1995 Politeness Strategies May Inhibit Effective.pdf

Pragmatics and Pedagogy: Conversational Rules and Politeness Strategies May Inhibit Effective Tutoring Author(s): Natalie K. Person, Roger J. Kreuz, Rolf A. Zwaan and Arthur C. Graesser Source: Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1995), pp. 161-188 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233712 Accessed: 04-09-2015 06:44 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233712?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION, 1995,13(2), 161-188

Inc. Erlbaum Associates, Copyright ? 1995,Lawrence

Pragmaticsand Pedagogy: ConversationalRules and Politeness

StrategiesMay Inhibit EffectiveTutoring Natalie K. Person, Roger J. Kreuz, Rolf A. Zwaan, and ArthurC. Graesser Departmentof Psychology Universityof Memphis

In this article,we identifyways thatGrice's(1975) conversational rulesandP. Brownand Levinson's(1987) politenessstrategiesare commonlyemployedin one-to-onetutoringinteractions. We examinedtwo cross-agedtutoringcorpora fromresearchmethodsandalgebratutoringsessionsto showhow theserulesand strategiescanpotentiallyenhanceandinhibiteffectivetutoring.Examplesof these costs and benefitsare presentedwithina five-stepdialogueframeproposedby Graesserand Person(1994). Thereappearto be differencesin the use of these politenessstrategieswhenalgebratutoringprotocolsarecomparedwith research methodsprotocols.We suggestthatpolitenessstrategiesaremoreprevalentin less constrained domains,even thoughtheiruse may inhibiteffectivetutoring. Although tutoringhas been employed as a pedagogicaldevice for millennia,only recently has the process of tutoringbeen investigated scientifically (Fox, 1993; Graesser& Person, 1994; Leinhardt,1987; McArthur,Stasz, & Zmuidzinas,1990; Putnam, 1987; VanLehn, 1990). An understandingof the tutoring process is important,because tutoringtypically is more effective thanclassroom instruction. Althoughmost researchersin this areahave referredto a positive cognitive change as an essential part of effective tutoring(e.g., Palincsar& A. L. Brown, 1984; Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989), a universally accepted definition of effective tutoring has not emerged. Researchers examining the advantage of tutoring comparedwith classroom instructionhave reportedeffect sizes rangingfrom .4 to 2.3 standarddeviationunits(Bloom, 1984;Cohen,J. A. Kulik,& C. C. Kulik, 1982; Requests for reprintsshould be sent to Natalie K. Person, Departmentof Psychology, Rhodes College, 2000 North Parkway, Memphis, TN 38112. e-mail: [email protected]

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

162

PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSER

existseven thoughtutorstypicallyarenothighly Mohan,1972).Thisadvantage trained(Cohenet al., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon, 1977;Graesser,1993a,1993b;Graesser to agedifferences, & Person,1994).In addition,thisadvantage is notattributable becausethe effect sizes previouslycited includeexpert,cross-aged,and peer tutoring. Becausethese effects arenot due to sophisticated pedagogicalstrategiesor age differences,the truecausemustlie elsewhere.One possiblereasonfor the effectivenessof tutoringrevolvesaroundthe dialoguethatoccursbetweenthe than tutorandstudent.Tutoringdialogueis moresimilarto normalconversation in theclassroom(Resnick,1977).Thepurpose is thelectureformatusedprimarily can potentiallyaid, of this articleis to illustratehow propertiesof conversation as well as hinder,effectivetutoring. PERSPECTIVESON CONVERSATION THEORETICAL The implicitrules and strategiesthatfacilitatenormalconversationwere first describedby Grice(1975, 1978),who proposedthatconversationis governed rule:the cooperativeprinciple.Accordingto this principle, by one overarching makea "goodfaith"effortto contributeto and collaborateon the participants as it proceeds(Clark& Schaefer,1987, 1989).Grice(1975, 1978) conversation furthersuggestedthatthis cooperationis augmentedby a numberof conversationalmaxims:quality(do not say thingsthatareuntrue),quantity(do not say relevance(do not say thingsthatareextraneous), moreor less thanis required), andmanner(be brief,be orderly,andavoidobscurityandambiguity). OthertheoristshaveexpandedGrice's(1975, 1978)approach.Forexample, Leech(1983)suggestedanoverarching politenessprinciplewithseveralmaxims and modesty).Leech maintainedthat the (e.g., tact, generosity,approbation, politenessprincipleis necessaryfor Grice's(1975, 1978)cooperativeprinciple to be effectivein normalconversation. Thisinterestin linguisticpolitenesshasbeenmostfullyexploredby P. Brown andLevinson(1987).In an analysisof languagesusedin threewidelydiffering cultures(Englishin the UnitedStatesandBritain,Tamilin India,andTzeltalin politenessstrategies MayanMexico),P. BrownandLevinsonfoundthatparticular areuseduniversally.Theydescribeddozensof conversational strategiesthatare Centralto P. BrownandLevinson'sanalysis usedto facilitatesocialinteraction. in a culture is thenotionofface, orone'sself-image(Goffman,1967).Individuals maintain their to others and to maintain a attempt positiveself-image try help ownself-images.Thisis notalwayspossible,however,becausefaceis frequently acts.Suchactsincluderequests,criticisms,and putin dangerby face-threatening demands.Eachculturehas deviseda numberof linguisticstrategiesto mitigate acts. the impactof theseface-threatening thatspeakersmay P.BrownandLevinson(1987)discussedthreesuperstrategies employ:positivepoliteness, negativepoliteness, andoff-record.Positivepoliteness

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

163

of thehearer'swantsandneeds.It includesthe acknowlrefersto an appreciation &Buttrick, edgmentof commonground(Clark& Carlson,1981;Clark,Schreuder, thatthe speakerandhearerare cooperators,anda 1983),the acknowledgment readinessto fulfillthespeaker'swants(P.Brown& Levinson,1987,p. 102).For is reallybeautiful,ina way,"thespeakerseeks example,bysaying,"Thatsculpture withthelistener.Perhapsthespeakerdoesnotreallybelieve to avoiddisagreement is beautiful; andbyhedging(i.e.,saying,"ina way"),thespeaker thatthesculpture withthelistener. is ableto providetokenagreement in attemptsto minimizeimpositionson the Negativepoliteness, comparison, hearer.This somewhatconfusingtermdoes not implya lack of politenessbut rathera methodof ingratiation. Negativepolitenesscan be accomplishedin The can minimize the threatto thehearer,give the hearer variousways: speaker or not to communicate the the option act, speaker'sdesirenotto impingeon the Brown & Levinson,1987,p. 131).By saying,"Ijust wantto ask you hearer(P. if you can lend me a tiny bit of paper,"the speakerminimizesthe imposition as possible. on the listenerby makingthe requestas understated A final superstrategy discussedby P. BrownandLevinson(1987) involves going off-record.A speakermakesa statementbut does so in a vague way, of the commentopen to the hearer(Craig,Tracy,& leavingthe interpretation Spisak,1986).Forexample,by saying,"It'shot in here,"the speakerindicates her or his desireto have someonetakeaction,perhapsby openinga window. This requestis madeobliquely,however,and gives the listenerthe optionnot to act. canbe construedas violationsof Grice's Manyof theseoff-recordstatements maxims.For example,a speakermay violatethe maxim (1975) conversational of relevanceby providingthe hearerwith a hint or may violatethe maximof The maximof qualitymay be violated quantityby overstatingor understating. by the use of irony,metaphors,or rhetoricalquestions.The maximof manner may be violatedby the use of vague or ambiguousstatements(P. Brown& Levinson,1987,p. 214).Inall theseways,thespeakercansavefaceby delivering acts in an indirectway. face-threatening P. BrownandLevinson's(1987)analysisof politenesshas becomethedominantperspectivein the areaof linguisticpoliteness(Fraser,1990;Kasper,1990). Thereare,however,severaldifficultiesin applyingthis theoryin empiricalreas Craiget al. (1986)pointedout,thedozensof individual search.Mostimportant, politenessstrategiesare not mutuallyexclusive;manyspeechacts can be justiFor fiably coded underdifferentstrategiesand even differentsuperstrategies. example,manyrequestsfor actionareconventionallyindirect(negativepolite(off-record). ness) andunderstated These difficultieshave led some researchers to proposenew approachesto linguisticpoliteness(e.g., Penman's[1990] analysisof courtroomdiscourse). However,no alternative schemehasreceivedmuchsupport.As a result,it is not possible to use P. Brown and Levinson's (1987) taxonomy to test empirically

