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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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: person@vax.rhodes.edu

162

PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSER

are existseven though tutors Mohan,1972).Thisadvantage typically nothighly Graesser et trained 1977;Graesser, 1993a,1993b; (Cohen al., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon, to this & Person,1994).In addition, advantage notattributable agedifferences, is and cited includeexpert,cross-aged, peer becausethe effect sizes previously tutoring. or Becausethese effects arenot due to sophisticated pedagogical strategies the One possiblereasonfor the age differences, truecausemustlie elsewhere. of effectiveness tutoring revolvesaround dialoguethatoccursbetweenthe the conversation than tutorandstudent. is moresimilar normal to Tutoring dialogue in format primarily theclassroom is thelecture used (Resnick, 1977).Thepurpose how of can of this articleis to illustrate properties conversation potentially aid, as well as hinder, effectivetutoring. ON PERSPECTIVES CONVERSATION THEORETICAL were first The implicitrules and strategies facilitatenormalconversation that who proposed conversation governed is that described Grice(1975, 1978), by to rule: principle. According this principle, by one overarching the cooperative on makea "goodfaith"effortto contribute and collaborate the to participants as & conversation it proceeds 1987, 1989).Grice(1975, 1978) (Clark Schaefer, of that is further by suggested this cooperation augmented a number conversationalmaxims: (do quantity not say quality(do not say thingsthatareuntrue), relevance not say thingsthatareextraneous), moreor less thanis required), (do and and andmanner brief,be orderly, avoidobscurity ambiguity). (be For haveexpanded Grice's(1975, 1978)approach. example, Othertheorists maxims an with Leech(1983)suggested overarching politeness principle several that and (e.g., tact, generosity,approbation, modesty).Leech maintained the for is principle principle necessary Grice's(1975, 1978)cooperative politeness conversation. to be effectivein normal in has Thisinterest linguistic by politeness beenmostfullyexplored P. Brown of usedin threewidelydiffering andLevinson(1987).In an analysis languages Tamilin India,andTzeltalin cultures (Englishin the UnitedStatesandBritain, P. Brown Levinson and found particular that Mexico), politeness strategies Mayan that dozensof conversational areuseduniversally. strategies are Theydescribed Central P. BrownandLevinson's to socialinteraction. usedto facilitate analysis in of is thenotion face, orone'sself-image (Goffman, 1967).Individuals a culture their to a attempt maintain positiveself-imageandtry to help othersmaintain because is frequently face ownself-images. is notalwayspossible, This however, and acts. criticisms, requests, by putin danger face-threatening Suchactsinclude to of has Eachculture deviseda number linguisticstrategies mitigate demands. acts. the impactof theseface-threatening that three P.Brown Levinson and (1987)discussed may superstrategies speakers
employ:positivepoliteness, negativepoliteness, andoff-record.Positivepoliteness

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

163

wantsandneeds.It includes acknowlthe of refersto an appreciation thehearer's & & of 1981;Clark, Schreuder, Buttrick, (Clark Carlson, ground edgment common are and and that 1983),the acknowledgment the speaker hearer cooperators, a wants(P.Brown& Levinson, to readiness fulfillthespeaker's 1987,p. 102).For seeks is in the "That beautiful, a way," speaker by sculpture really example, saying, thespeaker notreallybelieve does with to avoiddisagreement thelistener. Perhaps "in the is and thatthesculpture beautiful; byhedging (i.e.,saying, a way"), speaker with tokenagreement thelistener. is ableto provide in on to attempts minimize impositions the Negativepoliteness, comparison, termdoes not implya lack of politenessbut This somewhat hearer. confusing in rathera methodof ingratiation. Negativepolitenesscan be accomplished to The speaker minimize threat thehearer, the hearer can the various give ways: on the desirenotto impinge the the optionnotto act,or communicate speaker's Brown& Levinson,1987,p. 131).By saying,"Ijust wantto ask you hearer (P. the the minimizes imposition if you can lend me a tiny bit of paper," speaker as on the listenerby makingthe request understated possible. as A final superstrategy discussedby P. BrownandLevinson(1987) involves A but going off-record. speakermakesa statement does so in a vague way, of open to the hearer(Craig,Tracy,& leavingthe interpretation the comment the indicates Spisak,1986).Forexample,by saying,"It'shot in here," speaker her or his desireto have someonetakeaction,perhaps openinga window. by This requestis madeobliquely, however,and gives the listenerthe optionnot to act. as of statements be construed violations Grice's can Manyof theseoff-record maxims.For example,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. maximof qualitymay be violated or The questions. maximof manner by the use of irony,metaphors, rhetorical statements Brown& (P. may be violatedby the use of vague or ambiguous can Levinson, 1987,p. 214).Inall theseways,thespeaker savefaceby delivering acts face-threatening in an indirect way. of has P. BrownandLevinson's (1987)analysis politeness becomethedomiin nantperspective the areaof linguistic 1990;Kasper, (Fraser, 1990). politeness in rethis Thereare,however,severaldifficulties applying theoryin empirical as et Mostimportant, Craig al. (1986)pointed thedozensof individual search. out, are exclusive; manyspeechacts can be justipoliteness strategies not mutually For and fiably coded underdifferentstrategies even differentsuperstrategies. for indirect (negative politeexample,manyrequests actionareconventionally (off-record). ness) andunderstated to These difficulties have led some researchers proposenew approaches to discourse). linguisticpoliteness(e.g., Penman's[1990] analysisof courtroom no As However, alternative schemehasreceived muchsupport. a result,it is not
possible to use P. Brown and Levinson's (1987) taxonomy to test empirically

