CLASSES ARE PHYSICAL, TUTORIALS ARE CRITICAL

A Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Bachelor’s Degree of English Language and Literature with Education

of

The University of the West Indies

Vishmala Bissessar

Alana Hosein

Shivanna Mohammed

2008

Department of Liberal Arts

Faculty of Humanities and Education

St Augustine Campus
 ABSTRACT

CLASSES ARE PHYSICAL, TUTORIALS ARE CRITIAL

Shivana Mohammed

This dissertation examines how classroom talk within tutorial sessions facilitates critical
thinking. The contention throughout is that a precise grasp of the Sinclair and
Coulthard’s Initiation Response Feedback [IRF] model and other aspects of
conversational analysis are all essential to understanding the dynamic of classroom
interaction and will aid the tutor as well as the students to create a classroom environment
conducive to the development of the students’ critical thinking skills.

Stemming from this study is a Democratic Space Hypothesis, the extension of Hall and
Walsh’s description of the tutor as a “gatekeeper to knowledge”, The Initiation Response
Follow up Cycle and The 66:33 Model for Classroom Interaction.

Keywords: Shivana Mohammed; critical thinking and tutorial sessions; classroom

interaction.

Contents
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1 Rationale

1.2 Hypothesis

1.3 Research Questions

1.4 Purpose

1.5 Goal

2. Background

3. Literature Review

4. Methodology

4.1 Participants

4.2 Materials

4.3 Tests

4.4 Weighting Scales

4.5 Procedures

4.6 Analysis

4.7 Problems and Limitations

5. Results and Findings

5.1 Questionnaires

5.2 Recordings

6. Discussion

7. Conclusion

7.1 Recommendations

8. Appendix
 8.1 Appendix One: Questionnaire

8.2 Appendix Two: Transcriptions

8.3 Appendix Three: Letters

8.3.1 Letter to Tutors

8.3.2 Tutors’ Response

9. References
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 RATIONALE
It is often said that the general aim of education is to promote critical thinking. The

Institute of Critical Thinking at the University of the West Indies (See 2) boldly testifies

of this significant interaction between critical thinking and education. As final year

English Language, Literature and Education students we found it appropriate to

investigate this interaction between critical thinking and education with specific reference

to our Department of Liberal Arts. It is interesting to ponder upon whether or not we

have left this institution of higher education equipped to think critically and girded with

ample classroom experiences and exemplars for us to emulate in our own classrooms as

aspiring teachers. Note that it is tutorial sessions as opposed to lectures which are

expected to offer these types of experiences.

Consequently, we opted to investigate tutorial sessions at the University to find out

whether or not critical thinking is promoted. The description of tutorial sessions outlined

in 2 indicates that classroom talk plays an important role in these sessions. As such, we

narrowed our focus to classroom talk in tutorial sessions and how this affects critical

thinking at the Department of Liberal Arts with specific reference to courses in Literature

and Linguistics. As English Language and Literature with Education undergraduate

students we found it appropriate to investigate tutorial sessions in these areas.

We then began to review our own experiences with classroom talk during tutorial

sessions. As undergraduate students at UWI, we could all attest to tutorial sessions where

the tutor complained of the students’ silence or instances when the tutor reminded the

class that it was a tutorial session in order to elicit student responses. The significance of
classroom talk in these sessions was further highlighted when we recalled that a certain

percentage of the final grade was allocated to active participation in tutorial discussions

for some courses. Throughout the years spent at UWI, we have observed that not every

student takes advantage of classroom talk. Some students are much more vocal than

others and some students speak occasionally or only when called upon. Upon further

consideration and conscious observation, we realized that sometimes students were more

vocal in one tutorial session than another. Also, it has been our experience that some

tutors transform tutorial sessions into ‘mini-lectures’ where students are hardly given an

opportunity, if any at all to participate meaningfully in classroom talk. This lead to us

revising a situation that is commonly overlooked by many University students who are

often too entangled in attaining their degree to even deliberate upon whether or not their

critical thinking skills are improving and to question whether or not classroom talk in

tutorial sessions contributes to the development of their critical thinking skills as it ought

to.

It is hoped that the findings of this study will be of the utmost importance to us as well as

the students in our field, in that it should sensitize us to the various factors that will aid or

hinder classroom talk and as a consequence critical thinking. Tutors as well as teachers

interested in forging an environment conducive to critical thinking can also gain from the

study. Furthermore, it will be beneficial to society since it can help to create a favorable

environment for classroom talk where critical thinking is encouraged and so empower

students to make wise decisions. These wise decisions will in turn improve society. The

following diagram illustrates this process:

 Table 1.1 Showing the Benefits of This Study to the Society at Large

Critical thinking in Empowered A better society

the classroom individual
facilitated by
classroom talk

The recommendations made in this study can be used as a model for policy makers in

educational administration since they can not only be a guide, but also a standard, in

order to design classrooms where all students are motivated to an extent in which they

would willingly participate in classroom talk and so promote critical thinking.

1.2 HYPOTHESIS

Classroom interaction in tutorial sessions facilitates critical thinking.

 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Which model of classroom interaction is at use in the tutorial sessions? IRF/IRE

2. How do these models manifest themselves?

3. What are the roles taken by students/tutor in classroom interaction within each

model?