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

164

PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN,GRAESSER

some of the issues thattheirtheoryraises.As a generalframework, however, the approachhas clearutility. P. BrownandLevinson's(1987) analysisof linguisticpolitenessmay have Accordingto P. BrownandLevinson(p. greatrelevanceto tutoringinteractions. is determined 74), thedegreeto whichan actis facethreatening by threefactors: (a) socialdistancebetweenthe speakerandhearer,(b) the relativepowerof the speakerandhearer,and(c) thedegreeof impositionof the act.If socialdistance andimpositionis high,thenthe"weightiis high,relativepoweris asymmetrical, a act is high.Forexample,a lawyerinterrogating ness"of the face-threatening widowabouther husband'smaritalinfidelitiesmightmakeheavyuse of these strategies.In mosttutoringsituations,thefirsttwofactorswill be relativelyhigh, becausethe tutorandstudentdo not knoweachotherandthe tutoris clearlyin control.The thirdfactor(degreeof imposition)will vary, dependingon the seriousnessof the imposition. haveexaminedP. BrownandLevinson's(1987)politeness Otherresearchers in of requests(Craiget al., 1986),medicaldiscourse(Aronsthe context strategies son & Rundstr6m,1989), and courtroomdiscourse(Penman,1990). This approach,however,hasnotbeenutilizedto clarifytheprocessof tutoringdiscourse. Yet it is likely thatthe variouspolitenessstrategiesarefrequentlyemployedin tutoringinteractions. The purposeof this articleis to illustratehow the politenessstrategiesare used, both positivelyand negatively,duringone-to-onetutoring.We do not attemptto quantifythevariouspolitenessstrategies,however.At thisearlystage at a fine-grained to analyzestrategiesquantitatively of research,it is premature will no doubt The et level (see Craig al., 1986). vary considerably strategies amongtutors,topics,andstudentpopulations.Ourprimarygoal at thispointis to documentsomeof the interesting waysin whichpragmaticprinciplesinteract will quantifythe use of thesestrategies studies Future withthe tutoringprocess. contexts. in differenttutoring rulesandpolitenessstrategiesdiscussedin this articleare Theconversational 1. in summarized Table Thisarticledoesnotaddressallof P.BrownandLevinson's (1987) strategiesbutratherthe subsetthatseemsmost germaneto the tutoring process.In otherwords,therulesandstrategiesthatwe discusswereinductively Someof thecostsandbenefits selected,basedon a closereadingof thetranscripts. out are rules and with the associated strategies pointed in Table1. OF TUTORING FRAMEWORK THECONVERSATIONAL Graesserandhis colleagues(Graesser,1993a,1993b;Graesser& Person,1994) An extensiveanalysisof tutorof tutoringinteractions. examinedthe framework corporarevealedthata five-stepdialogueframeis veryprevalent ing transcript duringone-to-one tutoring:

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

0

0

v

~

U

o

,

,

*au

U'

b3

CL

0u

t)E

Q)

0

0Q

So

_

Q

't
0. ?

X

0 -q.

75

a) 0

t

>0

a. 0

o

v,35;

t)

t)

~

oc

t)

0 r o

Ec,4-&

t)

>j

~

c

cz

cz

CLC~c

:0

t5

t)

0 0 0.

cl

o&

x a) C)

u

'C

4-& 0 oo1~*C'

0-

o

o

,

vo O t)

cz

t) 4o

CL

o

9 1*

~

c;~

v,

0

2

3o 0

0

t)

t

t) u

r.

3"

o

v

4-& c in oo H C, or

W

0

a

, CL

-

W

Ee

-4--

o

4-&

CL

o

c(J)? o

0

E

00

r.c

r

~ C',

75

4C. E;

cl

o CC

t)

~

0d

t) 0

as

-~

L

0 g ar. r

u

=

E?f

e:

05

0 0

0

E

?0

MscY

.E

E

E

E

0 EE 20

0

W

CL

v

%o

0

l

.-

u Pt% >

Lv

n

&

C42 U.

0

165 This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

0

ob

E

"o

t)at

Zie

0

>

Q)

v,

0,k

40.

.o

00(S C,

00

H 0-0 2

2 U4

o

tU

o

E

O C

l

to 0

s

CL

tto

~ ~

U'

0

U'

H

cnOr$., D 4-& -10

E

0

E

0

02

M

cn cz

4-4

~0

>

c

0.

u

0

CL-1 $E

1

5 0

U

.G >% -1

co :C:

C

*5

;;

0

e

00U

U'

30cn

0

o

E

00

E

F

72

U

450

co w c2 E 60,

4.

0

'3

u

04C. 0 Ct)

oto~

o

Z0

0

(

2

0

n c 03

l

E~~.~

C., UE

0

Q)

WQ

~L

t,4

u

cn 3 n u

dv

q3

u"

cz cn

v

166 This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PRAGMATICS AND PEDAGOGY

167

1. 2. 3. 4.

Tutor asks a question. Student answers the question. Tutor gives feedback on the answer. Tutorand studentcollaborativelyimprovethe quality of (or embellish) the answer. 5. Tutor assesses student's understandingof the answer.

An example of a five-step dialogue frame from our corpus is shown in Example 1. The studentwas being tutoredon the concept of factorialdesigns in a research methods tutoringsession: Example 1: Step 1

1.1 Tutor: So, how manyF scoreswouldbe computed? Step 2

1.2 Student:Three. Step 3

1.3 Tutor: Three[agreeingwith the student]. Step 4

1.4 Tutor: Andwhatnumbers[referring to a matrixof cell means]wouldyou use? 1.5 Student:You woulddo one for humor[one of the independent variables]. 1.6 Tutor: And whatdoes thattell you? 1.7 Student:I'm not sure[laughs]. 1.8 Tutor: OK, why do you do an F score?Whatis an F score? 1.9 Student:To see the size, uh, significance? 1.10 Tutor: The size of the significance. 1.11 Student:The size of the significance. 1.12 Tutor: Right,how statisticallysignificanta variableis. 1.13 Student:Right. 1.14 Tutor: So, you areright,youwouldhavethree[F scores]:oneforcaffeine, one for humor,andone for ... ? 1.15 Student: The scores ... from caffeine and humor?