164

GRAESSER KREUZ, ZWAAN, PERSON,

some of the issues thattheirtheoryraises.As a generalframework, however, has the approach clearutility. P. BrownandLevinson's(1987) analysisof linguisticpolitenessmay have to to interactions. (p. According P. BrownandLevinson greatrelevance tutoring is 74), thedegreeto whichan actis facethreatening determined threefactors: by and betweenthe speaker hearer, the relative (b) (a) socialdistance powerof the of and and speaker hearer, (c) thedegreeof imposition the act.If socialdistance is and is high,relative poweris asymmetrical, imposition high,thenthe"weightia act ness"of the face-threatening is high.Forexample,a lawyerinterrogating infidelities marital widowabouther husband's mightmakeheavyuse of these will the In situations, firsttwofactors be relatively high, strategies. mosttutoring do becausethe tutorandstudent not knoweachotherandthe tutoris clearlyin on will vary, depending the control.The thirdfactor(degreeof imposition) of seriousness the imposition. have P. researchers examined BrownandLevinson's Other (1987)politeness discourse et in thecontext requests of (Arons(Craig al., 1986),medical strategies discourse(Penman,1990). This apson & Rundstr6m, 1989), and courtroom of discourse. to the has however, notbeenutilized clarify process tutoring proach, in arefrequently Yet it is likely thatthe various employed politenessstrategies interactions. tutoring are how the politenessstrategies The purposeof this articleis to illustrate We both positivelyand negatively,duringone-to-onetutoring. do not used, however. thisearlystage At to the strategies, politeness attempt quantify various at to it of research, is premature analyzestrategies quantitatively a fine-grained will no doubtvary considerably et al., 1986). The strategies level (see Craig Our goal at thispointis populations. primary amongtutors,topics,andstudent interact in whichpragmatic someof the interesting to document principles ways the studieswill quantify use of thesestrategies Future withthe tutoring process. contexts. in different tutoring are in discussed this article rules Theconversational andpoliteness strategies all and does inTable1.Thisarticle notaddress of P.Brown Levinson's summarized to the but (1987) strategies rather subsetthatseemsmost germane the tutoring thatwe discusswereinductively In process. otherwords,therulesandstrategies Some of basedon a closereading thetranscripts. of thecostsandbenefits selected, out are withtherulesandstrategies pointed in Table1. associated OF FRAMEWORK TUTORING THECONVERSATIONAL & Graesser his colleagues and 1993a,1993b;Graesser Person,1994) (Graesser, of An interactions. extensive of examined framework tutoring the analysis tutorrevealed a five-stepdialogueframeis veryprevalent that corpora ing transcript
duringone-to-one tutoring:

0
U

0 , , o
U'

*au

t)
r.

CL
t) t)E 0 So 0 0Q _
Q) v,

b3
0

0u

3 o
0

c;~
Q CL
o

~
<Co
X
0-

9 1*
't 0. ?
t)

o
0
-q.

75

a) 0

vo O t)
u

o
t)

cl

0 0 0.
cz

c
v

cz
t o&

4o

a.
0 C)

>0 x a) :0

4-& 0 o1~* o C'

'C

cz

CLC~c
v,35;

>j t)

t)

c, E-& 4
3" o 0

4-& c o in o H C, or
a

0 r o

~
CL

t)

t5
-4--

t)

oc

,
W

Ee

o
c(J)? o

o
0 00

CL

4-&

r.c
75

~
C',

o
CC

cl

4C. E;

t)

0d

~
t) 0 L

-~

as

r. 0 ga
r
=

E?f

e:

05
E

?0

0 0
.E
E

MscY
E
E

0
EE 20

0
CL

%o
l
.-

uPt%
Lv
> 0

C42
U.

&

165

"o
ob

t)at

E
v,

Zie
Q)

>

4-4

~0
0,k

40.