4. Who is the dominant coordinator of classroom interaction?

5. How do these factors affect critical thinking in the classroom?

1.4 PURPOSE
This study reviews classroom interaction in tutorial sessions at the Department of Liberal

Arts in order to ascertain whether or not critical thinking is fostered. Its intended purpose

is to improve existing tutorial sessions in the Department of Liberal Arts and also to

create a model for other tutorials in Faculties across the University of the West Indies. It

is hoped that through this study critical thinking in tutorial sessions across the University

will flourish effortlessly as the recommendations made are applied.

1.5 GOAL

The ultimate goal of this study is to, if not completely, at least partially revolutionize

classroom interaction as it relates to critical thinking in tutorial sessions in Universities

locally, regionally and even internationally. The scope of this study is far reaching since

it is felt that every tutor must create a proper classroom environment that promotes

prolific classroom interaction which favours critical thinking and that every student in

turn deserves the fair opportunity interact freely and thus to develop his or her critical

thinking skills in tutorial sessions.

 2. BACKGROUND

2. BACKGROUND

The University of The West Indies was established in 1948 at Mona

Jamaica and consists of three main campuses including Jamaica, St

Augustine Trinidad (1960) and Cave Hill Barbados (1962). The motto of the University

is “Oriens Ex Occidente Lux - A light rising from the West”. This motto is expected to

be realised in every facet of the educational process.

The Institute of Critical Thinking based at the St Augustine campus seeks “to promote

independent thinking, personal autonomy and reasoned judgment in thought and action”

(See 8). The headquarters of this institution is based at the University of the West Indies,

St. Augustine Campus. It was formally opened on the 4th April, 2007 by President of the

Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and former UWI Principal, His Excellency Professor

George Maxwell.

The Faculty of Humanities and Education (FHE) was birthed in the 1960’s. It is stated in

the current Faculty website that “In FHE you can find an intellectual and creative home.

It is a wonderful place for developing your potential”. This “creative home” is reflected

in the composition of Languages, Communication, History, Education, Arts and Culture

within the Faculty. Officially, FHE is divided into Departments, Centres and Specialized

Units. These include the School of Education, Centre for Language Learning, Liberal

Arts, History and the Centre for Creative and Festival Art, the Archeology Center, Family

Development and Children Research Centre, the Multimedia Production Unit and the

English as a Foreign Language Unit.

The Department of Liberal Arts like FHE, is a multifaceted and diverse one. Linguistics

and Literatures in English are among the courses offered at the Department of Liberal
Arts including Communication Studies, English as a Foreign Language (EFL), French,

Hindi, Portuguese and Spanish. The Experience UWI Undergraduate Prospectus 2004

upholds that “the goals of a liberal arts programme include developing student’s ability to

think critically, communicate effectively, solve problems, and interpret human

experience; enhancing their creative and intellectual capacities, thus resulting in a well-

rounded, general education” (53).

The majority of the courses offered at the Department of Liberal Arts are designed to

allow the students to have both lecture and tutorial sessions during the week. The

structures of tutorials are explained in the Experience UWI Undergraduate Prospectus

2004 in relation to other teaching methods including lectures, seminars and laboratory

work. The Prospectus affirms that tutorials consist of “small groups of students, usually

no more than 25” (16). It goes on to explicate that this small group “meets their tutor and

discusses topics or issues and work out practice problems related to the course content”

(16). Tutorials are also listed as a method of assessing and answering courses “according

to the nature of subject being taught” (16).

The academic requirements of the university posit that each student fulfill three credit

hours per week per subject area, where one hour is a tutorial session. Within the tradition

of academia worldwide these sessions seek to foster student understanding and growth by

allowing students to lead the discussions and bring themselves and each other to

enlightenment. However it has been observed that the local Trinbagonian culture

infringes upon this aspiration, whereby classrooms in Trinidad and Tobago operate in a

“speak when you are spoken to” culture where the students respond only when the
teacher or those in authority speak. So the tutor dominates the majority of classroom

interaction.
 3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

Robert Harris defines critical thinking as “an approach to ideas from the standpoint of

deliberate consideration”. In other words, it is “a habit of cautious evaluation, an analytic

mindset aimed at discovering the component parts of ideas and philosophies, eager to

weigh the merits of arguments and reasons in order to become a good judge of them”.

Even more, Harris asserts that “critical thinking is a recognition of the complexity of

intellectual life and ideas” as opposed to “an oversimplified mindset”. As such, the

critical thinker is not only attentive but knowledgeable about a host of issues. Ideas are

therefore seen in perspective and so the critical thinker is able to realise that “he is fallible

and may be wrong, to admit that the other side or sides have some good arguments also,

and to recognize the complexity of truth”. Harris deduces that critical thinking involves

“cautious evaluation, circumspection, care in generalizing, and independent judgment”.

It is only through articulation that these mental processes could be beneficial to both the

thinker and the students. For Harris, articulation is “the ability to say just what is going

on, [and] the ability to tell others exactly what in an argument is good or bad”. Hence

critical thinking and classroom talk are intimately interrelated.

