Pragmatics and Pedagogy: Conversational Rules and Politeness Strategies May Inhibit Effective Tutoring Author(s): Natalie K.
Person, Roger J. Kreuz, Rolf A. Zwaan, 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: 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cognition and Instruction.
COGNITION INSTRUCTION, 13(2), 161-188 AND 1995,
Lawrence Inc. Erlbaum Associates, Copyright 1995, ?
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 andP. rules Brownand Levinson's(1987) politenessstrategies commonly are employedin one-to-onetutoring interactions. examinedtwo cross-aged We tutoring corpora fromresearch methods algebra and sessionsto showhow theserulesand tutoring can enhance inhibit and effectivetutoring. of strategies potentially Examples these costs and benefitsare presented withina five-stepdialogueframeproposed by and Graesser Person(1994). Thereappear be differences the use of these to in whenalgebra are with research politeness strategies protocols compared tutoring methods We are in protocols. suggestthatpoliteness strategies moreprevalent less constrained theiruse may inhibit even though effectivetutoring. domains, 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; An understandingof the tutoring process is Putnam, 1987; VanLehn, 1990). because tutoringtypically is more effective thanclassroom instruction. important, most researchers this areahave referredto a positive cognitive change in Although 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 have reportedeffect sizes rangingfrom .4 to comparedwith classroom instruction 2.3 standard deviationunits(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@example.com
tact. generosity. of effectiveness tutoring revolvesaround dialoguethatoccursbetweenthe the conversation than tutorandstudent. effectivetutoring. strategies are Theydescribed Central P. and acts.162
PERSON.1972). ZWAAN. KREUZ.Grice(1975.Fitz-Gibbon. P. politeness strategies Mayan that dozensof conversational areuseduniversally. acts. to be effectivein normal in has Thisinterest linguistic by politeness beenmostfullyexplored P. According this principle. 1978)approach. Brown Levinson and found particular that Mexico). This however. by one overarching the cooperative on makea "goodfaith"effortto contribute and collaborate the to participants as & conversation it proceeds 1987.Thisadvantage typically nothighly Graesser et trained 1977. orone'sself-image (Goffman. modesty). (Cohen al. by to rule: principle.Positivepoliteness
. 1989). to this & Person.Individuals a culture their to a attempt maintain positiveself-imageandtry to help othersmaintain because is frequently face ownself-images.In addition.andTzeltalin cultures (Englishin the UnitedStatesandBritain. by putin danger face-threatening Suchactsinclude to of has Eachculture deviseda number linguisticstrategies mitigate demands.1993b. peer becausethe effect sizes previously tutoring.Leech maintained the for is principle principle necessary Grice's(1975.Brown Levinson and (1987)discussed may superstrategies speakers
employ:positivepoliteness. avoidobscurity ambiguity).. truecausemustlie elsewhere. advantage notattributable agedifferences.be orderly.cross-aged.Thepurpose how of can of this articleis to illustrate properties conversation potentially aid. or Becausethese effects arenot due to sophisticated pedagogical strategies the One possiblereasonfor the age differences. criticisms. moreor less thanis required). 1978)cooperative politeness conversation.1994). BrownandLevinson's to socialinteraction.g. andoff-record. relevance not say thingsthatareextraneous). negativepoliteness. 1978) (Clark Schaefer. Brown of usedin threewidelydiffering andLevinson(1987). 1967). is and cited includeexpert. is moresimilar normal to Tutoring dialogue in format primarily theclassroom is thelecture used (Resnick. example. (be For haveexpanded Grice's(1975. is notalwayspossible. (do and and andmanner brief.In an analysis languages Tamilin India. 1978). requests. ON PERSPECTIVES CONVERSATION THEORETICAL were first The implicitrules and strategies facilitatenormalconversation that who proposed conversation governed is that described Grice(1975. the impactof theseface-threatening that three P. 1982. of that is further by suggested this cooperation augmented a number conversationalmaxims: (do quantity not say quality(do not say thingsthatareuntrue)..Graesser. 1977). Othertheorists maxims an with Leech(1983)suggested overarching politeness principle several that and (e. GRAESSER
are existseven though tutors Mohan.approbation. usedto facilitate analysis in of is thenotion face. as well as hinder. 1993a.
maximof qualitymay be violated or The questions.or communicate speaker's Brown& Levinson. politeness in rethis Thereare. BrownandLevinson's (1987)analysis politeness becomethedomiin nantperspective the areaof linguistic 1990.by saying. 1990).. manyspeechacts can be justipoliteness strategies not mutually For and fiably coded underdifferentstrategies even differentsuperstrategies. may be violatedby the use of vague or ambiguous can Levinson. (Clark Carlson.PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY
wantsandneeds.and gives the listenerthe optionnot to act. thespeaker notreallybelieve does with to avoiddisagreement thelistener."It'shot in here. is ableto provide in on to attempts minimize impositions the Negativepoliteness. termdoes not implya lack of politenessbut This somewhat hearer.By saying. a way"). 102). speakermakesa statement does so in a vague way.& leavingthe interpretation the comment the indicates Spisak.saying. BrownandLevinson(1987) involves A but going off-record.Tracy. the hearer can the various give ways: on the desirenotto impinge the the optionnotto act." speaker by sculpture really example. by This requestis madeobliquely. for indirect (negative politeexample. a wants(P." speaker as on the listenerby makingthe request understated possible. as of statements be construed violations Grice's can Manyof theseoff-record maxims. of has P. the the minimizes imposition if you can lend me a tiny bit of paper.metaphors.Kasper. confusing in rathera methodof ingratiation.perhaps openinga window.1987.For example.the acknowledgment the speaker hearer cooperators.severaldifficulties applying theoryin empirical as et Mostimportant. byhedging (i.p." speaker her or his desireto have someonetakeaction. rhetorical statements Brown& (P. as A final superstrategy discussedby P.1986). comparison.g. speaker with tokenagreement thelistener.thespeaker savefaceby delivering acts face-threatening in an indirect way. (1986)pointed thedozensof individual search. out.a speaker (1975) conversational may violatethe maxim the with a hint or may violatethe maximof of relevance providing hearer by or The by quantity overstating understating. a way. saying."Ijust wantto ask you hearer (P. maximof manner by the use of irony. linguisticpoliteness(e. of open to the hearer(Craig.It includes acknowlthe of refersto an appreciation thehearer's & & of 1981.e. Buttrick. a result. alternative schemehasreceived muchsupport. ness) andunderstated to These difficulties have led some researchers proposenew approaches to discourse).. Craig al.For seeks is in the "That beautiful.Clark.however.it is not
possible to use P.Inall theseways.Forexample. ground edgment common are and and that 1983).Brown& Levinson. Negativepolitenesscan be accomplished to The speaker minimize threat thehearer.p. 1987.manyrequests actionareconventionally (off-record). Penman's analysisof courtroom no As However. Perhaps "in the is and thatthesculpture beautiful. however. Brown and Levinson's (1987) taxonomy to test empirically
.p. are exclusive. 131). 214). to readiness fulfillthespeaker's 1987. Schreuder. (Fraser.