02

00(S

.o
tU

2 U4
M

U'

00

C ,

H 0-0 2
E

H
0
1

cn
cz

O C
0 U'

~ ~
0.

tto

to
0
c

cnOr$., D 4-& -10

CL s > U

CL-1 E $-

5
0

.G
>% -1

co :C:

45 0
;; E

72
*5

E
00U

0 0

U'

30cn co wc 2 E 60,

4.

'3

04C.
0 Ct)

u o 0 l

o
0

to~ o

n c 03

Z0
C., UE

E~~.~

Q)

WQ

~L

c n 3 n
u

u
dv

t,4
q 3
v

u"

cz cn

166

PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY AND

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 understanding the answer. of

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[agreeing with the student].

Step 4

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

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

1.19 Tutor: Do you see whatI'm saying? 1.20 Student: hmm. Um 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.

168

GRAESSER PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN,

Forexample, maychoosenotto supply Step3 maynot occur-that is, the tutor feedback the student's on answer. The heartof the tutoring processcan be foundin the last two steps of this frame. on elaborate theideasraised Step4, thetutorandstudent dialogue During in the earliersteps.In a classroom, is however,this elaboration less likely to to In occuror to be individually tailored a particular student. addition, Step 5 allowsthe tutorto monitor Once closelythe student's understanding. again,this is monitoring less likelyto occurin a classroom setting. Mehan that classroom (1979)reported onlythefirstthree stepsoccurin normal Giventheadvantages tutoring classroom of over it instruction. instruction, seems in to reasonable assumethatSteps4 and5 are especiallyimportant correcting it andrepairing deficits. particular, is during 4 thatthetutoring In knowledge Step Thatis, bothtutorand student contribute sessionbecomestrulycollaborative. to of information arriveat the correct solution(Graesser, crucial 1993b; pieces see Resnick, & fora related Graesser Person, Salmon, Zeitz,Wathen, 1994; point, is & Holowchak, 1993). In Step 5, however,relativelylittle information exthe tutorattempts assess the student's to of the topic at hand. changed; grasp is This reliance the student's on self-assessment problematic, becausestudents theirown comprehension Bassok,Lewis,Reiarerarelyableto calibrate (Chi, & & Wilkinson, mann, Glaser, 1989; 1984;Glenberg, Epstein, Glenberg, Bradley, & Epstein,1982;Person, & Graesser, Magliano, Kreuz,1994;Weaver,1990). In the remainder this article,we showhow Grice's(1975, 1978) converof rulesandP. Brown Levinson's and sational (1987)politeness strategies positively frame. We affectthepedagogical andnegatively processin thefive-step tutoring in whicharedescribed detail draw fromtwodifferent domains, tutoring examples in the next section.

TWOTUTORING SAMPLES research We examined different two corpora: college students learning tutoring for We methods seventh and learning algebra. chosethesecorpora various graders in of wereanalyzed reasons. First,thesecorpora previously the context question & and 1992, 1993a,1993b; Graesser, Person, Huber, (Graesser, asking answering whichis theform are of thesecorpora examples cross-age 1993).Second, tutoring, of tutoring commonin most school systems(Cohenet al., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon, the fromverydifferent thesecorpora drawn are domains; 1977).Third, tutoring domain of closed-world can (Collins, algebra tutoring be thought as a relatively withresearch methods Aeillo, & Miller,1975;Fox, 1993)compared Warnock, the It boundaries. maybe thecasethat politeness whichhasless specified tutoring, on described operate differently, depending thetypeof may strategies previously
tutoringdomain.

AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY

169

Methods Research Sample1:CollegeStudentsLearning

Students and tutors. Tutoring protocolswere collectedfrom 27 undergraduatestudents enrolled in a psychology researchmethods class at the Uniin versity of Memphis. All studentsparticipated the tutoringsessions in orderto fulfill a course requirement.The tutoring protocols, therefore, were a repre-

who were to thana samplerestricted students sentative college samplerather havingdifficulty. who hadeach receivedan students The tutorsweresix psychology graduate methodscourse.Eachof research and A in both an undergraduate a graduate had on students tutored a few occasionspriorto this studybut these graduate methods. not in the areaof research selectedsix topicsthatarenorLearningmaterials. The courseinstructor A in methods course. list was prepared for troublesome students a research mally in werealso included for eachof the six topics;threeto five relevant subtopics to the list. The tutorswere instructed cover these topics and subtopicsin the wereas follows: sessions.The topicsandsubtopics tutoring
Variables: Graphs: Statistics: definitions, typesof scales,andvaluesof variables. Operational means,andhistograms. distributions, plotting Frequency t Decisionmatrices, TypeI andTypeII errors, tests,andprobabilities. control a constraints, groups, Formulatinghypothesis, practical testing: Hypothesis analyses. design,andstatistical mainefFactorial variables, variables, statistics, dependent designs: Independent fects, cells, andinteractions. and maineffects,typesof interactions, Interactions: variables, Independent statistical significance.