1.16 Tutor: Interaction, the interaction of the two, right. 1.17 Student:Um hmm. 1.18 Tutor: [Explainsindependence of maineffects] Step 5

1.19 Tutor: Do you see whatI'm saying? 1.20 Student:Um hmm. There is some flexibility in the implementationof this five-step frame. For example, a step may consist of more than one turn. In Example 1, Step 4 starts at 1.4 and continues through 1.18. It is also possible that steps may be omitted.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN,GRAESSER

Forexample,Step3 maynot occur-that is, the tutormaychoosenotto supply feedbackon the student'sanswer. The heartof the tutoringprocesscan be foundin the last two steps of this dialogueframe.DuringStep4, thetutorandstudentelaborateon theideasraised in the earliersteps.In a classroom,however,this elaborationis less likely to occuror to be individuallytailoredto a particular student.In addition,Step 5 allowsthe tutorto monitorcloselythe student'sunderstanding. Onceagain,this monitoringis less likelyto occurin a classroomsetting. Mehan(1979)reported thatonlythefirstthreestepsoccurin normalclassroom Giventheadvantages of tutoringoverclassroominstruction, it seems instruction. in correcting reasonableto assumethatSteps4 and5 are especiallyimportant it is duringStep4 thatthetutoring andrepairing knowledgedeficits.In particular, Thatis, bothtutorand studentcontribute sessionbecomestrulycollaborative. to arriveat the correctsolution(Graesser,1993b; crucialpieces of information Graesser& Person,1994;fora relatedpoint,see Resnick,Salmon,Zeitz,Wathen, & Holowchak,1993). In Step 5, however,relativelylittle informationis exchanged;the tutorattemptsto assess the student'sgraspof the topic at hand. This relianceon the student'sself-assessmentis problematic, becausestudents arerarelyableto calibratetheirown comprehension (Chi,Bassok,Lewis,Rei& & Wilkinson, mann, Glaser,1989;Epstein,Glenberg, Bradley,1984;Glenberg, & Epstein,1982;Person,Graesser,Magliano,& Kreuz,1994;Weaver,1990). In the remainder of this article,we showhow Grice's(1975, 1978) conversationalrulesandP. BrownandLevinson's(1987)politenessstrategiespositively andnegativelyaffectthepedagogicalprocessin thefive-steptutoringframe.We drawexamplesfromtwodifferenttutoringdomains,whicharedescribedin detail in the next section.

TWOTUTORINGSAMPLES We examinedtwo differenttutoringcorpora:college studentslearningresearch methodsandseventhgraderslearningalgebra.Wechosethesecorporaforvarious reasons.First,thesecorporawereanalyzedpreviouslyin the contextof question askingandanswering(Graesser,1993a,1993b;Graesser,Person,& Huber,1992, 1993).Second,thesecorporaareexamplesof cross-agetutoring,whichis theform of tutoringcommonin most school systems(Cohenet al., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon, 1977).Third,thesecorporaaredrawnfromverydifferenttutoringdomains;the algebratutoringcan be thoughtof as a relativelyclosed-worlddomain(Collins, Warnock,Aeillo, & Miller,1975;Fox, 1993)comparedwithresearchmethods Itmaybe thecasethatthepoliteness tutoring,whichhasless specifiedboundaries. strategiespreviouslydescribedmayoperatedifferently,dependingon thetypeof tutoringdomain.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND PEDAGOGY PRAGMATICS

169

Sample1:CollegeStudentsLearningResearchMethods Students and tutors. Tutoringprotocolswere collectedfrom 27 undergraduatestudents enrolled in a psychology researchmethods class at the University of Memphis. All studentsparticipatedin the tutoringsessions in orderto fulfill a course requirement.The tutoring protocols, therefore, were a repre-

sentativecollege sampleratherthana samplerestrictedto studentswho were havingdifficulty. The tutorsweresix psychologygraduatestudentswho hadeach receivedan and a graduateresearchmethodscourse.Eachof A in both an undergraduate these graduatestudentshad tutoredon a few occasionspriorto this studybut not in the areaof researchmethods. selectedsix topicsthatarenorLearningmaterials. The courseinstructor in methods course.A list was prepared a research students for troublesome mally for eachof the six topics;threeto five relevantsubtopicswerealso includedin the list. The tutorswere instructedto cover these topics and subtopicsin the tutoringsessions.The topicsandsubtopicswereas follows: definitions,typesof scales,andvaluesof variables. Operational distributions, plottingmeans,andhistograms. Frequency Decisionmatrices,TypeI andTypeII errors,t tests,andprobabilities. controlgroups, a hypothesis,practicalconstraints, Hypothesistesting:Formulating design,andstatisticalanalyses. Factorialdesigns: Independent variables,dependentvariables,statistics,maineffects, cells, andinteractions. and Interactions: variables,maineffects,typesof interactions, Independent statisticalsignificance.

Variables: Graphs: Statistics:

The students were exposed to the material on two occasions prior to their participationin the tutoringsessions. First, each topic was covered in a lecture by the instructorbefore the topic was covered in the tutoring session. Second, each student was required to read specific pages in a research methods text (Methods in Behavioral Research, Cozby, 1989) prior to the tutoring session. This ensured that the students would have some familiaritywith the topics and provided more common ground for the tutoringsession. Procedure. Each studentparticipatedin two types of tutoringsessions: un-

structured (or "normal") tutoringsessions.This tutoringsessionsandstructured issues to address other included (see Graesser,1993a), pedagogical manipulation, is not addressedin this article.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN,GRAESSER

Threeof the tutorswere assignedto the unstructured tutoringsessions.In these sessions,the tutorswerenot given a specificformatto follow. Whena to sit in view of a studententeredthe tutoringroom,the studentwas instructed cameraandto readaloudthe list of topics.Thetutoringsessionthenproceeded in the directionthatthe tutorandstudentsaw fit. The otherthreetutorswere assignedto the structured tutoringsessions.In thesetutoringsessions,tutorsandstudentsworkedthrougha setof predetermined problemsrelevantto the topicsandsubtopicsprovidedon theirlist. All six of to encouragestudentquestionsandto avoidsimply thetutorswerealsoinstructed Each to the student. tutoringsessionwasvideotapedandlastedapproxilecturing 60 min. mately in fourtutoringsessions.A counterbalEachof the 27 studentsparticipated a so was that scheme (a) studentneverhadthesametutortwice, designed ancing six tutor covered each all (b) topics,(c) eachtutorwas assignedto 18 tutoring in two unstructured and a student sessions, (d) tutoringsessionsand participated each instructed threestudents sessions. tutor two structured Therefore, tutoring on each of the six topics,whichyielded 108 tutoringsessions.Twenty-fiveof due to audioproblems. the tutoringsessionscouldnot be transcribed

Algebra Sample2: SeventhGradersLearning Studentsand tutors. Thissampleconsistedof 22 tutoringsessionsin which high school studentstutoredseventhgradersenrolledat a middleschool in Memphis.This corpusincludedall of the algebratutoringsessionsfrom the schoolduringa 1-monthperiod.Algebrateachersidentified13 seventhgraders who werehavingdifficultyin theircourses.Thetutorswere10 localhighschool studentswho normallyprovidedtutoringservicesfor the middleschool. On Liketheresearch average,thetutorshad9 hrof prioralgebratutoringexperience. an methodssample,the algebrasamplewas exampleof cross-agetutoring.This sample,however,differedfromthe researchmethodssamplein thatthe seventh theirknowledge in thetutoringsessionsin orderto remediate gradersparticipated deficitsratherthanfor coursecredit. Tutoringtopics and sessions. Most of the tutoringsessionsfocusedon threetopicsthatare frequentlytroublesometo seventh-grade algebrastudents. These included(a) positiveand negativenumbers,(b) fractions,and (c) constructingalgebraicequationsfromwordproblems.Thesetopicsweretypically associatedwith homeworkproblems,examinationitems, or a chapterin the algebratext.Tutorsandstudentsfrequentlyreferredto this materialduringthe 45 min, whichis tutoringsessions.The tutoringsessionslastedapproximately roughly comparableto the researchmethods sessions. Each session was videotaped by a researchassistantfrom the University of Memphis.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

171

andCodingof the Tutoring Sessions Transcription Transcribersreceived a 1-hrtrainingsession on how to transcribethe videotapes. They were instructedto transcribethe entiretutoringsessions verbatim,including all "ums,""ahs,"word fragments,brokensentences, and pauses. The transcribers specified whether an utterancewas made by the student or tutor. In addition, transcribersalso noted messages that appearedon the markerboard, hand gestures,head nods, and simultaneousspeech acts thatoccurredbetween the student and tutor. Each transcriptionwas verified for accuracy by a research assistant who spot-checkedrandom segments of each of the videotapes.

EXAMPLES FROMTHEPROTOCOLS In this section, we provide examples of the positive and negative consequences of the conversationalrules and politeness strategies in the tutoringcorpora described earlier. The following paragraphsillustrate the use of these rules and strategies within the five-step dialogue frame proposed by Graesserand Person (1994).