In addition, Steven Schafersman outlines specific teaching techniques and strategies

foster critical thinking. His 1991 article shows that even though the notion of critical

thinking has in recent times become extremely popular, it certainly is not a new notion

since it has been in existence for almost two decades. He states that “Rather than

condition students to value only what the instructor says, get them to think deeply about

the topic and value what they think and feel. Teach so that students think their ideas

matter”. He then explains various ways of incorporating critical thinking into one’s

teaching style. These include asking questions, encouraging students to share their

opinions and thoughts with the class, giving assistance when students have problems

answering questions and others.

In light of this, Carmen Simich-Dudgeon remarks that “in the last twenty-five years or so,

research has provided significant evidence that collaborative academic talk is at the heart

of the learning experience”. D. Barnes upholds that “talk is a major means by which

learners explore the relationship between what they already know and new observations

or interpretations which they meet” (qtd. in Simich-Dudgeon). This exploration is what

constitutes critical thinking. Simich- Dudgeon asserts that “by listening to students

interact with one another, teachers learn a great deal about their perspectives on the

themes and topic at hand and can use this information to plan for learner-centered

curricula and instruction”.

While ‘collaborative academic talk’ seems to be ideal for the classroom setting Simich-

Dudgeon goes on to explain that this is not the reality in classrooms since “most

classroom verbal interaction is teacher-controlled rather than collaborative”. She notes

that “Teachers do most of the talking, select most — if not all — of the topics for

discussion, make decisions about who will participate through strategic use of turn-

allocation procedures, and determine the relevance and correctness of students’ responses

to their inquiries”. Flanders confirms this in the Interaction Analysis Categories (IAC)

which was “designed primarily for examining teacher-pupil interaction by coding and

classifying classroom talk”. This study produced the law of two-thirds which “operates

in most classrooms” where “two-thirds of classroom time in…schools was usually spent

talking, and two-thirds of this talk was done by teachers” (“Classroom Interaction”, 2).

Moreover, Joan Hall and Meghan Walsh describe classroom interaction as “one of the

primary means by which learning takes place in the classroom...through their interactions

with each other and teachers, students construct a common body of knowledge. They also
create mutual understanding of their roles and relationships, and the norms and

expectations of their involvement as members of the classroom” (87). The author of The

Discourse of Education confirms this in the statement “in order to succeed in school

students are obliged to conform to rules and regulations, that are required but in many

cases not made explicit” (156). Ronald Wardaugh solidifies these descriptions when he

states that classroom talk:

is a reciprocal undertaking…as a conversation it proceeds on the basis that the

participants are reasonable people who can be expected to deal decently with one

another…You have to say enough to do the job that must be done; not to little

must be said nor, on the other hand, too much. Too little and someone will feel

deprived of information; too much and someone will feel either imposed upon or

the unwilling beneficiary of a performance rather than of a genuine instance of

communication (Wardaugh, 10).

Furthermore, Sinclair and Coulthard developed a descriptive system for analyzing

classroom discourse. They suggested that the transactions of classroom discourse

“consisted of exchanges or acts…and between the boundary of exchanges there is

usually a sequence of ‘informing’, ‘directing’ or ‘eliciting’ exchanges in which

respectively statements and requests (or commands) are made and questions are asked,

usually by the teacher” (Fairclough, 13). Sinclair and Coulthard define the discourse act

as “typically one free clause, plus any subordinate clauses” (qtd. in Atkins, 5). Atkins

adds that “An act must always begin with a new tone unit… this implies that pauses will

signpost the start and finish of an act” (Atkins, 5).

Of consequence to this particular study, Sinclair and Coulthard suggest that the most

common classroom exchange was that which elicited information. “It typically consists

of three moves: Initiation, Response and Feedback (IRF). Also, in any one aspect of the

exchange there “may occur more than one move” (Fairclough, 14). McCarthy remarks

that this “is very useful for analyzing patterns of interaction where talk is relatively

tightly structured” (qtd in Atkins, 2) especially in the formal setting of the classroom

where talk is controlled mainly by the teacher.

Moreover, while Fairclough acknowledges Sinclair and Coulthard’s work, he chastises

their approach since it fails to “consider how relations of power have shaped discourse

practices…” (15). He recognises the fact that within an exchange a member “typically

has more muscle than others, and in classroom discourse we do not find shared rules for

turn-taking where participants have equal rights and obligations, but an asymmetrical

distribution of rights (e.g. to self select, to interrupt, to hold the floor across several

turns)” (Fairclough, 20). The manifestations of power we find in classroom interaction is

“an unequal encounter” (Fairclough, 37) where participants are unequal, the person in the

position of power maintains his or her authority by “controlling and constraining the

contributions of non-powerful participants”.

Additionally, “A striking characteristic of the contemporary classroom is its diversity”

(Fairclough, 18). What Atkins observes is that the approach made by Sinclair and

Coulthard is in no way universal rather its use is specific to the traditional classroom.

Thus, difficulties of assigning certain acts into those labels assigned by Sinclair and

Coulthard result from the differences of the contemporary classroom, where the

manifestation of acts is not as homogenous as the traditional classroom since it is

characterised by its heterogeneity. Fairclough points out that because the IRF design is

teacher-centred, when the analyst encounters a heterogeneous situation he condemns the

students’ responses to misunderstandings, rather than purposeful or non-committal

responses.