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-

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

170

GRAESSER KREUZ, ZWAAN, PERSON,

sessions.In Threeof the tutorswere assignedto the unstructured tutoring these sessions,the tutorswerenot given a specificformatto follow. Whena was to entered tutoring the student room,the student instructed sit in view of a sessionthenproceeded camera to readaloudthe list of topics.Thetutoring and saw in the direction the tutorandstudent fit. that sessions.In The otherthreetutorswere assignedto the structured tutoring a worked tutors students and thesetutoring sessions, through setof predetermined on relevant the topicsandsubtopics to provided theirlist. All six of problems and to student werealsoinstructed encourage thetutors questions to avoidsimply Eachtutoring and to thestudent. sessionwasvideotaped lastedapproxilecturing 60 min. mately in sessions.A counterbalEachof the 27 students participated fourtutoring so neverhadthesametutor was scheme designed that(a) a student twice, ancing eachtutorcoveredall six topics,(c) eachtutorwas assignedto 18 tutoring (b) in sessionsand sessions,and(d) a student tutoring participated two unstructured each tutorinstructed threestudents sessions.Therefore, two structured tutoring of sessions.Twenty-five on each of the six topics,whichyielded 108 tutoring due the tutoring sessionscouldnot be transcribed to audioproblems.

Learning Algebra Sample2: SeventhGraders

consisted 22 tutoring of sessionsin which Studentsand tutors. Thissample students tutoredseventhgradersenrolledat a middleschool in high school sessionsfrom the This corpusincludedall of the algebratutoring Memphis. 13 teachers identified seventh a 1-month schoolduring graders period.Algebra were10 localhighschool in The who werehavingdifficulty theircourses. tutors studentswho normally providedtutoringservicesfor the middleschool. On hrof prior Like the had tutoring experience. theresearch algebra average, tutors 9 This an example cross-age of the methods tutoring. sample, algebra samplewas in thatthe seventh fromthe research methods differed sample sample,however, their to in sessionsin order remediate knowledge graders participated thetutoring thanfor coursecredit. deficitsrather sessionsfocusedon Tutoringtopics and sessions. Most of the tutoring students. to troublesome seventh-grade threetopicsthatare frequently algebra and These included positiveand negativenumbers, fractions, (c) con(b) (a) Thesetopicsweretypically fromwordproblems. algebraic equations structing examination associatedwith homework items, or a chapterin the problems, text.Tutorsandstudents referred this material to duringthe frequently algebra 45 sessions.The tutoring sessionslastedapproximately min, whichis tutoring
roughly comparableto the researchmethods sessions. Each session was videotaped by a researchassistantfrom the University of Memphis.

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

171

and of Sessions Transcription Coding the Tutoring

Transcribers received a 1-hrtrainingsession on how to transcribe videotapes. the were instructed transcribe entiretutoringsessions verbatim,including to the They all "ums,""ahs,"word fragments,brokensentences, and pauses. The transcribers specified whether an utterancewas made by the student or tutor. In addition, also noted messages that appearedon the markerboard, hand gestranscribers tures,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.

THE EXAMPLES FROM PROTOCOLS

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).

Asksa Question Step 1:Tutor

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. Whatelse OK. do we need to do beforewe perform t testor an F test? a This can be contrastedwith a Step 1 question from the algebracorpus:
Example 3:

3.1 Tutor: Let'stryanother Ah,number one. of eight,thenumber seatson the new 525 airliner a 36%increase is over the old model.The new How did planeseats374 passengers. manypassengers theold model 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

172

GRAESSER KREUZ, PERSON, ZWAAN,

measure. Example however, tutorwas requesting numeric In the a 3, dependent that had the response the student to generate applying appropriate by equation. 3 answers weremuchmoreconstrained Example thanin Example in Appropriate it is 2. Although oversimplifies hereafter assume algebra a more we that matters, closed-world domain thanis the research methods domain. constrained, in The conversational rules andpolitenessstrategies provided Table 1 both and at facilitate inhibit tutoring the For process. example, this earlystagein the at to five-stepframe,the tutormay attempt putthe student ease by minimizing in the imposition his or herquestion. of Thisis demonstrated Example which 4, was drawn froma research methods sessionon factorial designs:
4: Example 4.1 Tutor: Youcantell mea littlebitabout reasons usinganexperiment for the withmorethantwo levelsof an independent variable.