Step 1:TutorAsksa Question Typically, a tutoring exchange is initiated by a question posed by the tutor. Depending on the tutoring domain, the question may be relatively open-ended or relatively constrained.The topics addressed by the tutors in the research methods sessions lacked the specificity of the topics addressed in the algebra tutoring sessions. Example 2 shows a typical topic from the research methods corpus: Example 2:

2.1 Tutor: OK. All right.So, we've specifiedour hypothesis.OK.Whatelse do we need to do beforewe performa t testor an F test? This can be contrastedwith a Step 1 question from the algebracorpus: Example 3:

3.1 Tutor: Let'stryanotherone. Ah,numbereight,thenumberof seatson the new 525 airlineris a 36%increaseover the old model.The new Howmanypassengers didtheold model planeseats374 passengers. seat? In Example 2, the tutor gave the student a great deal of latitude in specifying how to move from a hypothesis to a statisticalanalysis. For example, the student had the option to declare a populationor a sample or to define operationallythe

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN,GRAESSER

dependentmeasure.In Example3, however,the tutorwas requestinga numeric responsethatthe studenthad to generateby applyingthe appropriate equation. answersweremuchmoreconstrained in Example3 thanin Example Appropriate 2. Althoughit oversimplifies matters,hereafterwe assumethatalgebrais a more closed-worlddomainthanis the researchmethodsdomain. constrained, The conversational rules andpolitenessstrategiesprovidedin Table 1 both facilitateandinhibitthe tutoringprocess.Forexample,at this earlystagein the five-stepframe,the tutormay attemptto putthe studentat ease by minimizing in Example4, which the impositionof his or herquestion.Thisis demonstrated was drawnfroma researchmethodssessionon factorialdesigns: Example4: 4.1 Tutor: Youcantell mea littlebitaboutthereasonsforusinganexperiment withmorethantwo levelsof an independent variable.

In fact, Example4 illustratesat least threepolitenessstrategiesat worksimulthe taneously:The tutorwas beingoptimistic("Youcan tell me"),understating request("a little bit"),and minimizingthe impositionof the request("a little bit").By doingall thesethings,the tutorwas facilitatingthe student'sresponse. The tutorwas indicatingthatthe studentknew the answer,and the tutorwas On the tellingthe studentthateven a minimalresponsewouldbe appropriate. otherhand,the tutor'srequestmayhavebeenunclear(howmuchdoes the tutor wantto know?),andthetutormayhavesetthestudentupforfailure(byassuming thatthe studentwouldbe able to providethe requestedinformation). Sometimesthetutorandstudentmustnegotiatein orderto producea question thatthe studentcananswer.Graesser(1993a,1993b)documented that,whenthe tutorasksmultiplequestions,they becomeprogressivelymoresimpleuntilthe studentcan providea response.As a result,the studentultimatelyanswersa questionthathasbeengreatlysimplified.This canbe seen in Example5, drawn froma researchmethodssessionon variables: Example 5:

5.1 Tutor: Whattypeof scalewouldthatbe? 5.2 Student:Oh, let me think,whichone. I don'tknow. 5.3 Tutor: Tryto think.Nominalor... ?

5.4 Student: Ordinal, yeah.

In Example5, the studenthadansweredcorrectlybutonly afterthe numberof possibleanswershadbeenreducedby the tutor.Thisexamplealso demonstrates the use of ellipsis and the giving of hints to simplifythe question.If these strategiesoversimplifythe tutor'squestions,a studentmay neverbe challenged to answerquestionson the frontierof his or herknowledge. Tutorsoccasionallypose questionsthatareunclearor vague, so thatthe student may encounterdifficulty in attemptingto provide an answer. In such cases, the

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

173

tutormay apologize, as illustratedin Example6, drawnfrom a researchmethods session on formulatinga hypothesis: Example6: 6.1 Tutor: Whatis the effect of no limitedrelationversuslimitedrelation? 6.2 Student:Whatdo you mean? 6.3 Tutor: I'm sorry.I knewI was askingthe wrongquestion.I've gottabe method careful... um,there'ssomethingthatmakesa correlational not so wonderful[...] andsomethingthatmakestheexperimental methodwonderful.Do you knowwhatthatwouldbe? The tutor apologized to acknowledge explicitly the incorrect and potentially confusing question at 6.1. By apologizing, the tutordemonstratedher sensitivity to the student'sneed for clarity.There would seem to be little cost in apologizing for a mistake on the partof the tutor. If the tutorcontinuedto do this, however, the studentmay have begun to doubt the credibilityof the tutor.

Step2: StudentAnswersthe Question During Step 2, the studentmakes his or her initial attemptto answerthe tutor's question. By definition, the tutor plays a relatively passive role, although much of the tutor's effort during Step 1 is directedat constructinga question that the student can answer. Clearly, the student's answer will affect the feedback that the tutorprovides (see Griffin & Humphrey,1978). Our focus here, however, is how tutors use conversationalrules and politeness strategies.Because the tutor does not participatein Step 2, we do not discuss this step in furtherdetail.

Step 3: TutorGivesFeedbackon the Answer Clear,discriminating,and accuratefeedback by the tutor is presumablyessential for effective tutoring.Previousresearch,however, has shown thattutorsprovide, with roughly equal likelihood, both positive and negative feedback to students' error-riddenanswers(Graesser,1993b). Vague answerson the partof the student are normally met with positive feedback from the tutor rather than negative feedback (Graesser, 1993b). Why do tutors provide positive feedback in these cases? It seems likely that tutors avoid negative feedback as much as possible, because it is very face threateningfor the student.Consequently,this convention of normalconversationmay inhibit the effectiveness of the tutoringprocess. Example 7 illustratesinappropriatefeedback by the tutor, drawn from a research methods session on variables: Example7: 7.1 Tutor: Whatis an inferentialstatistic?

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN,GRAESSER

aboutsomethingthat'sgonna 7.2 Student:A statisticthatgives you information Or could happen. happen,possibly. 7.3 Tutor: Also,somethingthat'skindof implicitwithinferential statisticsthat peopletendnot to thinkaboutis [...] thatif peoplewentout and as a surveyedand surveyedthatthey'dget the sameinformation statistic.... At 7.2, the student's answer was incorrect. He seemed to have confused the conceptsof predictabilityand generalizability.At 7.3, the tutorviolatedthe maxim of quality (i.e., assuming that the tutor realized that the student's answer was incorrect).We would argue that the tutor should violate the maxims of quantity and mannerin order to provide effective feedback. That is, the tutor needs to provide much more information,because the student's answer is error-ridden. Perhapsthe tutorfailed to provideappropriatefeedbackbecause she was attempting to avoid disagreementwith the student. The student, however, may have mistakenlybelieved thathis answerwas correct,because the tutorused the word also, ratherthan no at 7.3. A more appropriateanswer at 7.3 would have been, "No, inferentialstatistics refers to the ability to generalize to a populationfrom a sample and not what may happen in the future." We can contrast Example 7 with Example 8 (from an algebra session on fractions), in which the tutor gave appropriatefeedback that addressedthe student's misconception: Example8. 8.1 Tutor: Let's trythis one:5/lsthsminusnegative3/6ths. 8.2 Student:Uh, thisone wouldjustgo like that[pointingto previouslyworked problem]? 8.3 Tutor: Well,um, actually,no, no, you couldn'tdo that.Sorry. The feedback in Example 8 was more appropriate,althoughpoliteness,strategies were still being employed:The tutorapologized(perhapsallowing the student to save face after an error). When a student commits an error in a tutoring session, the tutor has the responsibilityto acknowledge and correct the error.Because, by definition, this is a face-threateningact, it seems likely that the politeness strategies will be employed to make the feedback less aversive. In Example 9, drawn from a research methods session on graphing, a student had constructeda frequency polygon but had not labeled the axes. The tutor attemptedto make the student realize this on her own. Because he chose to be conventionallyindirect,however, this requireda numberof turns to accomplish: Example9: 9.1

Tutor: OK, you've got the right numbers.