Whereas the approach made by the pioneers of IRF structures was an attempt to

systemize discourse analysis, other theorists have recognised its limitations as a method

of discourse analysis. In attempts to address said limitations, some have begun to explore

the triadic structure under the auspices of Conversational Analysis. Conversational

analysis, according to Fairclough, goes beyond the descriptions of classroom interaction

which Sinclair and Coulthard aspired to do, rather it seeks to describe and interpret the

classroom transactions (17). Jane Zuegler and Junko Mori state that “Conversational

analysis contrasts with Sinclair and Coulthard’s approach by highlighting discourse

processes and correspondingly giving more attention to interpretation as well as

production” (17). They also comment that classroom interaction by its nature and

implications may fall under the umbrella of classroom discourse and so is studied as a

part of the greater field of applied linguistics. Conversational analysis is one of the key

methodological areas for studying classroom discourse along with “ethnography of

communication…and systematic linguistic analysis” (Zuegler & Mori, 287).

Even more, Hall and Walsh deem that any analysis of classroom conversation should

immediately look to the patterns of interaction which educators draw upon. They identify

one key pattern of interaction as Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE), a script of slight

difference to that posited in 1975 by Sinclair and Coulthard. The basis of mentioning IRE

is that previous studies (Diane Musemeci 1996: 287- 323) have also recognized its value.
“Findings from these studies have realized that student populations may vary from

classroom to classroom and school to school, one particular pattern of interaction, teacher

led three part sequence of Initiation-Response Evaluation typifies the discourse of

western schooling, from kindergarten to university” (Hall & Walsh, 188).

The IRE format is also known as the recitation script or triadic dialogue. The script is a

manifestation of adjacency pairs “a term used to describe the way in which conversations

can be segmented into pairs of exchanges that are connected in some way even though

spoken by different speakers” (Youseff, 1). Adjacency pairs operate where one “act

produced by a speaker sequentially implicates an answer from another” (Fairclough, 18).

Power imbalances, according to Norman Fairclough, manifest themselves most obviously

in the number of interruptions which occur within any adjacency pair. He comments that

the “teacher’s position of power allows him to “control and constrain the contributions of

non-powerful participants, and he actively affirms this position, through regularly

constrains on contents, relation and subjects or the subject position people can occupy”

(Fairclough, 38).

Furthermore, Hall and Walsh state that “In the IRE pattern of interaction the teacher plays

the role of expert, whose primary instructional task is to elicit information from the

students in order to ascertain whether they know the material… It is the teacher who

decides who will participate, when students can take turn, how much thy can contribute

and whether their contributions are worthy and appropriate” (188). Therefore, “the

Teacher functions as a “gatekeeper to knowledge, an expert and initiator whose primary

task is to elicit information from the students in order to ascertain whether they know the

material” (Hall and Walsh, 195).

Hall and Walsh thus posit that the exchange begins with a teacher led initiation. This

initiation occurs when the “teacher poses a question to which he or she already knows the

answer” (Hall and Walsh, 188). Mehan believes that “because the exchanges between

teacher and pupil majorly occur within topically relevant exchanges of talk, teachers rely

on shared knowledge about the topic and other contextual clues to give their utterances

meaning” (qtd in The Discourse of Education). Thus, the teacher can use the students’

names as an initiation strategy. Also, the teacher’s initiation may be considered a

linguistic frame, which functions to not only ask a question, but to signal that the topic of

discussion has changed. Another form of initiation is elicitation which “calls for a verbal

response from the students” (The Discourse of Education, 170). Added to this, checking,

evident in a minimal response of yes or no, allows the teacher to confirm the student’s

grasp of information. The informing initiative structurally introduces new information to

open discussion or “follow a student’s previous contribution (e.g. one to which the

student has provided a limited explanation of the question asked)”. The initiative

direction “induces the student to carry out instructions”.

Moreover, Hall and Walsh assert that “Students are expected to provide brief but correct

responses to the question”. “Pupils’ responses are typically shorter than teacher’s

question” and in this type of discourse where question and answer occupy a major place,

the discourse becomes like an interrogation where the teacher is the “kindly interrogator”

and the pupil “subject of the interrogation” (The Discourse of Education, 170)

“Consequent to the completion of the first two parts of the script, the teacher rounds of

the triad with an evaluation of the student’s response, using phrases such as ‘Good’,

‘right’, ‘that’s not right’. These are “follow up utterances” (The Discourse of Education,
171). The teacher’s evaluation is also characterized by the use of framing language,

through discourse markers such as “now, right and well” (The Discourse of Education,

171). Note that in this instance the term evaluation differs from Walsh’s definition where

evaluation is synonymous to feedback/follow up. In fact Walsh’s use of the term IRF

includes both structures namely evaluation and feedback.

According to Keith Richards “this pervasive structure [IRF] might be harnessed to

positive effects in the language classroom by exploiting the possibilities of the third part

of the sequence, a position that represents a considerable advance of the original response

to its presence, which focused on the first part.” This possibility may be “largely due to

the nature and structure of how the teacher responds to pupil contributions. Indeed, if the

teacher’s follow-up is used in a valuable and careful way, then the IRF structure can be

positive and productive, rather than rhetorical and restrictive” (The Discourse of

Education). Much of the quality of teaching depends “on how the teacher uses her

follow–up turns, and on the refreshing lack of rhetoric that they contain” (The Discourse

of Education).