1986).. of An interactions. associated OF FRAMEWORK TUTORING THECONVERSATIONAL & Graesser his colleagues and 1993a.thenthe"weightia act ness"of the face-threatening is high. to the has however.duringone-to-onetutoring. has the approach clearutility. tutoring are how the politenessstrategies The purposeof this articleis to illustrate We both positivelyand negatively. contexts. The strategies level (see Craig Our goal at thispointis populations. PERSON. (c) thedegreeof imposition the act. otherwords. 1989). extensive of examined framework tutoring the analysis tutorrevealed a five-stepdialogueframeis veryprevalent that corpora ing transcript
.The thirdfactor(degreeof imposition) of seriousness the imposition.Forexample. out are withtherulesandstrategies pointed in Table1.relative poweris asymmetrical. BrownandLevinson's(1987) analysisof linguisticpolitenessmay have to to interactions.topics. This apson & Rundstr6m. notbeenutilized clarify process tutoring proach. strategies. BrownandLevinson greatrelevance tutoring is 74). however. mosttutoring do becausethe tutorandstudent not knoweachotherandthe tutoris clearlyin on will vary. primary amongtutors. in different tutoring are in discussed this article rules Theconversational andpoliteness strategies all and does inTable1.1990). (p. researchers examined BrownandLevinson's Other (1987)politeness discourse et in thecontext requests of (Arons(Craig al. however. imposition high.. According P.Thisarticle notaddress of P.
some of the issues thattheirtheoryraises.164
GRAESSER KREUZ.Graesser Person. do not used. in arefrequently Yet it is likely thatthe various employed politenessstrategies interactions.Brown Levinson's summarized to the but (1987) strategies rather subsetthatseemsmost germane the tutoring thatwe discusswereinductively In process. of thecostsandbenefits selected. depending the control. ZWAAN.If socialdistance is and is high. the relative (b) (a) socialdistance powerof the of and and speaker hearer.1994) (Graesser.medical strategies discourse(Penman.andstudent interact in whichpragmatic someof the interesting to document principles ways the studieswill quantify use of thesestrategies Future withthe tutoring process.a lawyerinterrogating infidelities marital widowabouther husband's mightmakeheavyuse of these will the In situations. politeness attempt quantify various at to it of research. have P. 1986). is premature analyzestrategies quantitatively a fine-grained will no doubtvary considerably et al. thisearlystage At to the strategies. and courtroom of discourse. firsttwofactors be relatively high. P.As a generalframework. thedegreeto whichan actis facethreatening determined threefactors: by and betweenthe speaker hearer.1993b.therulesandstrategies Some of basedon a closereading thetranscripts.
t) t)E 0 So 0 0Q _
Q) v. 0 ga
>0 x a) :0
4-& 0 o1~* o C'
vo O t)
0 0 0.0
0 r o
. E-& 4
3" o 0
4-& c o in o H C.~
't 0. E.
t) 0 L
v. D 4-& -10
CL s > U
CL-1 E $-
30cn co wc 2 E 60.. UE
c n 3 n
H 0-0 2
u o 0 l
n c 03
Step 4 starts at 1.4 Tutor: Andwhatnumbers to of wouldyou [referring a matrix cell means] use? You woulddo one for humor[one of the independent 1.6 Tutor: And whatdoes thattell you? 1.2 Student: Three.PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY AND
1.10 Tutor: The size of the significance. one for . Tutor assesses student's understanding the answer. 3. In Example 1. significance? To 1.. significant variable 1.
. you areright.
1. Student answers the question.13 Student: Right.3 Tutor: Three[agreeing with the student]. The studentwas being tutoredon the concept of factorialdesigns in a research methods tutoringsession:
Example 1: Step 1
1. from caffeine and humor?
1. right. a step may consist of more than one turn.15 Student: The scores .8 Tutor: OK. Um 1.12 Tutor: Right. 1.9 Student: see the size. 1.. uh.18.18 Tutor: [Explains of independence maineffects]
1. why do you do an F score?Whatis an F score? 1.20 Student: hmm. Um There is some flexibility in the implementationof this five-step frame. 2.. interaction the two.14 Tutor: So. I'm 1.. Tutorand studentcollaborativelyimprovethe quality of (or embellish) the answer. It is also possible that steps may be omitted. For example.19 Tutor: Do you see whatI'm saying? 1.youwouldhavethree[F scores]: forcaffeine.11 Student: size of the significance. the of 1.16 Tutor: Interaction.
Tutor asks a question. one one for humor.17 Student: hmm.4 and continues through 1. 5. how manyF scoreswouldbe computed?
An example of a five-step dialogue frame from our corpus is shown in Example 1. Tutor gives feedback on the answer.
1.how statistically a is. ? and
1. 4.5 Student: variables]. 1.1 Tutor: So.7 Student: not sure[laughs]. The 1.
again. particular. the tutor feedback the student's on answer. ZWAAN. Huber.168
GRAESSER PERSON. (Graesser.1990). Magliano. algebra tutoring be thought as a relatively withresearch methods Aeillo. thetutorandstudent dialogue During in the earliersteps. is however.this is monitoring less likelyto occurin a classroom setting. 1989. bothtutorand student contribute sessionbecomestrulycollaborative. 1977). on described operate differently. asking answering whichis theform are of thesecorpora examples cross-age 1993).Third. instruction. KREUZ. Mehan that classroom (1979)reported onlythefirstthree stepsoccurin normal Giventheadvantages tutoring classroom of over it instruction. Glenberg. maybe thecasethat politeness whichhasless specified tutoring. maychoosenotto supply Step3 maynot occur-that is. Graesser. chosethesecorpora various graders in of wereanalyzed reasons. tutoring. changed. 1993). Zeitz. Person.Second.Wathen.thesecorpora previously the context question & and 1992. seems in to reasonable assumethatSteps4 and5 are especiallyimportant correcting it andrepairing deficits. In the remainder this article. Glaser.Weaver.Lewis. crucial 1993b. 1993)compared Warnock.Fitz-Gibbon.In a classroom. 1984. mann.1982.Fox. Brown Levinson's and sational (1987)politeness strategies positively frame. & Miller. Salmon. the fromverydifferent thesecorpora drawn are domains. 1994. point. is during 4 thatthetutoring In knowledge Step Thatis. & fora related Graesser Person. tutoring examples in the next section. & & Wilkinson.
Forexample. & Graesser. on elaborate theideasraised Step4. 1993a.Person.1993b. grasp is This reliance the student's on self-assessment problematic. is & Holowchak. & Epstein. We affectthepedagogical andnegatively processin thefive-step tutoring in whicharedescribed detail draw fromtwodifferent domains. The heartof the tutoring processcan be foundin the last two steps of this frame. Kreuz.1975. Step 5 allowsthe tutorto monitor Once closelythe student's understanding.Glenberg. In Step 5. becausestudents theirown comprehension Bassok.1994. First.this elaboration less likely to to In occuror to be individually tailored a particular student. depending thetypeof may strategies previously
TWOTUTORING SAMPLES research We examined different two corpora: college students learning tutoring for We methods seventh and learning algebra. 1982. tutoring domain of closed-world can (Collins. however. 1978) converof rulesandP. Epstein.Reiarerarelyableto calibrate (Chi..relativelylittle information exthe tutorattempts assess the student's to of the topic at hand.we showhow Grice's(1975. of tutoring commonin most school systems(Cohenet al. Bradley.
. pieces see Resnick. the It boundaries. addition. to of information arriveat the correct solution(Graesser.
andhistograms.andvaluesof variables. dependent designs: Independent fects. First. typesof scales.
is not addressedin this article. This ensured that the students would have some familiaritywith the topics and provided more common ground for the tutoringsession.
The students were exposed to the material on two occasions prior to their participationin the tutoringsessions.typesof interactions.The tutoring protocols. control a constraints.The topicsandsubtopics tutoring
Variables: Graphs: Statistics: definitions. Cozby. practical testing: Hypothesis analyses. Second.threeto five relevant subtopics to the list. each student was required to read specific pages in a research methods text (Methods in Behavioral Research. Each studentparticipatedin two types of tutoringsessions: un-
sessions. who hadeach receivedan students The tutorsweresix psychology graduate methodscourse. tests. design.This sessionsandstructured structured "normal") (or tutoring tutoring issues(see Graesser.AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY
Methods Research Sample1:CollegeStudentsLearning
Students and tutors. TypeI andTypeII errors. variables. All studentsparticipated the tutoringsessions in orderto fulfill a course requirement. not in the areaof research selectedsix topicsthatarenorLearningmaterials. Independent statistical significance. and maineffects. The courseinstructor A in methods course. Tutoring protocolswere collectedfrom 27 undergraduatestudents enrolled in a psychology researchmethods class at the Uniin versity of Memphis. distributions. were a repre-
who were to thana samplerestricted students sentative college samplerather havingdifficulty.
