5. METHOD
5.4. Subjects
Since the study sets out to examine dialogical tutorial interactions in the specific context of first year help-sessions run by the Psychology department, the subjects involved are first year psychology learners who make use of the help-sessions and three first year tutors who run these sessions and who volunteered to participate in this research. Large numbers of heterogeneous learners, with vastly different learning histories, mitigates against compulsory tutorials, which would require all learners to work at the same pace. Therefore, to accommodate various levels of preparedness, help-sessions are voluntary. First year learners are therefore not required to attend regularly.
Subjects were identified in terms of whether they spoke English as a first or second language. Of the 502 students registered for the Psychology 1A course, 385 were English first language students and 117 were English second language
speakers. Of the 502 first year psychologv students enrolled at the University of Natal, 70% of English second language (hereafter L2) speakers attended at least one tutorial session while only 23% of English first language (L1) speakers used the tutorial system (Lemmon, 1999). Although attendance at help-sessions is voluntary, tutors participating in this research identified learners who attended regularly and were willing to participate in this study, and recorded these specific interactions. As tutors are required to keep detailed records of the learners they interact with at help- sessions a profile of the subjects for the present study was generated. All tutors
participating in this research were L1 females. For the purpose of this study, 15 tutorials were taped and transcribed. Subject profiles generated across these 15 tutorials suggest that they are reflective of the larger learner attendance patterns.
Table 1 presents the subject profile for this study.
TABLE 1: SUBJECT PROFILE FOR PRESENT STUDY
LANGUAGE GENDER ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE
AT TUTORIALS AT TUTORIALS (%)
L2 Female 93 64%
L2 Male 21 15%
L1 Female 21 15%
L1 Male 8 6%
TOTAL 143 100%
Table 1 indicates that the majority of learners attending the tutorials forming part of this study are second language women (64%). L1 females and L2 males represent the second largest group attending tutorials (f=15%). Of those attending tutorials for this study, 79% were L2 learners. Attendance of L1 males is particularly poor, with L1 males representing only 6% of those learners attending tutorials for the present
learners.
5.5. Analysis:
Analysis of the data aimed at 1) identifying what kinds of questions learners ask and what responses these questions elicit from tutors, focusing on whether these
questions open or close enquiry 2) identifying tutors' questions and the responses
An Exploration of Questioning in Tutorial Interactions
they elicit from learners, focusing on the extent to which tutors' questions open or close enquiry and 3) working from these questions to uncover the epistemic assumptions informing tutors' and leamers' questioning strategies. Analysis was carried out at two levels: 1) a quantitative analysis and evaluation of the data in terms of particular categories and 2) a qualitative elaboration of the trends identified in the quantitative analysis. At the point of analysis, a categorical framework was imposed upon the data to order it more effectively. The categories identified were suggested by the data itself. This identification of categories arising from the data and not from a pre-determined coding schedule is based within the descriptive tradition (Cazden, 1986). During analysis various categories were uncovered; however, for the purpose of this research certain basic categories that reflected general trends in the data were selected for interpretation and discussion. Tutor questions and the learner responses they elicit and learner questions and the tutor responses they elicit were selected as units for analysis. Therefore, the dialogical interaction between the tutor and learners, provoked by questioning, provides the unit for analysis. Further, the textual nature of the data lends itself to analysis that draws on the hermeneutic tradition of
interpretation.
5.5.1. Quantitative Analysis:
A premise of this research is that questions represent manifest products of und8rlying generative structures or 8pistem01ogicalbasAs As SUCh, questions provide 'windows' to these hidden processes, suggesting an analysis that explores questions as both a manifest product as well as indicators of hidden cognitive structures. The purpose of the quantitative analysis was to:
1. Identify common learnerquestion and response strategies across tutorials,
-_
...- ----ascertaining what kinds of questions learners ask in help sessions and what kind of responses tutors' questions elicit in learners. The question and response
An Exploration of Questioning in Tutorial Interactions
categories identified above were captured in terms of frequency of questions and responses. Trends identified in the data were then qualitatively interpreted.
2. Identify common question and response strategies employed by tutors across tutorials, ascertaining what strategies facilitate active learning, with a particular focus on the kinds of questions used to provoke (open) or inhibit (close) learning.
3. Comparisons between learners' questioning and response strategies and tutors' questioning and response strategies aimed at uncovering different epistemic bases informing tutors and learners, pointing to differences in levels of familiarity with the critical demands of textuality between tutors and learners, suggestive of different underlying epistemic assumptions.
However, trends identified in the data merely point out (expected) differences
between learners' and tutors' familiarity with textually based knowledge construction, without providing explanations of why such differences exist or where future
educational interventions should be aimed. Therefore, quantitative trends identified are subjected to a qualitative analysis in order to provide what Denzin (1989) calls 'thick descriptions' of the data.
5.5.2. Qualitative Analysis
Thick descriptions of the quantitative trends aim at providing an explanatory basis from which to make sense of learners' question and response strategies in relation to tutors' question and response strategies, enC'lbling expl8nation to work from the product (the question) to the generative processes underlying that production (Denzin, 1989). It is hoped that an understanding of the processes underlying
learners' critical stance in relation to textuality will provide a foundation for developing future tutorial interventions. Initially the data was analysed in terms of very broadly defined tutor and learner strategies (See Appendix A). Each meaningful utterance was treated as a unit of data and coded accordingly (Tannen, 1984). An utterance was identified as meaningful if it was capable of being understood out of its specific
An Exploration of Questioning in Tutorial Interactions 119 - - = - - - ' = ' - - - -
context. Coding each utterance as a unit of data generated a profile of both tutor and learner strategies for the discourse as a whole. However, as the specific focus of this research is the dialogical interaction that develops between tutor and learner that is provoked by questioning strategies, the coding schedule was ultimately refined to focus only on tutor and leamer questions and responses. As tutor questions elicit certain learner responses and learner questions elicit certain tutor responses, the unfolding dialogue between learners and tutor was treated as a 'unit' of analysis.
Therefore, although separate tutor and learner questions were coded and ultimately categorised, it is the dialogue which is being constructed by means of questions and responses that provides opportunities for interpreting the data meaningfully
(Shepherd, 1998). The interaction between tutor and learners is graphically represented in figure 1below. In figure 1we can see that the tutor asks leamers a question, to which they respond. Depending on the leamers' response, the tutor can either evaluate the learners' response, closing off further enquiry. This is the kind of interaction that characterises recitation. Or the tutor can reformulate the learners' response and then begin to open discussion by giving instruction. This is the kind of process that characterises discussion.
Figure 1:TUTORS' MODE OF INITIATING INTERACTION
.".' ..;TUtOR ::..::">~:.":
··.:'.OUE9TIONSi:Y
RECITATION