9.2 Student:Yeah,OK, I just needed...

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANDPEDAGOGY 175 PRAGMATICS 9.3 Tutor: OK,is thereanythingelse aboutthisgraphthatyou wouldwantto do beforeyou finish?I mean,do you considerthis finished? 9.4 Student:I guess I could,I coulddrawa line ... 9.5 Tutor: Whatif you walkedup to this graphandyou hadneverseen [it]? 9.6 Student:Oh, I guess I shouldlabelthese [pointsto the axes]. 9.7 Tutor: Yeah,yeah. Although some might argue that studentsshould be encouragedto discover such problems on their own, in this example the studentfocused on a less important error in her graph (i.e., drawing a line to connect the points on the graph). By being conventionally indirect, the tutor created ambiguity and took time away from correctingthe more importantproblem. The problem of being too indirecthas been noted in other domains. In their study of Swedish allergists, Aronsson and Rundstr6m(1989) mentioned that allergists must frequentlyask patients to remove their clothes. Clearly, this is a face-threateningact; and the allergists, as expected, made their request in very indirect ways. This led to confusion on the patients' part, because they were typically left unsure whetherto remove their clothes at all or how much clothing to remove. As we have seen previously, thereare examples in this step in which the tutor used multiplepoliteness strategiesto addressstudent'serrors.Example 10, drawn from an algebrasession on variables,shows the simultaneoususe of two negative politeness strategies:be conventionallyindirectand state the face-threateningact as a general rule: Example10: 10.1 Tutor: ... OK,now, whatit is, justFOIL.OK,FOIL.It standsfor "first, outside,inside,last."OK, so whatyou do is you take [the]first one, right?You multiplythesetwo, andyou takethe outside,the inside,andthe last.Do you see how thatworks? 10.2 Student:Here'sthewayI'vedoneit [studentmumblessolutionto theproblem fromthe bookto himself]. 10.3 Tutor: Right.Well,see that'sone way to do it, buttheylikethis [theFOIL method];thisis reallytheway mostpeoplelike to do it [elaborates on reasons]. At 10.3, the tutor erroneously told the student that his method works, when in fact it does not. This is typical of how a tutorcorrectsa problem,albeit indirectly. First, the tutoragrees with the studentbut then goes on to qualify this agreement (in this case, by stating the face-threateningact as a general rule). This is problematic, because the student may, nonetheless, continue to cling to his or her misconception.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176

GRAESSER PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN,

the Step 4: TutorandStudentCollaboratively Improve Qualityof the Answer Studentstypicallyprovideveryabbreviated answersto questions.Tutors,therefind it to them to elaboratetheirresponses(Graesser, fore, necessary encourage Graesser & As a result,the construction of an 1993a, 1993b; Person,1994). answercan be thoughtof as a collaborativeactivityin whichthe studentand tutorworktogetherto constructan acceptableanswer(Graesser,1993a,1993b; Kreuz& Roberts,1993;Resnicket al., 1993). Thetutorcanuse severalstrategiesto facilitatethisprocess.Forexample,the tutormay providea hint, ask an embeddedquestion,or employa scaffolding techniquein orderto increasethe likelihoodof a student'sresponse.Whenused to extreme,however,thesestrategiesencouragepassivelearning.Example11, drawnfrom a researchmethodssession on interactions,shows an embedded questionat 11.3. Example11: 11.1 Tutor: ... All right,let's tryanotherone. Let'ssay we had,oh, wait.First of all, let's translatethis in termsof ourexperiment. 11.2 Student:OK. 11.3 Tutor: OK.Whatdoes this meanas far as typeof drug? 11.4 Student:It hadno effect. 11.5 Tutor: In otherwords,using cornflakes... wereno differentthanusing moodflakesmustnothavebeena realdrug. moodflakes. Therefore,

All right!Goodjob.

Example 11 shows some of the costs associated with encouragingthe student's

responses.At 11.5, the tutorexaggeratedby providingexcessive praiseeven emthoughthe student'sinputwas minimal.Onceagain,use of oversimplified beddedquestions,combinedwithexcessivepraise,mayleadto a relativelypassive role on the partof the student. The tutor sometimes contributesinformationthat confuses the student, as in Example 12. The various types of scales (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) were being discussed in a researchmethods session on variables: Example12: 12.1 Tutor: OK, the way I rememberthat,um, whenI was tryingto learnit was... I knewin Frenchthewordblackis noir,N-O-I-R,andyou can remember it thatway. 12.2 Student:Well, yeah,yeah. 12.3 Tutor: So you can thinkof noir,N-O-I-R. 12.4 Student:So whatdoes that,whatdoes blackhaveto do with nominal? Here is a mnemonic that has gone sadly awry. The tutor attemptedto provide the student with a memory aid, but she did not make sufficiently clear how it

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PRAGMATICS ANDPEDAGOGY

177

arosebecausethetutorpreappliedto thenamesof thescales.Theconfusion commonground-thatis, thatthestudent knewthattherelationship supposed betweenthespellingof noirandthenamesof thescaleswasarbitrary. Tutorsfrequently dothestudents' workforthemin a tutoring session.Tutors often ask questionsthatprovidetoo muchinformation(a violationof Grice's

whichlessensthecognitiveburden forthestudent. [1975]maximof quantity),

this: Example13, drawnfroman algebratutoringsessionon fractions,illustrates Example13: 13.1 Tutor: And you wantto multiplythatby ... ? 13.2 Student:6, 42. 13.3 Tutor: Yeah.

In thisexample,thetutorprovidedthe operationinformation, andall the student had to do was providethe numbers.One mightexpect this strategyto occur duringthe earlystagesof a tutoringsession,whenthe studenthas notyet masteredthe material.If the tutoradheredto this strategythroughout the tutoring of the studentmightneverhavebeenadsession,however,the misconceptions dressed,andthe studentwouldrely on the tutorto supplythe structureof the dialogue. A moreappropriate methodfor laterstagesin the tutoringsessionis shown in Example14, in whichthe tutorandstudentwerediscussingthe next step in computinga t test: Example14: 14.1 Tutor: We aregoingto use the scores? 14.2 Student: Yeah.

14.3 Tutor: OK, What'sthe firstthingwe needto do? 14.4 Student:You haveto writethe scoresdown.It gets morecomplicated. 14.5 Tutor: OK, you would, we would need all of those scores. So, um, what

wouldwe do whenwe've got all the scores? 14.6 Student:Um, OK,you havea mean? 14.7 Tutor: OK....

In thisexample,the tutorneversaidmorethanthestudenthadalreadysaid.This couldbe thoughtof as a violationof the maximof quantity,becausethe tutor's arenotsupplyingnewinformation. Thistechnique, repetitions however,promotes activelearningby forcingthe studentto do mostof the work. The student'sanswerin the nextexampleillustratesa violationof relevance, becausethe studentfocusedon a relativelyminordetailin the tutor'squestion. Example 15 is drawn from a researchmethods session on variables.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