Also, “IRF routines are criticized for restricting the space needed for students to engages

in speculative talk, to ‘think aloud’ or to use exploratory talk and develop understanding”

(The Discourse of Education). IRF exchanges compose discourse that leads to brief

interactions in which students are cast primarily into the role of listeners and are confined

in their verbal contributions to minimally filling the second slot of IRF interactions” (The

Discourse of Education).
One realises that the limits of classroom interaction cannot be bundled into one

homogenous term. Researchers have realised that it is the recitation script or the IRE

which has negative results rather the feedback and evaluative script the IRF which may

work to the benefit of student learning. In a look at the interactions of a high school

Spanish classroom, Hall and Walsh conclude that this new variety of the third element in

the sequence of the triadic dialogue allows the students “to be more active, creative and

successful users of Spanish…this subtle change to the IRE structure can create

significantly different learning environments”. Hall and Walsh bring to the forefront the

proposal of Wells (1993) to reconceptualise the IRE pattern. Wells observed “that

teachers often asked questions of their students rather than closing down the sequence

with a narrow evaluation of their responses. In the third part of the three part sequence,

the teachers more often followed upon their responses, by asking them to expand on their

thinking, justify or clarify their opinions, or make connections to their own experiences,

the teacher-directed pattern of interaction enhanced opportunities for learning” (Hall &

Walsh).

Rex and McEachen studied the interactions of a high school English Literature class and

they found that where changes to the IRE pattern occurred in the third element of the

triad, “in addition to brief confirmations of the answer as in the Evaluative format,

teachers elaborated on them or further probed students understandings by asking

additional questions”. Moreover, when the students’ interpretations were considered

limited, unwarranted or inappropriate, the teacher did not overtly challenge or evaluate

them with statements like “that’s not right”, rather he acknowledged the students’

contributions, and then offered his own interpretation along with evidence from the
text…In addition to this students were allowed to question each other’s interpretations

and responses” (qtd. in Hall and Walsh, 192).

Additionally, in any discussion on classroom talk, underpinning educational philosophies

and related ideologies should be considered. As such, progressivism, as an underlying

contemporary education philosophy in the learner-centered classroom was reviewed. As

opposed to the political stance of progressivism championing government “of the people,

by the people, for the people” (“Progressive Living: What is Progressivism”),

progressivism when applied to the classroom advocates learning “of the student, by the

student, for the student”. It is a democratic approach to education.

John Dewey, philosopher, educator and founder of progressivism notes that “the devotion

of democracy to education is a familiar fact” nevertheless “a democracy is more than a

form of government”. He goes on to explain that a democracy allows for the “extension

in space of the number of individuals who participate in an interest so that each has to

refer his own action to that of others, and to consider the action of others to give point

and direction to his own…”. In other words, a democracy promotes freer interaction

between and within social groups. It slackens the fetters in classroom talk by affording

individuals their own ‘space’ during the interaction.

Dewey comments that “in progressive education, freedom was the rule, with students

being relatively unconstrained by the educator”. However, he identifies a problem with

progressive education which “is that freedom alone is no solution.  Learning needs a

structure and order, and must be based on a clear theory of experience, not simply the

whim of teachers or students” (qtd. in Neill).

4. METHODOLOGY

4. METHODOLOGY
 4.1 PARTICIPANTS

This study was conducted using male and female students as well as tutors of the

Department of Liberal Arts within the Faulty of Humanities in the University of the West

Indies, St. Augustine campus. No specifications were used in terms of age, and full-time

or part-time students. The participants therefore included young, mature and older

students, full-time and part-time students. It must be noted that there is no specific

reference to these distinctions for the purposes of this study. However, different tutors

were chosen in order to investigate different teaching styles and its impact on students as

it relates to critical thinking. The different style of the tutors and their impact on

students as well as on classroom talk are analyzed and discussed further in 6.

 4.2 MATERIALS

Specific materials were vital to the completion of this study. These included:

 Audio Recorders

 Questionnaires (Pilot and Revised)

 The internet

4.2.1 The Audio Recorders

Two Audio Recorders were used to record five tutorial sessions which were used as data

samples in the study. One recorder proved to be inadequate since time could not have

been maximized through its sole use. Therefore, two recorders were utilized in order to

overcome the limitation of recording only one tutorial at any given time.

4.2.2 Questionnaires

The questionnaires provided us with a sample of the students’ reactions and responses on

classroom talk in tutorial sessions. This was helpful in guiding the analysis of data and

the subsequent discussion. These will be explored to a greater extent in 4.3 and in 5.1.

4.2.3. The Internet

The Internet proved to be a vital source of information on articles which helped to

underpin the study. Also, electronic mail (e-mail) was used to request a brief description

of tutorial sessions from tutors in the Department of Liberal Arts.

 4.3 TESTS

The Pilot Questionnaire Test (See 8.1) was the only test that was implemented during the

study. This Questionnaire was launched in an effort to guide the formulation of the actual

questionnaire for the study. Open-ended questions concerning classroom interaction

were asked and students we able to give free responses. These responses functioned as a

template and so reoccurring responses were used as options.