. The tutorswere instructed cover these topics and subtopicsin the wereas follows: sessions.andstatistical mainefFactorial variables. Interactions: variables. therefore. pedagogical manipulation. to other included address 1993a). groups. cells. statistics.andprobabilities. each topic was covered in a lecture by the instructorbefore the topic was covered in the tutoring session.Eachof research and A in both an undergraduate a graduate had on students tutored a few occasionspriorto this studybut these graduate methods. plotting Frequency t Decisionmatrices. Operational means. Procedure. 1989) prior to the tutoring session. andinteractions. list was prepared for troublesome students a research mally in werealso included for eachof the six topics. Formulatinghypothesis.
and(d) a student tutoring participated two unstructured each tutorinstructed threestudents sessions. PERSON.Tutorsandstudents referred this material to duringthe frequently algebra 45 sessions. algebraic equations structing examination associatedwith homework items.the tutorswerenot given a specificformatto follow.A counterbalEachof the 27 students participated fourtutoring so neverhadthesametutor was scheme designed that(a) a student twice. sample.the student instructed sit in view of a sessionthenproceeded camera to readaloudthe list of topics.Algebra were10 localhighschool in The who werehavingdifficulty theircourses. through setof predetermined on relevant the topicsandsubtopics to provided theirlist.Therefore. fractions.Thetutoring and saw in the direction the tutorandstudent fit. tutors studentswho normally providedtutoringservicesfor the middleschool. theresearch algebra average.whichyielded 108 tutoring due the tutoring sessionscouldnot be transcribed to audioproblems. to troublesome seventh-grade threetopicsthatare frequently algebra and These included positiveand negativenumbers. tutors 9 This an example cross-age of the methods tutoring. Each session was videotaped by a researchassistantfrom the University of Memphis.
Learning Algebra Sample2: SeventhGraders
consisted 22 tutoring of sessionsin which Studentsand tutors. mately in sessions.The tutoring sessionslastedapproximately min.In The otherthreetutorswere assignedto the structured tutoring a worked tutors students and thesetutoring sessions. two structured tutoring of sessions.170
GRAESSER KREUZ. whichis tutoring
roughly comparableto the researchmethods sessions.In Threeof the tutorswere assignedto the unstructured tutoring these sessions. deficitsrather sessionsfocusedon Tutoringtopics and sessions. that sessions. Whena was to entered tutoring the student room. text. or a chapterin the problems.however.
sessions. On hrof prior Like the had tutoring experience. ancing eachtutorcoveredall six topics. (c) con(b) (a) Thesetopicsweretypically fromwordproblems. ZWAAN. Most of the tutoring students.(c) eachtutorwas assignedto 18 tutoring (b) in sessionsand sessions. their to in sessionsin order remediate knowledge graders participated thetutoring thanfor coursecredit.
. Thissample students tutoredseventhgradersenrolledat a middleschool in high school sessionsfrom the This corpusincludedall of the algebratutoring Memphis. algebra samplewas in thatthe seventh fromthe research methods differed sample sample. sessionwasvideotaped lastedapproxilecturing 60 min.Twenty-five on each of the six topics. All six of problems and to student werealsoinstructed encourage thetutors questions to avoidsimply Eachtutoring and to thestudent. 13 teachers identified seventh a 1-month schoolduring graders period.
a tutoring exchange is initiated by a question posed by the tutor.including to the They all "ums.""ahs. The transcribers specified whether an utterancewas made by the student or tutor.1 Tutor: Let'stryanother Ah. and simultaneousspeech acts thatoccurredbetween the student and tutor.PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY
and of Sessions Transcription Coding the Tutoring
Transcribers received a 1-hrtrainingsession on how to transcribe videotapes.
Asksa Question Step 1:Tutor
Typically.brokensentences. Whatelse OK.head nods.The new How did planeseats374 passengers. and pauses. All right. we provide examples of the positive and negative consequences of the conversationalrules and politeness strategies in the tutoringcorpora described earlier.1 Tutor: OK. the tutor gave the student a great deal of latitude in specifying how to move from a hypothesis to a statisticalanalysis. manypassengers theold model seat? In Example 2. Depending on the tutoring domain. The following paragraphsillustrate the use of these rules and strategies within the five-step dialogue frame proposed by Graesserand Person (1994). For example. do we need to do beforewe perform t testor an F test? a This can be contrastedwith a Step 1 question from the algebracorpus:
3.number one. the question may be relatively open-ended or relatively constrained. also noted messages that appearedon the markerboard."word fragments.
THE EXAMPLES FROM PROTOCOLS
In this section. of eight. hand gestranscribers tures. In addition. Example 2 shows a typical topic from the research methods corpus:
2.The topics addressed by the tutors in the research methods sessions lacked the specificity of the topics addressed in the algebra tutoring sessions. the student had the option to declare a populationor a sample or to define operationallythe
. we've specifiedour hypothesis. the were instructed transcribe entiretutoringsessions verbatim.So. Each transcriptionwas verified for accuracy by a research assistant who spot-checkedrandom segments of each of the videotapes.thenumber seatson the new 525 airliner a 36%increase is over the old model.
so thatthe student may encounterdifficulty in attemptingto provide an answer.172
GRAESSER KREUZ. of Thisis demonstrated Example which 4.1 Tutor: Youcantell mea littlebitabout reasons usinganexperiment for the withmorethantwo levelsof an independent variable.. Although oversimplifies hereafter assume algebra a more we that matters.1 Tutor: Whattypeof scalewouldthatbe? 5. The tutorwas indicating the student that knew the answer..2 Student: let me think. this earlystagein the at to five-stepframe. the response tellingthe student even a minimal otherhand.By doingall thesethings.As a result.Nominalor.1993b)documented whenthe moresimpleuntilthe tutorasksmultiple questions.
Tutorsoccasionallypose questionsthatareunclearor vague. that. correctly only afterthe number Thisexample demonstrates also had by possibleanswers beenreduced the tutor. (1993a.understating taneously: tutorwas beingoptimistic of the request("a little bit").the studentultimately This canbe seen in Example drawn that 5. question hasbeengreatlysimplified. Oh.If these the a may neverbe challenged strategies oversimplify tutor'squestions. Example illustrates least threepoliteness at at strategies worksimulthe The ("Youcan tell me"). student on of to answer questions the frontier his or herknowledge. I don'tknow. in The conversational rules andpolitenessstrategies provided Table 1 both and at facilitate inhibit tutoring the For process. ZWAAN.and minimizing imposition the request("a little was the bit"). PERSON. In such cases.the tutor's (howmuchdoes the tutor request mayhavebeenunclear wantto know?). Example however. the use of ellipsis and the giving of hints to simplifythe question. a the in to Sometimes tutor student and mustnegotiate order produce question can Graesser thatthe student answer. constrained.
of but had In Example the student answered 5. they becomeprogressively answersa studentcan providea response.whichone. froma research methods sessionon variables:
5. thetutor and up (by mayhavesetthestudent forfailure assuming wouldbe able to providethe requested thatthe student information).
4 In fact. yeah.
measure.and the tutorwas On that wouldbe appropriate. dependent that had the response the student to generate applying appropriate by equation.the tutormay attempt putthe student ease by minimizing in the imposition his or herquestion. was drawn froma research methods sessionon factorial designs:
4: Example 4. 3 answers weremuchmoreconstrained Example thanin Example in Appropriate it is 2. closed-world domain thanis the research methods domain. tutorwas requesting numeric In the a 3. example. 5. ?