178

GRAESSER PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN,

Example15: 15.1 Tutor: WhywouldNIMHnot give me five milliondollarsto do a correlationalstudy? 15.2 Student:'Causeit's, well, that'sa lot of money. 15.3 Tutor: Say $1,500.It's asidefromthe moneyissue,if, OK... At 15.3, the tutor dealt with this violation by explicitly redirectingthe student away from the irrelevantaspect of the question.AlthoughExample 15 illustrates a violation of relevance by the student, it is importantto note that the tutor adheredto the maxim of relevance. On the otherhand, tutorsmay need to violate the maxim of relevancein order to introducematerialthat facilitates the student's understandingof the topic at hand. The tutor may provide backgroundinformation,new examples, or alternative explanationsin orderto ensure student comprehension,even though they may appearto be irrelevant.If, for example, a tutor proposes a confounding variableto explain an experimentalresult, the new variablemay seem irrelevant to the topic at hand, until the student realizes the underlyingrelationship.For example, a tutormay ask the studentwhethertwo groupsof subjects were tested at the same time of day. This question will appearirrelevantuntil the student realizes that time of day may affect dependentmeasuressuch as reaction time. Collins and his colleagues (1977, 1985; Stevens, Collins, & Goldin, 1982) dissected the process of Socratictutoringas an importantpedagogicaltechnique. In Socratictutoring,the tutordoes not correctan errorcommittedby the student; rather,the tutor asks a sequence of carefully selected questions that expose the student'smisconceptions.Interestingly,for the tutorto employ Socratictutoring, the tutormust violate the maxim of quality, because the tutor,in effect, is acting as if the erroris correct. Example 16 illustratesSocratictutoringthat begins duringStep 2. It occurred duringa discussionof how to design a studythatwould determinethe relationship between divorced parents and depressed children. Ethically, this could only be accomplishedby using a correlationalapproach. Example16: 16.1 Tutor: Tell me first,ah, what kind of experimentwouldit be? I mean, whatmethod?Wouldit be ... areyougoingto haveanexperimental design? 16.2 Student:Yes. 16.3 Tutor: You are? 16.4 Student:Probablyso, um, becausenot all children,if they'redepressedare going to be ... you'renot going to be ableto look at anydataon depressedchildren.Well, I mean,let me startover.You can look at dataon depressedchildrenandwhetheror not theirparentsare divorced,butif you wantedto reallytestyourhypothesis,it would researchdesign. be betterif you conductedan experimental

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANDPEDAGOGY 179 PRAGMATICS 16.5 Tutor: OK, I'm curious,OK, now how wouldwe go aboutdoing that? OK, this is all up to you. During the next several turns,the studentstruggledto explain his answer, while the tutor provided minimal input (e.g., "um hmm," "OK"). Socratic tutoring requiresthatthe tutormaintainthe student'sfalse beliefs until it becomes obvious to the student that these beliefs are false. After several such turns, the tutor intervenes: Example16 (continued): 16.11 Tutor. ... and,I don't,I couldbe wrong,butareyou manipulating anything? 16.12 Student:No, you'reabsolutelyright.No, I'm not. Socratictutoringis rarein most tutoringinteractions,becausethis methodrequires a high level of domain knowledge, as well as a great deal of tutoringexperience on the part of the tutor (Collins et al., 1975). Socratic tutoring may also be uncommonbecause it forces tutorsto violate normalconversationalrules: in this case, the maxim of quality. In other cases, Socratic tutoring involves violating the maxim of relevance, because the tutorintroducesa seemingly irrelevantidea thatwill, ideally, redirect the student'sline of thinking. Collins (1977), for example, provided an example of a violation of relevance: 17.1 Tutor: Wherein NorthAmericado you thinkrice mightbe grown? 17.2 Student:Louisiana. 17.3 Tutor: Why there? 17.4 Student:Placeswherethereis a lot of water.I thinkricerequiresthe ability to selectivelyflood fields. 17.5 Tutor: OK. Do you thinkthere'sa lot of rice in, say, Washingtonand Oregon? 17.6 Student:Aha,I don'tthinkso. 17.7 Tutor: Why? 17.8 Student:There'sa lot of waterup theretoo, butthere'stwo reasons.First, the climateisn't conducive,and second,I don't thinkthe land is flat enough.You'vegot to haveflat landso you canflood a lot of it, unlessyou terraceit. (p. 351) In 17.3, the tutor asked a question to ensure that the student'sreasoning was focused on the relevant steps in the causal chain for growing rice. That is, rice needs to be flooded. In 17.4, the student stated that rice grows in "places with a lot of water."The tutor immediatelychose counterexamples(Washingtonand Oregon)thatmight have seemed irrelevantto the student.However,this statement forced the studentto think of other causal factors besides water.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

180

PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN,GRAESSER

In the classroom, teachers may attempt to explain difficult concepts by appealing to a conceptual metaphor(i.e., the atom is like the solar system). One advantageto this approachis that a difficult concept may be simplified for the students.The metaphor,however, may lead to even more severe misconceptions. Feltovich, Spiro,andCoulson (1989) showed thatteachersoften use inappropriate metaphorsto explain difficult concepts. We have found that a similar problem occurs duringtutoring.In Example 18, the tutorand the studentwere discussing main effects and interactions.This tutor frequentlychose to use a metaphorin order to determinethe presence of a main effect in a graph. The tutor would suggest that the student visually collapse together the lines in the graph;if the resultingline had a slope, this impliedthe presenceof a main effect. This method was referredto as the "squish"metaphor: Example 18:

18.1 Tutor: Buttherearesomeneattricksto beingableto figureoutgraphically [whethera maineffectof a variableis depicted].... Well,now we can get fromhere [cell means]to a graph,right? 18.2 Student:Um hum. 18.3 Tutor: 'Causeonceyou'reat thegraph,it's realeasyto figureoutif there's a maineffect for A, a maineffect for B, andan interaction. 18.4 Student:If they'reparallel,well ... If they'reparallel,there'sno interaction. 18.5 Tutor: ... UUm,we would do what's called collapsing the two lines. I call

it kindasquishing'em.... Whatyou woulddo, if thisline is horizontal[pointsto new, squishedline] ... we wouldsay thatthereis no maineffectforA. But sinceit's nothorizontal andis at a certain where one is different from the other end endpoint,thenyou angle can say thatthereis a maineffect for A. OK,let's see, how about this [drawstwo lines on a graphthatdepicta maineffect for the A variable]?Is therea maineffect for A? 18.6 Student:No.

The student's answer was incorrect(there is a main effect for A), even though the tutorhad provideda supposedlyhelpful method for determiningthe answer. Does this mean thattutorsshouldalways avoid the use of metaphors?Example 19, drawnfrom a session on Type I and Type II errorsin the researchmethods tutoringcorpus, demonstratesthe utility of a conceptualmetaphor: Example 19:

19.1 Tutor: You don'tsee it, butit's there[pointingto a decisionmatrixin the text].Hereyou see it, andit's not there.... Theway I, I'll tell you it. A TypeI erroris like um ... you'rehalluthe way I remember cinating... 19.2 Student:Um hum.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANDPEDAGOGY 181 PRAGMATICS 19.3 Tutor: ... you see somethingthat'snot there.TypeII erroris like you're blind.It's there,but you don'tsee it, andthat'sthe way I always rememberthese[laughs]. andblindness. 19.4 Student:Oh, so let me writethesedown,hallucination The tutor and student spent the next several turns working throughan example to determine whether a Type I or a Type II error was present. It is interesting to point out that, later in this discussion, the following exchange occurred: Example19 (continued): 19.19 Tutor: Um, does thatmakeit a littleclearer? 19.20 Student:Yes. 19.21 Tutor: OK.... 19.22 Student:... becauseyou reallyneed somethinglike that.., analogies, yeah. Clearly,some metaphorswork betterthan others.Tutorsmustjudiciously choose those metaphorsthat are clear, helpful, and accurateand avoid metaphorsthat do not satisfy these criteria. Tutors and students may elect to introducea new concept by stating it as a general rule. This has the beneficial effect of minimizing the imposition of the new informationon the hearer.In other words, insteadof saying, "Do this," the speaker says, "Most people do this." Example 20, from a research methods session on interactions,illustratesthe studentoffering a contributionindirectly. The tutorhad forgottenan importantprinciple,in this case, the numberof intervals on a Likert scale. Example 20:

20.1 Tutor: Andourlevelof psychotic.Let'ssay we havea 10-pointscalefor that. 20.2 Student:OK. 20.3 Tutor: So ... 20.4 Student:Whathappenedto the magicsix?! [laughs] 20.5 Tutor: Oh, OK. 20.6 Student:[Nameof instructor's] magicsix! 20.7 Tutor: The magicsix. OK,I forgotthe magicsix. 20.8 Student:Great. 20.9 Tutor: So, let's say we have a 6-pointscale. 20.10 Student:OK. By invoking the name of the instructor,the student provided a face-saving rationale for the use of a 6-point scale. Instead of directly questioning the tutor's selection of a 10-pointscale, the studentwas able to expressher opinion indirectly in the form of a general rule.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

182

GRAESSER KREUZ, ZWAAN, PERSON,

It should be clear that Step 4 is a collaborativeprocess: The tutorand student work togetherto constructan answer.In addition,violations of the conversational rules and politeness strategiesoccur. Some violations are made by the student, and some are made by the tutor.As we have shown, some tutorviolations may be desirable for effective tutoring.