Eighteen copies of pilot questionnaires were distributed solely to third year students.

Third year students were chosen because it was felt that they would be very familiar with

tutorial sessions, it’s purpose and effect on learning as compared to first and second year

students who may be new to the notion of tutorials or may now be beginning to

understand it’s purpose and effect.

When the pilot questionnaires were collected and analyzed they were of great assistance.

Through the responses obtained in the pilot, it was realized that the use of open ended

questions could be easily eliminated by simply refining the questions to elicit the basic

responses necessary. This initial questionnaire helped to reveal the specific information

that really mattered for the study. This greatly reduced time wastage since the examining

and analyzing of lengthy student responses were avoided. The basic, specific responses

simply had to be noted and tallied, then converted into appropriate diagrams. This test

proved to be very helpful in obtaining responses geared specifically to the purpose of the

study.
 4.4 WEIGHTING SCALES

Because this study focused on tutorials in the University of the West Indies it was of

utmost importance that some information on the University’s policy on tutorials was

obtained. The definition of tutorial sessions in the Experience UWI Undergraduate

Prospectus 2004 as mentioned in 1.1, was used as a canon for the tutorial recordings

analysed, to be weighted against (refer to 4.6).

The aims and importance of critical thinking put forward by the Institute of Critical

Thinking as well as Schafersman’s Dos and Don’ts were also used as weighting scales in

analyzing the recorded data, specifically the tutor’s teaching strategy and its effect. In

doing this it was noted which tutor/s placed an importance on critical thinking in which

did not (Refer to 6.6).

 4.5 PROCEDURE

Research was the first major activity in this study. Much research was done to ensure that

the study was developed upon a valid and sturdy foundation. Previous studies were

initially investigated. However, after reading extensively it was realized that no study of

this sort had ever been attempted before. Consequently, related studies were considered

and the relevant information was sifted from the irrelevant. At the end of this research, it

was realized that this complemented and benefited the study immeasurably since it not

only widened the scope of the literature read but also added to the store of knowledge

consulted, considered and incorporated into the research (See3).

The questionnaires were then formulated. These questionnaires were randomly

distributed to tutorial groups. It was distributed however, to classes where recordings

were not collected in order to get more information to analyze since in the recorded

tutorials, student reactions were generally evident through their participation.

Information about the date and time of tutorial sessions was gathered from the

Department of Liberal Arts. Five different tutorials were recorded in order to obtain a

wider scope for analysis. Different tutorial sessions with different tutors as well as one

instance of a common tutor for two different tutorials were recorded to observe if there

was any change in response from the students.

“A further problem is that it is very difficult if not impossible for the observer to

understand the hidden culture of the classroom with it’s subtle nuances in language, non-

verbal communication and rituals unique to any one group” (“Classroom Interaction”).

However, this was not a problem encountered in this study. As established students in the
tutorials, this problem was eliminated because of knowledge of and familiarization with

the “hidden culture” of the respective classrooms.

The transcriptions of these recordings immediately followed. Then the data collected

from questionnaires and recordings were compiled (See 5) then analyzed (See 6) based

on the knowledge gathered through reading and research (See 3).

Furthermore, it must be noted that a formal letter was sent to the Institute of Critical

Thinking requesting an interview with the previous Chancellor of the University of the

West Indies and present director of the Institute of Critical Thinking Dr. Bhoendradatt

Tewarie, about the nature of critical thinking. To date, a response from this letter was not

received. Therefore, e-mails were sent to various tutors in the Department of Liberal Arts

requesting a “brief description of the role of tutorial sessions at the university as it relates

to critical thinking” (See 4.3.1).

 4.5.1 Overview of Procedures

Reading of literature

Questionnaires

Compiling results recordings letter for compiling

From Questionnaires interview
methodology

Transcriptions

Analysis/ email tutors

Discussion

Compiling recommendations

Compiling entire study

 4.6 ANALYSIS

For the purposes of this paper Conversational Analysis (See 3) was used. This method

has been selected in order to avoid the limitations that discourse analysis may pose to the

discussions of the data.

Literature read (See 3) and the Weighting Scales discussed in 4.4 were used to analyse

the findings. The data the IRF/IRE model (See3) was used to highlight Initiation,

Response, and Feedback/Evaluation speech acts by the students as well as by the tutor.

Each component of the IRF/IRE was color coded to emphasize the prominence or lack

thereof of each component (See 8.2). Annotations were made in tablar formatting (See

8.3) alongside respective IRF/IRE components evident in the recordings, under the

headings Speaker, Utterance and Annotations, for easy access as well as for simple and

effective reference to the findings. The results of the analysis are found in 5 while these

results are discussed in 6.

 4.7 PROBLEMS

It was realized that no previous study was conducted on this topic. This made it difficult

for us as there was no point of reference which could have been used as a guide and so it

was difficult since a method had to be devised in order to continue with the study. In

order to devise this method a lot of extra research had to be done in order to arrive at the

best method possible. While this initially posed a problem, eventually it became

beneficial as aspects of various other studies were used and methods and strategies for the

conducting of this study were created.