.4 Student: Ordinal.3 Tutor: Tryto think.the tutor facilitating student's response.
gottabe . the tutordemonstrated sensitivity to the student'sneed for clarity.
on GivesFeedback the Answer Step 3: Tutor
Clear. you knowwhatthatwouldbe? Do method The tutor apologized to acknowledge explicitly the incorrect and potentially her confusing question at 6.Consequently. both positive and negative feedback to students' error-ridden answers(Graesser.1 Tutor: Whatis the effect of no limited versuslimitedrelation? 6. has shown thattutorsprovide. By apologizing.discriminating.PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY
tutormay apologize.. 1993b). the studentmakes his or her initial attemptto answerthe tutor's question.there'ssomething makes correlational that not so wonderful that [. Our focus here.Previousresearch.There would seem to be little cost in apologizing for a mistake on the partof the tutor. drawnfrom a researchmethods session on formulatinga hypothesis: 6: Example relation 6.2 Student: Whatdo you mean? I've 6.1. If the tutorcontinuedto do this.however. the studentmay have begun to doubt the credibilityof the tutor.
the Answers Question Step2: Student
During Step 2.. although much of the tutor's effort during Step 1 is directedat constructinga question that the student can answer.and accuratefeedback by the tutor is presumablyessential for effective tutoring. a method careful um. with roughly equal likelihood.1993b). because it is very face threateningfor the student. Clearly. By definition..this convention of normalconversationmay inhibit the effectiveness of the tutoringprocess. is how tutors use conversationalrules and politeness strategies. the student's answer will affect the feedback that the tutorprovides (see Griffin & Humphrey. feedback by the tutor. however.1978). as illustratedin Example6. Vague answerson the partof the student are normally met with positive feedback from the tutor rather than negative feedback (Graesser. we do not discuss this step in furtherdetail. drawn from a reExample 7 illustratesinappropriate search methods session on variables: 7: Example 7.1 Tutor: Whatis an inferential statistic?
.3 Tutor: I'm sorry.Because the tutor does not participatein Step 2..] andsomething makestheexperimental wonderful.I knewI was askingthe wrongquestion. the tutor plays a relatively passive role. however. Why do tutors provide positive feedback in these cases? It seems likely that tutors avoid negative feedback as much as possible.
a student had constructeda frequency polygon but had not labeled the axes.
A that aboutsomething that'sgonna 7. however. it seems likely that the politeness strategies will be employed to make the feedback less aversive. by definition. 7.2.2 Student: statistic gives you information Orcouldhappen. also. When a student commits an error in a tutoring session.2 Student: thisone wouldjustgo like that[pointing previously to worked Uh.Because.
9.stratewere still being employed:The tutorapologized(perhaps gies allowing the student to save face after an error). In Example 9.something that'skindof implicit inferential with statistics that peopletendnot to thinkaboutis [. A more appropriate inferentialstatistics refers to the ability to generalize to a populationfrom "No.because the tutorused the word answer at 7.174
GRAESSER PERSON. At 7. The tutor attemptedto make the student realize this on her own. this requireda numberof turns to accomplish: 9: Example
9." We can contrast Example 7 with Example 8 (from an algebra session on feedback that addressedthe stufractions). do no.3 would have been. the tutor needs to provide much more information. a sample and not what may happen in the future. He seemed to have confused the and At conceptsof predictability generalizability. the tutorviolatedthe maxim of quality (i.. in which the tutor gave appropriate dent's misconception: 8. 7. Because he chose to be conventionallyindirect.1 Tutor: OK. althoughpoliteness.1 Tutor: Let's trythis one:5/lsthsminusnegative 3/6ths. you've got the right numbers. assuming that the tutor realized that the student's answer was incorrect).3 Tutor: Also. happen.e..um. no. the tutor has the responsibilityto acknowledge and correct the error. the student's answer was incorrect.. ZWAAN. That is. feedbackbecause she was attemptPerhapsthe tutorfailed to provideappropriate to avoid disagreementwith the student.3. possibly..however.] thatif peoplewentout and and that as surveyed surveyed they'dget the sameinformation a statistic.Sorry. Example 8.OK. may have ing mistakenlybelieved thathis answerwas correct.. KREUZ. ratherthan no at 7.. I just needed.because the student's answer is error-ridden.
.. 8. you couldn't that. The feedback in Example 8 was more appropriate.We would argue that the tutor should violate the maxims of quantity and mannerin order to provide effective feedback.2 Student: Yeah.3.. drawn from a research methods session on graphing. this is a face-threateningact. problem]? 8.3 Tutor: Well. The student. actually.
.andthe last.3 Tutor: Right. the tutor created ambiguity and took time away from correctingthe more important problem.. drawn from an algebrasession on variables. This is problematic. andyou takethe outside. because the student may. OK. First.1 Tutor: .FOIL.I coulddrawa line .3. is reallytheway mostpeoplelike to do it [elaborates on reasons]. right?You multiply inside.2 Student: mumbles solution theproblem to Here'sthewayI'vedoneit [student fromthe bookto himself]. buttheylikethis [theFOIL one this method]. 10. 9. and the allergists. in this example the studentfocused on a less important error in her graph (i.yeah.5 Tutor: Whatif you walkedup to this graph you hadneverseen [it]? and 9."OK. when in fact it does not.shows the simultaneoususe of two negative act politeness strategies:be conventionallyindirectand state the face-threatening as a general rule: 10: Example 10. whatit is. By being conventionally indirect.the one.now. drawing a line to connect the points on the graph). The problem of being too indirecthas been noted in other domains. made their request in very indirect ways.It standsfor "first.7 Tutor: Yeah. This is typical of how a tutorcorrectsa problem.Do you see how thatworks? 10. Aronsson and Rundstr6m(1989) mentioned that allergists must frequentlyask patients to remove their clothes. so whatyou do is you take [the]first thesetwo. In their study of Swedish allergists. the tutor erroneously told the student that his method works.see that's way to do it.. by stating the face-threatening as a general rule). as expected.last. Clearly.inside.Well.OK. this is a face-threateningact.6 Student: I guess I shouldlabelthese [pointsto the axes]. outside.is thereanything aboutthisgraph you wouldwantto do beforeyou finish?I mean.3 Tutor: OK. Oh.
.. 9. As we have seen previously. Although some might argue that studentsshould be encouragedto discover such problems on their own.4 Student: guess I could.. This led to confusion on the patients' part. justFOIL. continue to cling to his or her misconception.albeit indirectly. At 10.e. nonetheless. thereare examples in this step in which the tutor used multiplepoliteness strategiesto addressstudent'serrors. because they were typically left unsure whetherto remove their clothes at all or how much clothing to remove.AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY 175 else that 9. the tutoragrees with the studentbut then goes on to qualify this agreement act (in this case.Example 10.do you consider finished? this I 9.
The tutor sometimes contributesinformationthat confuses the student.4 Student: whatdoes that.
and the Step 4: Tutor Student Collaboratively Improve of Quality the Answer
Students answers questions. whenI was tryingto learnit that.176
GRAESSER PERSON. 1993b. 11.
Example 11 shows some of the costs associated with encouragingthe student's
excessive praiseeven by responses. Example11.N-O-I-R. interval. bedded combined mayleadto a relatively questions. example. withexcessivepraise.2 Student: 11. it 12.. 12. the way I remember um. employa scaffolding in to the of Whenused technique order increase likelihood a student's response. The tutor attemptedto provide the student with a memory aid. to extreme.N-O-I-R. mustnothavebeena realdrug.. tutormay providea hint.thesestrategies encourage passivelearning. however. & of 1993a..At 11.whatdoes blackhaveto do with nominal? So Here is a mnemonic that has gone sadly awry. typically provide veryabbreviated findit necessary encourage to themto elaborate theirresponses fore..the construction an answercan be thought as a collaborative of in whichthe student and activity tutorworktogether construct acceptable to an answer(Graesser. to thereTutors. and ratio) were being discussed in a researchmethods session on variables: 12: Example 12. As a result. The various types of scales (nominal.3 Tutor: OK.1993b. All right.oh. 1993a.3. of all. and was. yeah. thanusing moodflakes moodflakes. as in Example 12. 12.let's tryanother Let'ssay we had. shows an embedded at question 11. (Graesser. ordinal. let's translate in termsof ourexperiment.1 Tutor: OK.. Therefore.5.
11: Example 11. ask an embedded or question.Whatdoes this meanas far as typeof drug? 11. KREUZ.Resnicket al. the tutorexaggerated providing Onceagain. I knewin French wordblackis noir. It 11. passive role on the partof the student.Graesser Person.
All right! Good job.5 Tutor: In otherwords.1994). Kreuz& Roberts. wait.1 Tutor: .4 Student: hadno effect. but she did not make sufficiently clear how it
.. Thetutor use several can to this For the strategies facilitate process. you the can remember thatway.First one.3 Tutor: So you can thinkof noir. 1993).2 Student: Well. this OK.use of oversimplified emthoughthe student's inputwas minimal.using cornflakes wereno different .yeah. drawnfrom a research methodssession on interactions. ZWAAN. 1993..
So. tutor the neversaidmorethanthestudent already had said.
maxim quantity).3 Tutor: Yeah. ? that 13. um.
14.6 Student: Um.This couldbe thought as a violation the maximof quantity.. promotes activelearning forcingthe student do mostof the work. a of becausethe student focusedon a relatively minordetailin the tutor'squestion.
In thisexample..5 Tutor: OK.you havea mean?
14.2 Student: 42. One mightexpect this strategy occur to the has session. 6. A moreappropriate methodfor laterstagesin the tutoring sessionis shown in Example14.7 Tutor: OK.
Example 15 is drawn from a researchmethods session on variables. Tutors frequently thestudents' forthem a tutoring
often ask questions providetoo muchinformation violationof Grice's that (a froman algebra sessionon fractions. of of Tutors do in work session. supposed ground-that thatthestudent the between spelling noirandthenames thescaleswasarbitrary.
. all the student provided operation had to do was providethe numbers.4 Student: You haveto writethe scoresdown.whenthe student notyet masduring earlystagesof a tutoring teredthe material. 13. Example drawn tutoring
13: Example 13. what
wouldwe do whenwe've got all the scores? 14.PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY AND
to of The arose because tutor the applied thenames thescales.1 Tutor: And you wantto multiply by .3 Tutor: OK.
14.1 Tutor: We aregoingto use the scores?
14. to by The student's in answer the nextexampleillustrates violation relevance..however. illustrates this: 13. the tutoradhered this strategy If to the throughout tutoring of session. for 
In thisexample.. in whichthe tutorandstudent werediscussing next step in the a computing t test:
14: Example 14.It gets morecomplicated. you would. confusion precommon knewthattherelationship is. of which lessens cognitive the burden thestudent. tutor the the and information.andthe student wouldrely on the tutorto supplythe structure the dialogue.2 Student: Yeah. however. What'sthe firstthingwe needto do? 14. we would need all of those scores. OK. of of because tutor's the are new This repetitions notsupplying information. technique..the misconceptions the student mightneverhavebeenadof dressed.
let me startover. Stevens. 16. 16. this could only be accomplishedby using a correlationalapproach. the new variablemay seem irrelevant to the topic at hand.It's asidefromthe moneyissue.178
GRAESSER PERSON. On the otherhand.the tutor asks a sequence of carefully selected questions that expose the student'smisconceptions.2 Student: 'Causeit's.If.4 Student: so. I mean. Probably um. rather. Example 16 illustratesSocratictutoringthat begins duringStep 2.Interestingly. It occurred duringa discussionof how to design a studythatwould determinethe relationship between divorced parents and depressed children.500. OK. 16: Example wouldit be? I mean.. because the tutor. would if an research be better you conducted experimental design. until the student realizes the underlyingrelationship.. the tutormust violate the maxim of quality.3 Tutor: You are? if are 16...the tutordoes not correctan errorcommittedby the student. well. tutorsmay need to violate the maxim of relevancein order of to introducematerialthat facilitates the student's understanding the topic at hand.You can look depressed and are children whether not theirparents or at dataon depressed it but to divorced. & Goldin.For example. a tutormay ask the studentwhethertwo groupsof subjects were tested at the same time of day..if.3.2 Student: 16.
15: Example 15. KREUZ. if you wanted reallytestyourhypothesis.ah. In Socratictutoring.3 Tutor: Say $1. they'redepressed going to be . Ethically.for the tutorto employ Socratictutoring. becausenot all children. is acting as if the erroris correct.even though they may appearto be irrelevant. At 15. you'renot going to be ableto look at anydataon children. 15.. the tutor dealt with this violation by explicitly redirectingthe student away from the irrelevantaspect of the question. what kind of experiment Would be . it is importantto note that the tutor adheredto the maxim of relevance.1 Tutor: Tell me first. areyougoingto haveanexperimental whatmethod? it design? Yes. 1985. The tutor may provide backgroundinformation. that'sa lot of money.in effect. for example.new examples. Collins. a tutor proposes a confounding variableto explain an experimentalresult.AlthoughExample 15 illustrates a violation of relevance by the student. This question will appearirrelevantuntil the student realizes that time of day may affect dependentmeasuressuch as reaction time. Collins and his colleagues (1977. Well. or alternative explanationsin orderto ensure student comprehension. 1982) dissected the process of Socratictutoringas an important pedagogicaltechnique.1 Tutor: WhywouldNIMHnot give me five milliondollarsto do a correlational study? 15. ZWAAN.
Do you thinkthere'sa lot of rice in. Socratic tutoring involves violating the maxim of relevance. ideally.11 Tutor.8 Student: There'sa lot of waterup theretoo. provided an example of a violation of relevance: 17. I'm not. First. now how wouldwe go aboutdoing that? OK. Collins (1977). Socratic tutoring requiresthatthe tutormaintainthe student'sfalse beliefs until it becomes obvious to the student that these beliefs are false.this statement forced the studentto think of other causal factors besides water." "OK"). rice needs to be flooded.g. the tutor intervenes: 16 Example (continued): 16.No. this is all up to you.AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY 179 16.I don'tthinkso. 17. for example. and 17."The tutor immediatelychose counterexamples(Washingtonand to Oregon)thatmight have seemed irrelevant the student. the climateisn't conducive. That is. "um hmm.5 Tutor: OK. Washington Oregon? 17. Socratic tutoring may also be uncommonbecause it forces tutorsto violate normalconversationalrules: in this case. During the next several turns. butthere'stwo reasons..5 Tutor: OK. 351) In 17.I thinkricerequires ability the to selectively flood fields. the tutor asked a question to ensure that the student'sreasoning was focused on the relevant steps in the causal chain for growing rice.butareyou manipulating anything? 16. In 17.2 Student: Louisiana.I couldbe wrong.I don't. 17.. After several such turns. I'm curious.3 Tutor: Why there? 17. because the tutorintroducesa seemingly irrelevantidea thatwill. becausethis methodrequires a high level of domain knowledge. it.However.3.12 Student: you'reabsolutely No.OK.You'vegot to haveflat landso you canflood a lot of it. second.the studentstruggledto explain his answer. unlessyou terrace (p.
.4. 1975). the maxim of quality. while the tutor provided minimal input (e. Socratictutoringis rarein most tutoringinteractions.. say. In other cases. and. right.1 Tutor: Wherein NorthAmerica you thinkrice mightbe grown? do 17. as well as a great deal of tutoringexperience on the part of the tutor (Collins et al.4 Student: Placeswherethereis a lot of water. the student stated that rice grows in "places with a lot of water.6 Student: Aha.I don't thinkthe land is and flat enough. redirect the student'sline of thinking.7 Tutor: Why? 17. ..
it kindasquishing 'em. butit's there[pointing a decision text].. We have found that a similar problem occurs duringtutoring. drawnfrom a session on Type I and Type II errorsin the researchmethods tutoringcorpus. This method was referredto as the "squish"metaphor:
18. this impliedthe presenceof a main effect. no parallel.
In the classroom.. UUm. Feltovich.e.. realeasyto figureoutif there's 18.. squished line] .2 Student: hum.In Example 18.let's see.now we can get fromhere [cell means]to a graph. right? 18. The tutor would suggest that the student visually collapse together the lines in the graph. you then angle can say thatthereis a maineffect for A. I'll tell you it.. the tutorand the studentwere discussing main effects and interactions. Whatyou woulddo.1 Tutor: Butthere someneattricks beingableto figureoutgraphically are to a is [whether maineffectof a variable depicted]. Does this mean thattutorsshouldalways avoid the use of metaphors? Example 19..6 Student: No. Um 19.if the resultingline had a slope.. the atom is like the solar system). One advantageto this approachis that a difficult concept may be simplified for the students. you'rehallucinating. if thisline is horito zontal[points new..4 Student: they're well there's interaction.
The student's answer was incorrect(there is a main effect for A).5 Tutor: .. the way I remember A TypeI erroris like um .Hereyou see it. would do what's called collapsing the two lines..The metaphor..andCoulson (1989) showed thatteachersoften use inappropriate metaphorsto explain difficult concepts. even though the tutorhad provideda supposedlyhelpful method for determiningthe answer. If 18.
we 18. however. Theway I... andan interaction.. PERSON.1 Tutor: You don'tsee it..This tutor frequentlychose to use a metaphorin order to determinethe presence of a main effect in a graph.3 Tutor: 'Cause it's a maineffect for A. Spiro. But sinceit's nothorizontal is at a certain and whereone end is different fromthe otherendpoint. Well. Um onceyou'reat thegraph. .. teachers may attempt to explain difficult concepts by appealing to a conceptual metaphor(i. If they're parallel.... andit's not there.2 Student: hum. a maineffect for B. ZWAAN.. how about this [draws lines on a graphthatdepicta maineffect for the two A variable]? therea maineffect for A? Is 18. demonstratesthe utility of a conceptualmetaphor:
in to matrix the 19. may lead to even more severe misconceptions.180
GRAESSER KREUZ. OK. we wouldsay thatthereis no maineffectforA.
Let'ssay we havea 10-point scalefor that.hallucination blindness...It's there.. 20.22 Student:.
20. 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. 19.19 Tutor: Um. the following exchange occurred: 19 Example (continued): 19. Instead of directly questioning the tutor's selection of a 10-pointscale. the numberof intervals on a Likert scale.Tutorsmustjudiciously choose those metaphorsthat are clear.. OK. By invoking the name of the instructor.1 Tutor: Andourlevelof psychotic.AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY 181 19. "Most people do this. you see something is that'snot there.. and accurateand avoid metaphorsthat do not satisfy these criteria. later in this discussion.9 Tutor: So. does thatmakeit a littleclearer? 19.7 Tutor: The magicsix.in this case.I forgotthe magicsix.In other words." the speaker says.2 Student:OK. analogies. OK.4 Student:Whathappened the magicsix?! [laughs] 20. This has the beneficial effect of minimizing the imposition of the new informationon the hearer.but you don'tsee it.illustratesthe studentoffering a contributionindirectly.TypeII error like you're blind. 20. 20. 20. Oh. Tutors and students may elect to introducea new concept by stating it as a general rule.. "Do this.
. The tutorhad forgottenan important principle.some metaphorswork betterthan others.. Clearly. 19.20 Student:Yes. let's say we have a 6-pointscale. like that. 20. insteadof saying.3 Tutor: . becauseyou reallyneed something yeah." Example 20.. from a research methods session on interactions.4 Student: so let me writethesedown.6 Student:[Nameof instructor's] magicsix! 20..10 Student:OK.. 20. andthat'sthe way I always remember these[laughs].21 Tutor: OK. It is interesting to point out that. the studentwas able to expressher opinion indirectly in the form of a general rule.the student provided a face-saving rationale for the use of a 6-point scale.8 Student:Great.. to 20. helpful.3 Tutor: So .5 Tutor: Oh. and 19.
In tutoring.This problem is very common in the tutoring corpus and suggests an overreliance on students' self-assessment. PERSON. That is. Some violations are made by the student.tutorstypically ask very general. tutors typically ask: 21: Example 21. 23.As we have shown.In addition. however. ZWAAN.2 Student: Ah. the student is operatingon the frontierof his or her knowledge. In other words.Therefore.For example.Are you with me? or 22: Example 22. withthat? 23.. drawn from a session on constructingalgebraicequationsfrom word problems: 23: Example withthesekindsof wordproblems 23.1 Tutor: Do you haveanyproblem [reto ferring a sectionin the book]?Wherethey say23. the tutorcould encouragethe studentto identifyany specific problems that still remainat this stage in the tutoringprocess. the tutor should violate the maxim of quantity frequently..and listeners do not challenge these reports.violations of the conversational rules and politeness strategiesoccur. Instead.182
GRAESSER KREUZ.. and some are made by the tutor. some tutorviolations may be desirable for effective tutoring. it is assumed that individualsare accuratein assessing their own knowledge (e. and self-assessments may be much less accurate.1 Tutor: And thenyou'reOK. In normal conversation. the tutorsare adheringto Grice's (1975) maxim of quantityeven when they should not.1 Tutor: . so you understand right? that.4 Student:
. what they ate for lunch and to whom they are married).
Assesses Student's Understanding Step 5: Tutor of the Answer
In this step.3 Tutor: You don't?You don't?You don'thave any trouble No.g. the tutors make global statements about the student's comprehensioninstead of asking questions regardingspecific issues that have alreadybeen addressed. yes-no questions that do not tap the student's misconceptions.
It should be clear that Step 4 is a collaborativeprocess: The tutorand student work togetherto constructan answer. A much better approachappears in Example 23. [interrupts] not really.
3 Tutor: Ouncespergallon.available bottles contain gallon. therefore.good question. Sometimes a lack of common ground between the student and tutor may adversely affect the tutoringinteraction.1 Tutor: Now thatyou've workedthem. Tutors occasionally preparestudents for a difficult problem by being pessimistic aboutwhetherthe studentcan solve the problem.6 Student: I can'twritetheequations. Tutors. should exercise caution when they make presuppositionsabout what the tutor and studentboth know.ah. must be careful not to carry over this conversationalassumptioninto tutoringsessions. drawnfrom a session on variables.Specifically. drawn from an algebrasession on word problems:
24. Ah. however. In this example. but these violations were necessary to expose the student's deficits. Now you'resupposed writeanequato tion. thisone is probably littleharder a thanthe firstone. whichwas twice morethanwhatJimearned. the tutormay erroneously assume that the student possesses informationthat the student does not.Um. and minimize imposition).Farm Fresh juice in one for that juice. therefore. Even when a concept or idea has been explicitly mentioned in a tutoring and session. 25.A bottleof Produce Timeapple 64 contains ouncesandcosts99 cents.2 Student: Yeah[laughs]. arein a gallon? 24. This presuppositionof common ground can be seen clearly in Example 24.. oneeighty-eight [$1. The tutordiscoveredthe student'sdeficits only by repeatedlyqueryingthe student. The studentdid not know.however. whichis the betterbuy? 24.AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY 183 23. Dan earned $56. and asked the tutor for the information.it was not until the student was challenged to perform that the deficit was made manifest. It's a little different but.This can be contrastedwith normalconversationin which contributionsby both participants assumed to be in the common groundand are completely understood (Clark & Schaefer. 1989).