4 In fact, Example illustrates least threepoliteness at at strategies worksimulthe The ("Youcan tell me"),understating taneously: tutorwas beingoptimistic of the request("a little bit"),and minimizing imposition the request("a little was the bit").By doingall thesethings,the tutor facilitating student's response. The tutorwas indicating the student that knew the answer,and the tutorwas On that wouldbe appropriate. the response tellingthe student even a minimal otherhand,the tutor's (howmuchdoes the tutor request mayhavebeenunclear wantto know?), thetutor and up (by mayhavesetthestudent forfailure assuming wouldbe able to providethe requested thatthe student information). a the in to Sometimes tutor student and mustnegotiate order produce question can Graesser thatthe student answer. that, (1993a,1993b)documented whenthe moresimpleuntilthe tutorasksmultiple questions, they becomeprogressively answersa studentcan providea response.As a result,the studentultimately This canbe seen in Example drawn that 5, question hasbeengreatlysimplified. froma research methods sessionon variables:
Example 5:

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

5.4 Student: Ordinal, yeah.

of but had In Example the student answered 5, correctly only afterthe number Thisexample demonstrates also had by possibleanswers beenreduced the tutor. the use of ellipsis and the giving of hints to simplifythe question.If these the a may neverbe challenged strategies oversimplify tutor'squestions, student on of to answer questions the frontier his or herknowledge.
Tutorsoccasionallypose questionsthatareunclearor vague, so thatthe student may encounterdifficulty in attemptingto provide an answer. In such cases, the

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

173

tutormay apologize, as illustratedin Example6, drawnfrom a researchmethods session on formulatinga hypothesis: 6: Example relation 6.1 Tutor: Whatis the effect of no limited versuslimitedrelation? 6.2 Student: Whatdo you mean? I've 6.3 Tutor: I'm sorry.I knewI was askingthe wrongquestion. gottabe ... a method careful um,there'ssomething makes correlational that not so wonderful that [...] andsomething makestheexperimental wonderful. you knowwhatthatwouldbe? Do method The tutor apologized to acknowledge explicitly the incorrect and potentially her confusing question at 6.1. By apologizing, the tutordemonstrated 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.

the Answers Question Step2: Student

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.

on GivesFeedback the Answer Step 3: Tutor

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-ridden answers(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. feedback by the tutor, drawn from a reExample 7 illustratesinappropriate search methods session on variables: 7: Example 7.1 Tutor: Whatis an inferential statistic?

174

GRAESSER PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN,

A that aboutsomething that'sgonna 7.2 Student: statistic gives you information Orcouldhappen, happen. possibly. 7.3 Tutor: Also,something that'skindof implicit inferential with statistics that peopletendnot to thinkaboutis [...] thatif peoplewentout and and that as surveyed surveyed they'dget the sameinformation a statistic.... At 7.2, the student's answer was incorrect. He seemed to have confused the and At conceptsof predictability generalizability. 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. feedbackbecause she was attemptPerhapsthe tutorfailed to provideappropriate to avoid disagreementwith the student. The student, however, may have ing mistakenlybelieved thathis answerwas correct,because the tutorused the word answer at 7.3 would have been, also, ratherthan no at 7.3. A more appropriate inferentialstatistics refers to the ability to generalize to a populationfrom "No, a sample and not what may happen in the future." We can contrast Example 7 with Example 8 (from an algebra session on feedback that addressedthe stufractions), in which the tutor gave appropriate dent's misconception: 8. Example 8.1 Tutor: Let's trythis one:5/lsthsminusnegative 3/6ths. 8.2 Student: thisone wouldjustgo like that[pointing previously to worked Uh, problem]? 8.3 Tutor: Well,um, actually, no, you couldn't that.Sorry. do no, The feedback in Example 8 was more appropriate, althoughpoliteness,stratewere still being employed:The tutorapologized(perhaps gies allowing 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: 9: Example
9.1 Tutor: OK, you've got the right numbers.

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

AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY 175 else that 9.3 Tutor: OK,is thereanything aboutthisgraph you wouldwantto do beforeyou finish?I mean,do you consider finished? this I 9.4 Student: guess I could,I coulddrawa line ... 9.5 Tutor: Whatif you walkedup to this graph you hadneverseen [it]? and 9.6 Student: I guess I shouldlabelthese [pointsto the axes]. Oh, 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 important problem. 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 act politeness strategies:be conventionallyindirectand state the face-threatening as a general rule: 10: Example 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 thesetwo, andyou takethe outside,the one, right?You multiply inside,andthe last.Do you see how thatworks? 10.2 Student: mumbles solution theproblem to Here'sthewayI'vedoneit [student fromthe bookto himself]. 10.3 Tutor: Right.Well,see that's way to do it, buttheylikethis [theFOIL one this method]; is 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 act (in this case, by stating the face-threatening as a general rule). This is problematic, because the student may, nonetheless, continue to cling to his or her misconception.