In transcribing the recorded data there were some auditory difficulties resulting from the

constant talk from nearby classes. In the Department of Liberal Arts where the recordings

were derived, some of the classrooms are separated by thin walls that do not prevent

sounds originating in other classes from transferring to the surrounding classes. This

classroom problem made its way into the recordings and posed a great problem at times

for accurate transcriptions.

Also, conducting the study was very time consuming and so time management was

critical as deadlines had to be met. While these were problems encountered all were dealt

with appropriately.
 4.8 LIMITATIONS

This study is limited to the Faculty of Humanities and even more, specifically to the

Department of Liberal Arts and courses pursued in Literature and Linguistics. Therefore,

the information gathered and analyzed and the findings will only be applicable and will

only be able to facilitate effective change in tutorial sessions for these two areas of study.

Note that this area of study is distinct from that of social sciences, engineering or natural

sciences. As such, these findings will not be relevant to these fields since different fields

of study have different requirements.

Furthermore, data collected in any research is based on a sample as such the unanswered

question of how representative is the sample and how truthful are the answers is

problematic and creates a limitation to the study. The ecological fallacy limits the study

since the conclusions drawn about particular individuals are based solely upon an

analysis of just a sample of data.

5. RESULTS AND FINDINGS
5.1 Questionnaires
 5.1 QUESTIONNAIRES

5.1.1 Pilot Questionnaire results

These are the results for the Final Questionnaire (See 8.1.1) administered randomly to

third year students in the Department of Liberal Arts, during the period February 4th

to February 8th.

Question 1: Identified the Gender of the Respondents

The results are shown in the graph below

Question 2: Identified the ages of the respondents

 The results are shown in the graph below

Question 7: Identified the motivation of our respondents for selecting their

respective degree options
The results are shown in the graph below

Question 8: Identified which participants like or dislike the tutorial sessions

The results are shown in the graph below

 Question 8

43.48%

56.52% Yes No

Question 9: Identified whether or not the respondents like or dislike for the
course affects their participation in the class

The results are shown in the graph below

Question 9

11%

Yes
No
89%

Question 10: Identified the student’s subjective opinions of tutorials

 The results are shown in the graph below

Question 10

32%
27%
Informative
Interactive
Unproductive
41%

Question 12: Described the relationships students have with their respective
course tutors

The results are shown in the graph below

 Question 13: Identified whether or not students believed the teachers teaching
style encouraged student responsiveness

The results are shown in the graph below

Question 14 (a): Identified the frequency of certain Initiation tactics by tutors as

perceived by students

The results are shown in the graph below

 Question 14 (b): Identified the tactics student’s perceived tutor’s use in
hindering responses and participation

The results are shown in the graph below

Question 15: Identified the students own perception of themselves in terms of

responsiveness in tutorial sessions on a given scale

The results are shown in the graph below

Question 16: Identified the factors which the student perceived affected the
interactions between tutor and student, on a given scale

The results are shown in the graph below

5.2 Recordings
 5.2 RECORDINGS

5.2.1 Annotated Findings For Recordings

Tables (See 8) illustrate annotated findings for the four Tutorial Recordings. Note
that Initiation, Response, Evaluation and Feedback are highlighted red, green, purple
and blue respectively.

Table 5.2.2: Total number of Words Spoken in each Tutorial and

the Total number of Words Spoken by the Students and the Teachers with
Related Percentages

Tutorial Total no. Total no. of Words Total no. of Words

Spoken by Tutor
Of Words Spoken by Students

Words Percentage Words Percentage

A 4713 854 18% 3859 82%

B 2449 608 25% 1841 75%

C 2444 1710 70% 734 30%

D 1800 677 38% 1123 62%

E 1762 1128 64% 634 36%

 Table 5.2.3 Showing Total Number of IRE and IRF cycles Per
Tutorial

Tutorial A B C D E Total

Total No. 20 3 2 4 0 29

IRF 69% 10.35% 7% 13.65% 0% 100%

Cycles

Total No. 13 10 1 1 9 34

IRE 38% 29% 3% 3% 27% 100%

Cycles

Total 33 13 3 5 9 63
 Figure 5.2.4 Bar Graph illustrating the results of Table 5.2.3

20

15
Total No. IRF
10 Cycles
Total No. IRE
Cycles
5

0
A B C D E
 Table 5.2.5 Showing Total Number of Acts per Tutorial

Tutorial A B C D E Total

Total No. 45 24 15 16 30 130

Initiations

Total No. 72 35 24 11 58 200

Responses

Total No. 26 12 3 6 10 57
Feedbacks

Total No. 14 28 1 2 11 56
Evaluations

Total No. 157 99 43 35 109 443

of
Acts

Figure 5.2.6 illustrating the results of Table 5.2.5 above

80

70

60

50
Total No. Initiations
40 Total No. Responses
Total No. Feedbacks
Total No. Evaluations
30

20

10

0
A B C D E
6. DISCUSSION
 6. DISCUSSION

The results and findings have stirred several topics for discussion. When they were

arranged, several concerns were generated based on readings discussed in 3. It is

noteworthy to mention that Tutorials C and E were conducted by the same Tutor.

This Tutor will be referred to as Tutor CE in the discussion.