. Even this is insufficient.illustratesthis:
25.um. leading to a breakdown in effective tutoring.88]each.it's a lot liketheother one two. 23. You haven't thesein tables had before. Tutors.Example 23 includes many violations of the politeness strategies (avoid disagreement.for a studentto hide his or herknowledge It deficits from the tutor.. is more typical.be optimistic.. the tutorcannotbe certainthat the studentboth understands remembers the information.5 Tutor: Let'sjust do one of them.1 Tutor: OK. the tutorpresupposedthat the studentknew how many ounces are in a gallon.Example25.ah.2 Student: How manyounces.let's try number14.
. normal conversation.During Step4.Thesetwo stagesare crucialfor the tutoring the student's knowledge acts that process. Brownand affectthetutoring Levinson's (1987)politeness processin positiveand strategies of be should.butthereis a highprobability face-threatening mayoccur. of Future dimensions discourse. in differences how theserulesandstrategies Theremaybe functional operate in the tutoring domain. Brown in andLevinson's (1987)politeness strategies thesesteps.g. In particular. for example.g. GRAESSER
For This methodmay have unwanted consequences.Discourseexists on a at with normal conversation one end andless interactive continuum. becausebothsampleswereexamplesof cross-age acrossthe tutoring domains. to also 1977).Tutors negative of the becausesuchawareness may enhance overalleffectiveness tutoring. tutorsin the research morethandid the algebra sessionsseemedto rely on the politenessstrategies in to Thisfindingcannotbe attributed differences the statusof the tutors tutors. tutoring
ences in the expertise of the tutors.the tutorand studentmust later that a during comprehensible question will be expanded negotiate mutually and answer address mustelaborate thestudent's on steps. classroom resembles betweenthese two extremesand probably clearlyfalls somewhere If discourse.As rules of a result. Grice's(1975. of that notsurprising tutors on the implicit principles ordinary rely rules As we haveshown. 1978)conversational andP.Thisdifference cannotbe attributed differ(Fitz-Gibbon.. and at discourse Tutoring (e. interactive. KREUZ. such explore may into a fine-grained process. may lead to to of a diminution efforton the partof the student. to Some steps of the tutoringprocessare more vulnerable conversational misstepsthanothers. andmaxims characterize that however. thetutor deficits.DuringStep 1.it may lead the This or student believethatfailureis expected even acceptable. because most of the algebra tutors and all
.it is conversation moreclosely thanclassroom conversation. whereas BrownandLevinson's(1987) and utterances (e.Grice's(1975. ZWAAN. ways. cognizant thesecostsandbenefits. 1978)analysisfocuseson the contentof P. the addresses socialandinterpersonal approach and how theserulesandstrategies research profitably interact. example. quantity quality).therefore. insights thispedagogical analysis offeradditional may
from sessionsdiffered and methods algebra We foundthatthe research tutoring methods the each otherin severalways. discourse lectures speeches) theother. and that tutorial conversational dialogueare the same. this claim is true.184
PERSON.we foundmanyexamples Grice'sconversational andP.
the that can We have suggested tutoring be examined employing strategies by Wearenotclaiming.
. tutors(andstudents) open-world the in domains mayrely rules that normal heavilyon theconversational andpoliteness strategies facilitate As can conversation.Forexample.Specifically. be moreeasily exposedandmoreeasilycorrected. student says. and one can readilydistinguish betweengood and bad answers.PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY
methodstutorshad neverpreviously servedas tutorsin their of the research This is. students beforea tutoring sessionbegins. Other differences betweentheresearch methods algebra and sessionsmaybe for For responsible the observeddifferences. in fact. the tutormustfollow up on the student's his vagueanswerto ensure or herunderstanding.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. the tutor back. For thesereasons. becausethereis no ambiguity associated with a numeric The well.VanLehn. believethattutorsand we process students shouldestablish conversational interrulespriorto the tutoring ground shouldbe madeawarethatthe tutorwill use negativefeedaction. we have shown. 1977). in to thatthe differences politeness use maybe attributable the domains strategy sessions.
Ground RulesinTutoring Establishing
As manyresearchers demonstrated. have students musthaveprerequisite inforin mation order profitfromaneducational to 1977. example. algebra domain:The questionsand answersare typicallywell-defined (Collinset al. Sinatra. contrast.we cannotrule out the between twogroups tutors. thatthe student expectedto take may say. knowledge a very activerole in the tutoring deficitsmay process.however.g. the of We effectof agedifferences however. suggest. As mentioned earlier..We suggest thattutorsimplementstrategiesthat encour-
."The answer five." a correlational about designmaynot understand underlying the and completely principles. typicalof the tutoring occursin most that respective subjects. is to elicitthe drawbacks a correlational are as design.For 1975).The research can of of the tutoring methods domain be thought as an domain: questions answers notexist withinwell-defined The and do open-world In a the domaincan be considered closed-world parameters."canreceive clear-cut the student who says.The student rules of conversation be violated(e. contrast. response: is In who feedback. require background knowledge order textbookinformation (McKeown. "It'sless powerful. comprehend musthave an understanding the tutoring of 1992). theserulesandstrategies create even whenthey areemployed expeditenormalsocial to problems. pedagogical interaction.& Loxterman.it is far easierto elicit the answer an algebra of Theanswers different. 1982.Fitz-Gibbon. experience (Gagn6. to wordproblem thanit example.. In a similarway.thatthe "normal" may is and "No.youransweris wrong").Beck. schoolsettings(Cohenet al. tutoring The processshould be moreefficient. In this way. in students relevant to 1987).
age the active participationof the student ratherthan the tutor supplying most of the information. 145-182. (1989). Clark.P. S.tutors often assume that.. Collaboratingon contributionsto conversations. 13. and sweets in the clinical negotiationof reality: On politeness and coherence in pediatricdiscourse.. The commentsof two anonymousreviewers were also very helpful. 2. Reimann. & Schaefer. H. E. Attention and performance (Vol. 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. M. & Buttrick. England:CambridgeUniversityPress. student.KREUZ.186
PERSON. We are indebted to John Cady for providing access to the seventh-grade algebratutoringsessions. (1989). pp. it has been understoodby the student.We suggest that tutorsactively probe the studentsin orderto expose knowledge deficits. 19-41. B.Because this assessmentcan be very face threatening students.B. (1989). H. Bloom. The 2 sigma problem:The search for methodsof groupinstructionas effective as one-to-one tutoring.on the conversational This overreliance on the rules and strategies of normal conversation also creates a problem in Step 5. R... 4-16. E. in which the tutor assesses the student's underfor standing. & Schaefer. Baddeley (Eds. & Rundstrim. & Glaser..EducationalResearcher. Clark. as well as more opportunitiesfor the tutorto identify the student'sknowledge deficits.). 313-330).Journal of Verbal Learningand VerbalBehavior. Cats. Self-explanations: study and use examples in learningto solve problems.. to Clark. H. N00014-90-J-1492. dogs.. If the tutorsexplicitly inform the studentsthatthis will occur.. The reason these activities do not frequentlyoccur duringStep 4 may be the overreliance. 259-294. 13. & Levinson. M. B. & Carlson. (1983).. Schreuder. the studentswill regardthis assessmentas less face threatening. (1987). H. C. Contributing discourse. if the materialhas been covered during the tutoringsession. Common ground and the understandingof demonstrativereference. S. Language and Society. Cambridge. H. 483-504. Context for comprehension. H.Language and CognitiveProcesses. Hillsdale.by both tutorand rules and politeness stfategiesof normaldiscourse.In J.