176

GRAESSER PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN,

and the Step 4: Tutor Student Collaboratively Improve of Quality the Answer
Students answers questions. to thereTutors, typically provide veryabbreviated findit necessary encourage to themto elaborate theirresponses fore, (Graesser, & of 1993a, 1993b;Graesser Person,1994). As a result,the construction an answercan be thought as a collaborative of in whichthe student and activity tutorworktogether construct acceptable to an answer(Graesser, 1993a,1993b; Kreuz& Roberts, 1993;Resnicket al., 1993). Thetutor use several can to this For the strategies facilitate process. example, tutormay providea hint, ask an embedded or question, employa scaffolding in to the of Whenused technique order increase likelihood a student's response. to extreme, however,thesestrategies encourage passivelearning. Example11, drawnfrom a research methodssession on interactions, shows an embedded at question 11.3.
11: Example 11.1 Tutor: ... All right,let's tryanother Let'ssay we had,oh, wait.First one. of all, let's translate in termsof ourexperiment. this OK. 11.2 Student: 11.3 Tutor: OK.Whatdoes this meanas far as typeof drug? 11.4 Student: hadno effect. It 11.5 Tutor: In otherwords,using cornflakes wereno different ... thanusing moodflakes moodflakes. mustnothavebeena realdrug. Therefore,

All right! Good job.

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

excessive praiseeven by responses.At 11.5, the tutorexaggerated providing Onceagain,use of oversimplified emthoughthe student's inputwas minimal. withexcessivepraise, bedded combined mayleadto a relatively questions, passive 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: 12: Example 12.1 Tutor: OK, the way I remember um, whenI was tryingto learnit that, and was... I knewin French wordblackis noir,N-O-I-R, you the can remember thatway. it 12.2 Student: Well, yeah,yeah. 12.3 Tutor: So you can thinkof noir,N-O-I-R. 12.4 Student: whatdoes that,whatdoes blackhaveto do with nominal? So 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

PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY AND

177

to of The arose because tutor the applied thenames thescales. confusion precommon knewthattherelationship is, supposed ground-that thatthestudent the between spelling noirandthenames thescaleswasarbitrary. of of Tutors do in work session. Tutors frequently thestudents' forthem a tutoring
often ask questions providetoo muchinformation violationof Grice's that (a froman algebra sessionon fractions, illustrates this: 13, Example drawn tutoring
13: Example 13.1 Tutor: And you wantto multiply by ... ? that 13.2 Student: 42. 6, 13.3 Tutor: Yeah.

maxim quantity), of which lessens cognitive the burden thestudent. for [1975]

In thisexample, tutor the the and information, all the student provided operation had to do was providethe numbers. One mightexpect this strategy occur to the has session,whenthe student notyet masduring earlystagesof a tutoring teredthe material. the tutoradhered this strategy If to the throughout tutoring of session,however,the misconceptions the student mightneverhavebeenadof dressed,andthe student wouldrely on the tutorto supplythe structure the dialogue. A moreappropriate methodfor laterstagesin the tutoring sessionis shown in Example14, in whichthe tutorandstudent werediscussing next step in the a computing t test:
14: Example 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, tutor the neversaidmorethanthestudent already had said.This couldbe thought as a violation the maximof quantity, of of because tutor's the are new This repetitions notsupplying information. technique, however, promotes activelearning forcingthe student do mostof the work. to by The student's in answer the nextexampleillustrates violation relevance, a of becausethe student focusedon a relatively minordetailin the tutor'squestion.
Example 15 is drawn from a researchmethods session on variables.

178

GRAESSER PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN,

15: Example 15.1 Tutor: WhywouldNIMHnot give me five milliondollarsto do a correlational study? 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 of to introducematerialthat facilitates the student's understanding 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 important pedagogicaltechnique. 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. 16: Example wouldit be? I mean, 16.1 Tutor: Tell me first,ah, what kind of experiment Would be ... areyougoingto haveanexperimental whatmethod? it design? Yes. 16.2 Student: 16.3 Tutor: You are? if are 16.4 Student: so, Probably um, becausenot all children, they'redepressed going to be ... you'renot going to be ableto look at anydataon children. Well, I mean,let me startover.You can look depressed and are children whether not theirparents or at dataon depressed it but to divorced, if you wanted reallytestyourhypothesis, would if an research be better you conducted experimental design.

AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY 179 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: 16 Example (continued): 16.11 Tutor. ... and,I don't,I couldbe wrong,butareyou manipulating anything? 16.12 Student: you'reabsolutely No, right.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 NorthAmerica you thinkrice mightbe grown? do 17.2 Student: Louisiana. 17.3 Tutor: Why there? 17.4 Student: Placeswherethereis a lot of water.I thinkricerequires ability the to selectively flood fields. and 17.5 Tutor: OK. Do you thinkthere'sa lot of rice in, say, Washington 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, second,I don't thinkthe land is and flat enough.You'vegot to haveflat landso you canflood a lot of it. it, unlessyou terrace (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 to Oregon)thatmight have seemed irrelevant the student.However,this statement forced the studentto think of other causal factors besides water.

180

GRAESSER KREUZ, PERSON, ZWAAN,

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: Butthere someneattricks beingableto figureoutgraphically are to a is [whether maineffectof a variable depicted].... Well,now we can get fromhere [cell means]to a graph, right? 18.2 Student: hum. Um onceyou'reat thegraph, realeasyto figureoutif there's 18.3 Tutor: 'Cause it's a maineffect for A, a maineffect for B, andan interaction. If 18.4 Student: they're well there's interaction. no parallel, ... If they're parallel,
we 18.5 Tutor: ... UUm, would do what's called collapsing the two lines. I call

it kindasquishing 'em.... Whatyou woulddo, if thisline is horito zontal[points new, squished line] ... we wouldsay thatthereis no maineffectforA. But sinceit's nothorizontal is at a certain and whereone end is different fromthe otherendpoint, you then angle can say thatthereis a maineffect for A. OK,let's see, how about this [draws lines on a graphthatdepicta maineffect for the two A variable]? therea maineffect for A? Is 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:

in to matrix the 19.1 Tutor: You don'tsee it, butit's there[pointing a decision text].Hereyou see it, andit's not there.... Theway I, I'll tell you it. the way I remember A TypeI erroris like um ... you'rehallucinating... Um 19.2 Student: hum.

AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY 181 19.3 Tutor: ... you see something is that'snot there.TypeII error like you're blind.It's there,but you don'tsee it, andthat'sthe way I always remember these[laughs]. and 19.4 Student: so let me writethesedown,hallucination blindness. Oh, 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: 19 Example (continued): 19.19 Tutor: Um, does thatmakeit a littleclearer? 19.20 Student:Yes. 19.21 Tutor: OK.... like that.., analogies, 19.22 Student:... becauseyou reallyneed something 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 important principle,in this case, the numberof intervals on a Likert scale.
Example 20:

20.1 Tutor: Andourlevelof psychotic. Let'ssay we havea 10-point scalefor that. 20.2 Student:OK. 20.3 Tutor: So ... to 20.4 Student:Whathappened 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.

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.

Assesses Student's Understanding Step 5: Tutor 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: 21: Example 21.1 Tutor: And thenyou'reOK.Are you with me? or 22: Example 22.1 Tutor: ... so you understand right? that, 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: 23: Example withthesekindsof wordproblems 23.1 Tutor: Do you haveanyproblem [reto ferring a sectionin the book]?Wherethey say23.2 Student: Ah, [interrupts] not really. withthat? 23.3 Tutor: You don't?You don't?You don'thave any trouble No. 23.4 Student:

AND PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY 183 23.5 Tutor: Let'sjust do one of them.Um, Dan earned $56, whichwas twice morethanwhatJimearned. Now you'resupposed writeanequato tion. 23.6 Student: I can'twritetheequations. Ah, 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 different but,ah,it's a lot liketheother one two.A bottleof Produce Timeapple 64 contains ouncesandcosts99 cents.Farm Fresh juice in one for that juice,available bottles contain gallon, oneeighty-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't thesein tables had 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. is more typical,however,for a studentto hide his or herknowledge It 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 and session, the tutorcannotbe certainthat the studentboth understands remembers the information.This can be contrastedwith normalconversationin which contributionsby both participants assumed to be in the common groundand are 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 probably littleharder a thanthe firstone. 25.2 Student: Yeah[laughs].

184

PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSER

For This methodmay have unwanted consequences. example,it may lead the This or student believethatfailureis expected even acceptable. may lead to to of a diminution efforton the partof the student.

CONCLUSIONS
the that can We have suggested tutoring be examined employing strategies by Wearenotclaiming, normal conversation. andmaxims characterize that however, and that tutorial conversational dialogueare the same.Discourseexists on a at with normal conversation one end andless interactive continuum, interactive, discourse lectures speeches) theother. and at discourse Tutoring (e.g., classroom resembles betweenthese two extremesand probably clearlyfalls somewhere If discourse. this claim is true,it is conversation moreclosely thanclassroom conversation. of that notsurprising tutors on the implicit principles ordinary rely rules As we haveshown,Grice's(1975, 1978)conversational andP. Brownand affectthetutoring Levinson's (1987)politeness processin positiveand strategies of be should,therefore, cognizant thesecostsandbenefits, ways.Tutors negative of the becausesuchawareness may enhance overalleffectiveness tutoring. to Some steps of the tutoringprocessare more vulnerable conversational misstepsthanothers.DuringStep 1, for example,the tutorand studentmust later that a during comprehensible question will be expanded negotiate mutually and answer address mustelaborate thestudent's on steps.During Step4, thetutor deficits.Thesetwo stagesare crucialfor the tutoring the student's knowledge acts that process,butthereis a highprobability face-threatening mayoccur.As rules of a result,we foundmanyexamples Grice'sconversational andP. Brown in andLevinson's (1987)politeness strategies thesesteps. in differences how theserulesandstrategies Theremaybe functional operate in the tutoring domain. Grice's(1975, 1978)analysisfocuseson the contentof P. whereas BrownandLevinson's(1987) and utterances (e.g., quantity quality), of Future dimensions discourse. the addresses socialandinterpersonal approach and how theserulesandstrategies research profitably interact, such explore may into a fine-grained process. insights thispedagogical analysis offeradditional may