Step 5: TutorAssesses Student'sUnderstanding of the Answer In this step, the tutorcould encouragethe studentto identifyany specific problems that still remainat this stage in the tutoringprocess. Instead,tutorstypically ask very general, yes-no questions that do not tap the student's misconceptions.For example, tutors typically ask: Example21: 21.1 Tutor: And thenyou'reOK.Are you with me? or Example22: 22.1 Tutor: ... so you understand that,right? In other words, the tutorsare adheringto Grice's (1975) maxim of quantityeven when they should not. That is, the tutors make global statements about the student's comprehensioninstead of asking questions regardingspecific issues that have alreadybeen addressed.This problem is very common in the tutoring corpus and suggests an overreliance on students' self-assessment. In normal conversation, it is assumed that individualsare accuratein assessing their own knowledge (e.g., what they ate for lunch and to whom they are married),and listeners do not challenge these reports. In tutoring, however, the student is operatingon the frontierof his or her knowledge, and self-assessments may be much less accurate.Therefore, the tutor should violate the maxim of quantity frequently. A much better approachappears in Example 23, drawn from a session on constructingalgebraicequationsfrom word problems: Example23: 23.1 Tutor: Do you haveanyproblemwiththesekindsof wordproblems[referringto a sectionin the book]?Wherethey say23.2 Student:[interrupts] Ah, not really. 23.3 Tutor: You don't?You don't?You don'thave any troublewiththat? 23.4 Student:No.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANDPEDAGOGY 183 PRAGMATICS 23.5 Tutor: Let'sjust do one of them.Um, Dan earned$56, whichwas twice morethanwhatJimearned.Now you'resupposedto writeanequation. 23.6 Student:Ah, I can'twritetheequations. The tutordiscoveredthe student'sdeficits only by repeatedlyqueryingthe student. Even this is insufficient;it was not until the student was challenged to perform that the deficit was made manifest.Example 23 includes many violations of the politeness strategies (avoid disagreement,be optimistic, and minimize imposition), but these violations were necessary to expose the student's deficits. Sometimes a lack of common ground between the student and tutor may adversely affect the tutoringinteraction.Specifically, the tutormay erroneously assume that the student possesses informationthat the student does not. This presuppositionof common ground can be seen clearly in Example 24, drawn from an algebrasession on word problems: Example 24:

24.1 Tutor: Now thatyou've workedthem,let's try number14. It's a little differentonebut,ah,it's a lot liketheothertwo.A bottleof Produce Timeapplejuicecontains64 ouncesandcosts99 cents.FarmFresh juice,availableinbottlesthatcontainonegallon,foroneeighty-eight [$1.88]each;ah, whichis the betterbuy? 24.2 Student:How manyounces,um, arein a gallon? 24.3 Tutor: Ouncespergallon,good question.You haven'thadthesein tables before.... In this example, the tutorpresupposedthat the studentknew how many ounces are in a gallon. The studentdid not know, however, and asked the tutor for the information.It is more typical,however,for a studentto hide his or herknowledge deficits from the tutor, leading to a breakdown in effective tutoring. Tutors, therefore, should exercise caution when they make presuppositionsabout what the tutor and studentboth know. Even when a concept or idea has been explicitly mentioned in a tutoring session, the tutorcannotbe certainthat the studentboth understandsand remembers the information.This can be contrastedwith normalconversationin which contributionsby both participantsare assumed to be in the common groundand completely understood (Clark & Schaefer, 1989). Tutors, therefore, must be careful not to carry over this conversationalassumptioninto tutoringsessions. Tutors occasionally preparestudents for a difficult problem by being pessimistic aboutwhetherthe studentcan solve the problem.Example25, drawnfrom a session on variables,illustratesthis: Example 25:

25.1 Tutor: OK, thisone is probablya littleharderthanthe firstone. 25.2 Student:Yeah[laughs].

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

184

PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSER

This methodmay have unwantedconsequences.For example,it may lead the studentto believethatfailureis expectedor even acceptable.This may lead to a diminutionof efforton the partof the student.

CONCLUSIONS We have suggestedthattutoringcan be examinedby employingthe strategies Wearenotclaiming,however, normalconversation. andmaximsthatcharacterize that tutorialand conversational dialogueare the same.Discourseexists on a at one end andless interactive withinteractive,normalconversation continuum, discourse(e.g., classroomlecturesandspeeches)at theother.Tutoringdiscourse clearlyfalls somewherebetweenthese two extremesand probablyresembles conversation moreclosely thanclassroomdiscourse.If this claim is true,it is thattutorsrelyon the implicitprinciplesof ordinaryconversation. notsurprising rulesandP. Brownand As we haveshown,Grice's(1975, 1978)conversational Levinson's(1987)politenessstrategiesaffectthetutoringprocessin positiveand be cognizantof thesecostsandbenefits, negativeways.Tutorsshould,therefore, becausesuchawarenessmay enhancethe overalleffectivenessof tutoring. Some steps of the tutoringprocessare more vulnerableto conversational misstepsthanothers.DuringStep 1, for example,the tutorand studentmust questionthatwill be expandedduringlater negotiatea mutuallycomprehensible steps.DuringStep4, thetutormustelaborateon thestudent'sanswerandaddress the student'sknowledgedeficits.Thesetwo stagesare crucialfor the tutoring acts mayoccur.As thatface-threatening process,butthereis a highprobability rulesandP. Brown a result,we foundmanyexamplesof Grice'sconversational andLevinson's(1987)politenessstrategiesin thesesteps. Theremaybe functionaldifferencesin how theserulesandstrategiesoperate in the tutoringdomain.Grice's(1975, 1978)analysisfocuseson the contentof utterances (e.g., quantityandquality),whereasP. BrownandLevinson's(1987) dimensionsof discourse.Future the socialandinterpersonal addresses approach researchmayprofitablyexplorehow theserulesandstrategiesinteract,andsuch a fine-grained insightsintothispedagogicalprocess. analysismayofferadditional

DomainDifferences We foundthatthe researchmethodsandalgebratutoringsessionsdifferedfrom each otherin severalways. In particular,the tutorsin the researchmethods sessionsseemedto rely on the politenessstrategiesmorethandid the algebra to differencesin the statusof the tutors tutors.Thisfindingcannotbe attributed acrossthe tutoringdomains,becausebothsampleswereexamplesof cross-age to differ1977).Thisdifferencealso cannotbe attributed tutoring(Fitz-Gibbon, ences in the expertise of the tutors, because most of the algebra tutors and all

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

185

of the researchmethodstutorshad neverpreviouslyservedas tutorsin their respectivesubjects.This is, in fact, typicalof the tutoringthatoccursin most schoolsettings(Cohenet al., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon,1977). Otherdifferencesbetweentheresearchmethodsandalgebrasessionsmaybe responsiblefor the observeddifferences.For example,we cannotrule out the effectof agedifferencesbetweenthetwogroupsof tutors.We suggest,however, to the domains thatthe differencesin politenessstrategyuse maybe attributable of the tutoringsessions.The researchmethodsdomaincan be thoughtof as an open-worlddomain:Thequestionsandanswersdo notexist withinwell-defined In contrast,the algebradomaincan be considereda closed-world parameters. domain:The questionsand answersare typicallywell-defined(Collinset al., 1975), and one can readilydistinguishbetweengood and bad answers.For example,it is far easierto elicit the answerto an algebrawordproblemthanit is to elicitthe drawbacksof a correlational design.Theanswersaredifferent,as because there is no associated with a numericresponse:The well, ambiguity studentwhosays,"Theansweris five,"canreceiveclear-cutfeedback.Incontrast, the studentwho says, "It'sless powerful,"abouta correlational designmaynot the underlyingprinciples,andthe tutormustfollow up completelyunderstand on the student'svagueanswerto ensurehis or herunderstanding. For thesereasons,the tutors(andstudents)in open-worlddomainsmayrely rulesandpolitenessstrategiesthatfacilitatenormal heavilyon theconversational As we have shown,however,theserulesandstrategiescan create conversation. pedagogicalproblems,even whenthey areemployedto expeditenormalsocial interaction.