This researchwas fundedby grantsawardedto ArthurC. 18. H.. P. 22. Politeness: Some universals in language use. trulycollaborativeexchange duringStep 4 allows for more A active involvementon the part of the student. (1981).Cognitive Science. F. P. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. H. Lewis.
. (1987). S. 13.
Aronsson. Brown. Clark.. (1984). 245-258.ZWAAN. 9. CognitiveScience. Bassok. D. K. T. F. Graesserby the Office of Naval Research(N00014-88-K-0110. Inc. Long & A. How students Chi.
Evans & V. 2. (1977). R. C. 219-236. 19. & Huber. Wilkinson. (1992). 579-586). & Kulik. 355-360. R. 149-172). Bobrow & A. (1978). 14. D. Cole & J. R. Patel (Eds.. Questioningmechanisms duringcomplexlearning. Peacock. 126-130). (1984). G. (1990). P. 437-468. In D. Task and talk at lesson time: Children'sfunctional language and education in the early years (Final Report. Cognitive science in medicine: Biomedical modeling (pp. C. M. In R. Chipman. Gagnd. Kasper..F. Syntaxand semantics: Vol. 167-187). Inc. M. (1989). A. Glenberg. (1983). Teaching reasoning skills. (1975). Dialogue patternsand feedback mechanismsduringnaturalistictutoring. Interactionritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. G. Journal of Pragmatics. E. Graesser. An analysis of the literature of cross-age tutoring.G. & Spisak. J. Kulik. & W.). 597-602.In W.. Perspectives on politeness. Cozby. & Huber. R. Person. Methods in behavioral research (4th ed. ED 350 306) Memphis. W. London:Longman. (1985). 31. M. & Coulson. Reasoning from incomplete and (pp. A. 113-172). & A. Leech. T.In P. NY: Anchor. When collaborationfails: Consequencesof pragmaticerrors in conversation. P. (1975).In M. J. Anderson. R. Question asking during tutoring. C. A. The natureof conceptual understandingin biomedicine: The deep structureof complex ideas and the developments of misconceptions. B. Pragmatics (pp. Spiro. P. P. (1982). K. Memory & Cognition. C. A. C. notes on logic and conversation. (1993a). 19. DC: National Instituteof Education. approach.. N. Question asking during tutoringand in the design of educationalsoftware.).Journal of Pragmatics.Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conferenceof the Cognitive Science Society (pp.. M. W. Speech acts (pp. Journal ofPragmatics. Graesser. (1986). Trasy. B. New York: CarnegieCorp..Representation understanding New York: Academic. Educationaloutcomes of tutoring:A meta-analysis of findings. Mechanisms that generate questions. C. & Epstein. 9. C. Lauer. Hillsdale. Logic and conversation. NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. J. 339-363). Questions and informationsystems (pp.A. Washington. New York: Holt.R. 237-248.MemphisStateUniversity. D.). (1982). researchissues.). A. K.). Hillsdale. (ERIC Document Reproduction Graesser. & Miller. Principles of pragmatics. L. Collins. H.MA: MIT Press. ED 148 807) Fox. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. C. Inc. Fitz-Gibbon.In D. 113-127). NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. E. (1989). Grice. 193-218. Linguisticpoliteness:Current Kreuz. A. F. Processes in acquiring knowledge. Graesser. K. Collins. 10. Craig. Glenberg... The human tutorial dialogue project. P.. Cognitivesciencefoundationsof instruction (pp. K. (1977). C. The discourse of requests:Assessment of a politeness Research. New York: Academic. E. Graesser (Eds.). pp. Montague (Eds. NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Feltovich. 41-58). J. (1993).. TN.). (1994). (1977).
. Collins. (1990). (1993). J. Further Vol. L.PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY
Cohen. MountainView. Rinehart& Winston. In T. Griffin.J. Aeillo.. GardenCity. W.. Inc. A.In P. AmericanEducationalResearch Journal.. H. 12. Kintsch (Chair). R. knowledge..). In S. CA: Mayfield. A. E. (1978). Spiro. M. Inc. & Humphrey. New York: Academic. A. Cole (Ed.Memory & Cognition. Service No.).J. Collins (Eds.).. (1993). NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.(ERIC Document ReproductionService No. A. 104-137..American Educational Research Journal. Rabinowitz(Ed.A. 453-494). Hillsdale. (1967). N. Graesser. Cambridge. N. Warnock. M. Syntaxand semantics: Grice. Segal. L.. & R.. Inc. P. M.Human Communication Epstein. Hillsdale. T. C. & Bradley. The conditions of learning (3rd ed. C. C. 3. Goffman. & Roberts. Thinkingand learning skills (Vol. F. Inc. A. Person. 239-252. The illusion of knowing: Failure in the assessment of comprehension.CarnegieCorporation). N. & Person.. H. 12. NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. Hillsdale. J.. 14. NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Morgan (Eds. Coactivation and comprehension: of Contribution text variablesto the illusion of knowing. Glaser (Eds. Fraser. A. (1993b). Hillsdale.
(1993).England:CambridgeUniversityPress... New York: Academic. Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. (1992). B. Cambridge. A. 197-244. Wathen.7.. Beck. & Loxterman. Sleeman & J. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Cognitionand Instruction. E. Inc.. C. C. Cambridge.MA: MIT Press. M. Mehan.A. M. Developmentof an expertexplanation:An analysisof a sequenceof subtraction lessons.Universityof Colorado. Cognition and Instruction..Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 1-40. McKeown. 31. M. Learninglessons: Social organizationin the classroom. & Holowchak. (1990). Tutoring techniquesin algebra. per VanLehn. & Kreuz. Griffin.. for and Putnam. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering activities. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. K. (1972). (1990). (1987). 347-364. S.1. 13-48. J. Structuring adjusting students:A live and simulatedtutoringof addition. 225-283.).. E.. M. Fredonia.27. C. 365-372).Reading Research Quarterly.. (1990).D. & Zmuidzinas. Leinhardt.188
PERSON. (1987). Reasoning in conversation. Artificial Intelligence. L. D. & Brown.Cognitionand Instruction. (1989). R. KREUZ. M. Spiro. Stasz. (1982). I. J.G. comprehension-monitoring Penman.. McArthur. Montague (Eds. 205-229. C. A.). Salmon. M. III. 15-38. 117-175. C. R. Intelligent tutoringsystems (pp. M. P.. Magliano.J. Resnick. NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. (1979). (1977). R. 9.. and Palincsar. Brown (Eds.. & Cole. & W.. 13-24). Cognitionand Instruction. Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse.R. Weaver. (1987). G. & Goldin. 78-93. (1984). Resnick. B. Graesser. T.11.Learningand Individual Differences. Peer tutoringas a techniquefor teaching the unmotivated. R. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. L. GRAESSER
G. (1994). Zeitz. AmericanEducationalResearch Journal.MA: Harvard University Press. Misconceptionsin students' understanding.M. K. Learningone subprocedure lesson. N. Hillsdale. VanLehn. S. Anderson..4. Person. A.
. Teacher Education Research Center. H. Holding an instructionalconversation:Comments on chapter 10 by Collins..NY: State Mohan. L. Calibration and assessment of comprehension. The constructionzone: Working cognitive change for in school.. K. 6. The contributionof prior knowledge and coherenttext to comprehension.Boulder. D. Sinatra. J. Collins. (1990). In R. Inferringwhat the student knows in one-to-one tutoring:The role of studentquestions and answers.Cambridge. ED 061 154) Newman. L. In Stevens.P. 24. S. A. H.. S. University of New York. ZWAAN.