Differences Domain
from sessionsdiffered and methods algebra We foundthatthe research tutoring methods the each otherin severalways. In particular, tutorsin the research morethandid the algebra sessionsseemedto rely on the politenessstrategies in to Thisfindingcannotbe attributed differences the statusof the tutors tutors. becausebothsampleswereexamplesof cross-age acrossthe tutoring domains, to also 1977).Thisdifference cannotbe attributed differ(Fitz-Gibbon, tutoring
ences in the expertise of the tutors, because most of the algebra tutors and all

PRAGMATICSAND PEDAGOGY

185

methodstutorshad neverpreviously servedas tutorsin their of the research This is, in fact, typicalof the tutoring occursin most that respective subjects. schoolsettings(Cohenet al., 1982;Fitz-Gibbon, 1977). Other differences betweentheresearch methods algebra and sessionsmaybe for For responsible the observeddifferences. example,we cannotrule out the between twogroups tutors. suggest, the of We effectof agedifferences however, in to thatthe differences politeness use maybe attributable the domains strategy sessions.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. contrast, algebra domain:The questionsand answersare typicallywell-defined (Collinset al., and one can readilydistinguish betweengood and bad answers.For 1975), to wordproblem thanit example,it is far easierto elicit the answer an algebra of Theanswers different, is to elicitthe drawbacks a correlational are as design. becausethereis no ambiguity associated with a numeric The well, response: is In who feedback. contrast, student says,"The answer five,"canreceive clear-cut the student who says, "It'sless powerful," a correlational about designmaynot understand underlying the and completely principles, the tutormustfollow up on the student's his vagueanswerto ensure or herunderstanding. For thesereasons, tutors(andstudents) open-world the in domains mayrely rules that normal heavilyon theconversational andpoliteness strategies facilitate As can conversation. we have shown,however, theserulesandstrategies create even whenthey areemployed expeditenormalsocial to problems, pedagogical interaction.

Ground RulesinTutoring Establishing

As manyresearchers demonstrated, have students musthaveprerequisite inforin mation order profitfromaneducational to 1977;VanLehn, experience (Gagn6, in students relevant to 1987).Forexample, require background knowledge order textbookinformation (McKeown,Beck, Sinatra,& Loxterman, comprehend musthave an understanding the tutoring of 1992). In a similarway, students beforea tutoring sessionbegins.Specifically, believethattutorsand we process students shouldestablish conversational interrulespriorto the tutoring ground shouldbe madeawarethatthe tutorwill use negativefeedaction.The student rules of conversation be violated(e.g., the tutor back,thatthe "normal" may is and "No,youransweris wrong"), thatthe student expectedto take may say, In this way, knowledge a very activerole in the tutoring deficitsmay process. be moreeasily exposedandmoreeasilycorrected. tutoring The processshould be moreefficient. As mentioned earlier,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-

186

PERSON,KREUZ,ZWAAN, GRAESSER

age the active participationof the student ratherthan the tutor supplying most of the information. trulycollaborativeexchange duringStep 4 allows for more A 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 rules and politeness stfategiesof normaldiscourse. student,on the conversational 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 underfor standing.Because this assessmentcan be very face threatening 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. How students Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann,P., & Glaser, P. (1989). Self-explanations: 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. to Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing 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.

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 and (pp. 453-494). knowledge.In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.),Representation understanding 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 Research, 12, 437-468. approach.Human Communication Epstein, W., Glenberg, A. M., & Bradley, M. M. (1984). Coactivation and comprehension: of Contribution 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). Questioningmechanisms duringcomplexlearning.MemphisStateUniversity, Service No. ED 350 306) Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction 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. notes on logic and conversation.In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntaxand semantics: Grice, H. P. (1978). Further 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. researchissues. Journal ofPragmatics, 14, 193-218. Kasper,G. (1990). Linguisticpoliteness:Current 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.

188

PERSON, KREUZ, ZWAAN, GRAESSER

G. Leinhardt, (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. Fredonia,NY: State Mohan, M. (1972). Peer tutoringas a techniquefor teaching the unmotivated. 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: Working cognitive change for in school. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress. and Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering 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. for and Putnam,R. T. (1987). Structuring adjusting 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. In Stevens, R., Collins, A., & Goldin, S. E. (1982). Misconceptionsin students' understanding. D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoringsystems (pp. 13-24). New York: Academic. VanLehn, K. (1987). Learningone subprocedure lesson. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 1-40. per 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.