GroundRulesinTutoring Establishing As manyresearchers have demonstrated, studentsmusthaveprerequisite informationin orderto profitfromaneducational experience(Gagn6,1977;VanLehn, 1987).Forexample,studentsrequirerelevantbackground knowledgein orderto comprehendtextbookinformation(McKeown,Beck, Sinatra,& Loxterman, of the tutoring 1992). In a similarway, studentsmusthave an understanding before a session thattutorsand we believe process tutoring begins.Specifically, studentsshouldestablishconversational rules to the ground prior tutoringinteraction.The studentshouldbe madeawarethatthe tutorwill use negativefeedback,thatthe "normal"rules of conversationmay be violated(e.g., the tutor may say, "No,youransweris wrong"),andthatthe studentis expectedto take a very activerole in the tutoringprocess.In this way, knowledgedeficitsmay be moreeasily exposedandmoreeasilycorrected.The tutoringprocessshould be moreefficient. As mentionedearlier,most of the effort in Step 4 of the tutorialdialogue frame (student and tutor collaboratively improve the quality of the answer) is contributedby the tutor.We suggest thattutorsimplementstrategiesthat encour-

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

186

PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN, GRAESSER

age the active participationof the student ratherthan the tutor supplying most of the information.A trulycollaborativeexchange duringStep 4 allows for more active involvementon the part of the student, as well as more opportunitiesfor the tutorto identify the student'sknowledge deficits. The reason these activities do not frequentlyoccur duringStep 4 may be the overreliance,by both tutorand student,on the conversationalrules and politeness stfategiesof normaldiscourse. This overreliance on the rules and strategies of normal conversation also creates a problem in Step 5, in which the tutor assesses the student's understanding.Because this assessmentcan be very face threateningfor students,tutors often assume that, if the materialhas been covered during the tutoringsession, it has been understoodby the student.We suggest that tutorsactively probe the studentsin orderto expose knowledge deficits. If the tutorsexplicitly inform the studentsthatthis will occur, the studentswill regardthis assessmentas less face threatening.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This researchwas fundedby grantsawardedto ArthurC. Graesserby the Office of Naval Research(N00014-88-K-0110, N00014-90-J-1492, and N00014-92J-1826) and by a Center for Excellence grant awarded to the Departmentof Psychology at the University of Memphis by the state of Tennessee. We are indebted to John Cady for providing access to the seventh-grade algebratutoringsessions. The commentsof two anonymousreviewers were also very helpful.

REFERENCES Aronsson, K., & Rundstrim,B. (1989). Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiationof reality: On politeness and coherence in pediatricdiscourse. Language and Society, 18, 483-504. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem:The search for methodsof groupinstructionas effective as one-to-one tutoring.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 students study and use examples in learningto solve problems.Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182. Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1981). Context for comprehension.In J. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 9, pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaboratingon contributionsto conversations.Language and CognitiveProcesses, 2, 19-41. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributingto discourse. CognitiveScience, 13, 259-294. Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., & Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understandingof demonstrativereference.Journal of Verbal Learningand VerbalBehavior, 22, 245-258.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

187

Cohen, P. A., Kulik,J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educationaloutcomes of tutoring:A meta-analysis of findings. AmericanEducationalResearch Journal, 19, 237-248. Collins, A. (1977). Processes in acquiring knowledge. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 339-363). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Collins, A. (1985). Teaching reasoning skills. In S. F. Chipman,J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinkingand learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 579-586). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Collins, A., Warnock, E. H., Aeillo, N., & Miller, M. L. (1975). Reasoning from incomplete knowledge.In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.),Representationand understanding(pp. 453-494). New York: Academic. Cozby, P. C. (1989). Methods in behavioral research (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: Contributionof text variablesto the illusion of knowing. Memory & Cognition, 12, 355-360. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1989). The natureof conceptual understandingin biomedicine: The deep structureof complex ideas and the developments of misconceptions. In D. 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.(ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 148 807) Fox, B. (1993). The human tutorial dialogue project. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236. Gagnd, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the assessment of comprehension.Memory & Cognition, 10, 597-602. Goffman, E. (1967). Interactionritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. GardenCity, NY: Anchor. Graesser,A. C. (1993a). Questioningmechanismsduringcomplexlearning.MemphisStateUniversity, Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 350 306) Graesser,A. C. (1993b). Dialogue patternsand feedback mechanismsduringnaturalistictutoring.In W. Kintsch (Chair),Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conferenceof the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 126-130). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring.American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Huber, J. D. (1992). Mechanisms that generate questions. In T. Lauer, E. Peacock, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Questions and informationsystems (pp. 167-187). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Huber, J. D. (1993). Question asking during tutoringand in the design of educationalsoftware.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. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic. Grice, H. P. (1978). Furthernotes on logic and conversation.In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntaxand semantics: Vol. 9. Pragmatics (pp. 113-127). New York: Academic. Griffin, P., & Humphrey,F. (1978). Task and talk at lesson time: Children'sfunctional language and education in the early years (Final Report,CarnegieCorporation).New York: CarnegieCorp. Kasper,G. (1990). Linguisticpoliteness:Currentresearchissues. Journal ofPragmatics, 14, 193-218. Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts,R. M. (1993). When collaborationfails: Consequencesof pragmaticerrors in conversation.Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 239-252. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London:Longman.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

188

PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSER

Leinhardt,G. (1987). Developmentof an expertexplanation:An analysisof a sequenceof subtraction lessons. Cognitionand Instruction,4, 225-283. McArthur,D., Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas,M. (1990). Tutoring techniquesin algebra. Cognition and Instruction,7, 197-244. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra,G. M., & Loxterman,J. (1992). The contributionof prior knowledge and coherenttext to comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly,27, 78-93. Mehan, H. (1979). Learninglessons: Social organizationin the classroom. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press. Mohan, M. (1972). Peer tutoringas a techniquefor teaching the unmotivated.Fredonia,NY: State University of New York, Teacher Education Research Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 061 154) Newman, D., Griffin,P., & Cole, M. (1989). The constructionzone: Workingfor cognitive change in school. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fosteringand activities. Cognitionand Instruction,1, 117-175. comprehension-monitoring Penman, R. (1990). Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 15-38. Person, N. K., Graesser,A. C., Magliano, J. P., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Inferringwhat the student knows in one-to-one tutoring:The role of studentquestions and answers.Learningand Individual Differences, 6, 205-229. Putnam,R. T. (1987). Structuringand adjustingfor students:A live and simulatedtutoringof addition. AmericanEducationalResearch Journal, 24, 13-48. Resnick, L. B. (1977). Holding an instructionalconversation:Comments on chapter 10 by Collins. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 365-372). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation.Cognitionand Instruction,11, 347-364. Stevens, R., Collins, A., & Goldin, S. E. (1982). Misconceptionsin students' understanding.In D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoringsystems (pp. 13-24). New York: Academic. VanLehn, K. (1987). Learningone subprocedureper lesson. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 1-40. VanLehn, K. (1990). Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Weaver, C. A., III. (1990). Calibration and assessment of comprehension.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Universityof Colorado,Boulder.

This content downloaded from 130.56.64.29 on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 06:44:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions