolitenessstfategiesof normaldiscourse.This overreliance on the rules and strategies of normal conversationalsocreates a problem in Step 5, in which the tutor assesses the student's under-standing.Becausethisassessmentcan be veryface threateningorstudents, utorsoften assumethat, if the materialhas been covered duringthe tutoringsession,it has been understoodby the student.We suggest thattutorsactively probethestudents n order o expose knowledgedeficits. If the tutorsexplicitly inform thestudents thatthis will occur,the studentswill regard his assessmentas less facethreatening.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis researchwas fundedby grantsawarded o ArthurC. Graesserby the Officeof Naval Research N00014-88-K-0110, N00014-90-J-1492, andN00014-92-J-1826) and by a Center for Excellence grant awardedto the DepartmentofPsychology at the Universityof Memphis by the state of Tennessee.We are indebted to John Cady for providing access to the seventh-gradealgebratutoring essions. The comments of two anonymousreviewers were alsovery helpful.

REFERENCESAronsson,K., & Rundstrim,B. (1989). Cats,dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiationof reality:On politeness and coherencein pediatricdiscourse.Languageand Society, 18, 483-504.Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem:The search for methodsof group nstruction s effectiveas one-to-onetutoring.EducationalResearcher, 13, 4-16.Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann,P., & Glaser,P. (1989). Self-explanations:How studentsstudy and use examples in learningto solve problems.CognitiveScience, 13, 145-182.Clark, H. H., & Carlson,T. B. (1981). Context for comprehension.In J. Long & A. D. Baddeley(Eds.), Attentionand performance (Vol. 9, pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.Clark,H. H., & Schaefer,E. F. (1987). Collaboratingon contributions o conversations.Languageand CognitiveProcesses, 2, 19-41.Clark,H. H., & Schaefer,E. F. (1989). Contributingo discourse.CognitiveScience, 13, 259-294.Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., & Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understandingofdemonstrative eference.Journal of VerbalLearningand VerbalBehavior, 22, 245-258.


28/29

PRAGMATICS AND PEDAGOGY 187Cohen,P. A., Kulik,J. A., & Kulik,C. C. (1982). Educationaloutcomesof tutoring:A meta-analysisof findings.AmericanEducational ResearchJournal,19, 237-248.Collins, A. (1977). Processes in acquiringknowledge. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E.

Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 339-363). Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.Collins, A. (1985). Teaching reasoningskills. In S. F. Chipman,J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),

Thinkingand learningskills (Vol. 2, pp. 579-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,Inc.Collins, A., Warnock, E. H., Aeillo, N., & Miller, M. L. (1975). Reasoning from incomplete

knowledge.InD. G. Bobrow& A. Collins(Eds.),Representation nd understanding pp.453-494).New York:Academic.Cozby, P. C. (1989). Methods in behavioralresearch (4th ed.). MountainView, CA: Mayfield.Craig, R. T., Trasy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests:Assessment of a politeness

approach.Human CommunicationResearch, 12, 437-468.Epstein, W., Glenberg, A. M., & Bradley, M. M. (1984). Coactivation and comprehension:Contribution f text variables to the illusion of knowing.Memory& Cognition,12, 355-360.Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1989). The nature of conceptualunderstandingnbiomedicine: The deep structureof complex ideas and the developmentsof misconceptions. InD. A. Evans & V. L. Patel (Eds.), Cognitive science in medicine: Biomedical modeling (pp.113-172). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Fitz-Gibbon,C. T. (1977). An analysis of the literature of cross-age tutoring.Washington,DC:National Instituteof Education.(ERICDocumentReproductionService No. ED 148 807)Fox, B. (1993). Thehumantutorialdialogue project. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,Inc.Fraser,B. (1990). Perspectiveson politeness.Journalof Pragmatics,14, 219-236.Gagnd,R. M. (1977). The conditionsof learning(3rd ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart& Winston.Glenberg,A. M., Wilkinson,A. C., & Epstein,W. (1982). The illusion of knowing:Failurein theassessmentof comprehension.Memory& Cognition,10, 597-602.Goffman,E. (1967). Interactionritual: Essays onface-to-face behavior. GardenCity, NY: Anchor.Graesser,A. C. (1993a).Questioningmechanismsduringcomplex earning.MemphisStateUniversity,Memphis,TN. (ERICDocument ReproductionService No. ED 350 306)Graesser,A. C. (1993b). Dialogue patternsand feedback mechanismsduringnaturalistic utoring.InW. Kintsch(Chair),Proceedings of the 15thAnnualConferenceof the CognitiveScience Society

(pp. 126-130). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.Graesser,A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Questionasking during tutoring.American EducationalResearchJournal, 31, 104-137.Graesser,A. C., Person, N. K., & Huber,J. D. (1992). Mechanismsthatgenerate questions. In T.Lauer,E. Peacock, & A. C. Graesser(Eds.), Questionsand information ystems (pp. 167-187).Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.Graesser,A. C., Person, N. K., & Huber,J. D. (1993). Questionasking during tutoringand in the

design of educational oftware.In M. Rabinowitz Ed.),Cognitivesciencefoundationsof instruction(pp. 149-172). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation.In P. Cole & J. Morgan(Eds.), Syntaxand semantics:Vol. 3. Speechacts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic.Grice, H. P. (1978). Furthernotes on logic andconversation.In P. Cole (Ed.),Syntaxand semantics:Vol. 9. Pragmatics(pp. 113-127). New York: Academic.Griffin, P., & Humphrey,F. (1978). Taskand talk at lesson time: Children's unctional languageand education in the earlyyears (FinalReport,CarnegieCorporation).New York:CarnegieCorp.Kasper,G. (1990). Linguisticpoliteness:Current esearch ssues. JournalofPragmatics,14, 193-218.Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts,R. M. (1993). When collaboration ails: Consequencesof pragmaticerrorsin conversation.Journal of Pragmatics,19, 239-252.Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London:Longman.


29/29

188 PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSERLeinhardt,G. (1987). Developmentof anexpertexplanation:An analysisof a sequenceof subtractionlessons. Cognitionand Instruction,4, 225-283.McArthur,D., Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas,M. (1990). Tutoring techniques n algebra. CognitionandInstruction,7, 197-244.McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra,G. M., & Loxterman,J. (1992). The contributionof priorknowledge and coherenttext to comprehension.ReadingResearch Quarterly,27, 78-93.Mehan,H. (1979). Learning essons: Social organization n the classroom.Cambridge,MA: Harvard

UniversityPress.Mohan,M. (1972). Peer tutoringas a technique or teaching the unmotivated.Fredonia,NY: StateUniversity of New York, Teacher EducationResearch Center. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 061 154)Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The constructionzone: Working or cognitive changein school. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering ndcomprehension-monitoringctivities. Cognitionand Instruction,1, 117-175.Penman, R. (1990). Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of

Languageand Social Psychology,9, 15-38.Person, N. K., Graesser,A. C., Magliano,J. P., & Kreuz,R. J. (1994). Inferringwhat the studentknows in one-to-onetutoring:The role of studentquestionsand answers.Learningand IndividualDifferences, 6, 205-229.Putnam,R. T. (1987). Structuring ndadjusting or students:A live and simulated utoringof addition.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal, 24, 13-48.

Resnick, L. B. (1977). Holding an instructional onversation:Comments on chapter 10 by Collins.In R. C. Anderson,R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition ofknowledge(pp. 365-372). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen,S. H., & Holowchak,M. (1993). Reasoninginconversation.Cognitionand Instruction,11, 347-364.Stevens, R., Collins, A., & Goldin, S. E. (1982). Misconceptions n students'understanding. n D.Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoringsystems (pp. 13-24). New York: Academic.VanLehn,K. (1987). Learningone subprocedure er lesson. Artificial Intelligence,31, 1-40.VanLehn,K. (1990). Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions.Cambridge,MA: MITPress.

Weaver, C. A., III. (1990). Calibrationand assessment of comprehension.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,Universityof Colorado,Boulder.

Pragmatics and Pedagogy

Documents

Transcript of Pragmatics and Pedagogy