6.1 Manifestations of Initiation Response Feedback

and Initiation Response Evaluation Scripts

The triadic scripts previously constituted three acts; an initiation, a response and

feedback. The data collected demonstrates the regular use of these three elements

described by the IRF/IRE Models-Initiations, Responses, Feedback and Evaluations.

With respect to the IRE structure, some of the data reveals perfect instances of what

may be equated to local Primary School classroom interaction. The tutor initiates

through questioning, then the class gives a simple and accurate response in a chorus-

like manner. The tutor as expert thus validates this response, with a basic evaluative

response. This occurrence is illustrated below in an extract from Tutoral A:

T Alright am: what is the language  (I) Initiation to Elicits further

information
Class [Eastern Ijo]  (R) Basic response

T Eastern Ijo. Right OK  (E) Tutor confirms and

validates response

This is the basic structure of the IRE Model which Sinclair and Coulthard posited. It

is interesting to note that this Model catered to Primary School classroom settings.
Thus, though the theoretical base of the study has taken us forward and into the

application of the script at Tertiary level, data like that presented above is particularly

interesting since the IRE script comfortably manifests itself in a tutorial session just as

it would in a Primary School classroom setting.

Because this manifestation is unexpected at the Tertiary Level, the data collected from

the questionnaire provides a subjective account of reasons why there may be a lack of

student response resulting in interactions like the one above. Note that though Table

5.2.5 shows that for the 120 Initiations there are 200 Responses, not a single student

response exceeds the average length of a tutor utterance which is 50 words. Results

from Question 7 of the Final Questionnaire (See 5.1.1) reveal that the students felt

that a lack of responsiveness to tutor initiations resulted from their interest in the

content being discussed. The 39% of students who had a vested interest in their

discussion notably rated themselves highest in terms of classroom interaction.

Furthermore, students attributed non-responsiveness to their relationship with the

tutor, especially a tutor who is uncommunicative.

Those who have advocated the IRF structure would be displeased to see that the IRE

Model far outweighed the IRF Model in the data. Table 5.2.3 shows that from

approximately 2 hours of combined tutorial recordings there occurred 29 IRF scripts

as compared to 34 IRE scripts. This suggests that the majority of student responses are

greeted by basic responses from tutors, with limited clarification or extrapolations.

Furthermore, some researchers have noted that the IRF scripts are characterized by

lengthier tutor initiations than student initiations. This is evident in some of the data.

In a class discussion the average length of any student response is less than 5 words

while that of a Tutor is approximately 50. In Tutorial D illustrated below, the tutor

engages a “mini-lecture” beginning with the line “Alright we’ve run out of time” and
about 40 lines later concludes with an elicitation “Do we think in language? And if we

do:↑ which language do we think in?” which is met with a students response of one

word “Spanish”.

6.5 The Initiation Response Follow-Up Cycle

Initiation Initiation

Response Response

Follow Up: Follow Up:

Feedback Feedback

Evaluation Evaluation

Initiation

Response

Follow Up:

Feedback

Evaluation

FIGURE
FIGURE6.5
6.5SHOWING
SHOWINGTHE
THEINITIATION
INITIATIONRESPONSE
RESPONSEFOLLOW
FOLLOWUP
UPCYCLE
CYCLE

The Initiation Response Follow up triad posited by Sinclair and Coulthard had its

limitations resulting from the recognitions of researchers that the interactions between
the tutor and student included much more than a mere evaluation. The Initiation,

Response, Follow-up structure was divided into the Initiation Response Evaluation

and Initiation Response Feedback structures with the belief that the former was

limiting and the latter liberating. Thus, in taking the structure forward, a paradigm

shift is proposed in the way the structure is viewed.

The Initiation Response Feedback Cycle and the Initiation Response Evaluation

Cycle is proposed. The term cycle is of utmost importance because it allows the

researcher to consider “irrelevant” utterances that could not be placed within an

identified triad. Under the previous autocratic regime these “irrelevant” utterances

would have been overlooked. This is illustrated amongst the five tutorial sessions

analysed. Table 5.2.3 reflects the tabulations of the IRE and IRF scripts for all five

tutorials. The sum of said scripts is 63. In accordance with the Sinclair and Coulthard

proposed Model each script ought to be triadic and so in order to derive the total

number of acts per script one may simply multiply the total number of cycles/scripts.

However the data stands in stark contradiction of this assumption. Table 5.2.5 shows

the sum of acts in all five tutorials. There were 443 acts in the 63 scripts and when

multiplied 63 this hypothetical summation of the acts would be 189. Note 443 far

exceeds 189. This discrepancy is very wide. In keeping with the Sinclair and

Coulthard Model there is also an excess of 257 acts which the IRF scripts leaves

unaccounted. However, the cyclical model which is being proposed here seeks to

account for these 257 acts left in the balance. It allows the researcher to consider acts

which under the previous regime, would have been overlooked as irrelevant

utterances within the script. Considering they could not be placed within any

identifiable Triad.
It is now posited that the script be referred to as a Cycle and not a triad, since the

application of the triadic description to the Tertiary Level classroom discourse is

extremely limiting, there occurs at this level far more liberty of the students to speak

when they feel to, than in the traditional classroom to which the structure initially

catered for. Due to changing relationships with the tutors, students now feel freer to

respond without being nominated, there actually occurs an auction of responses,

where the tutor initiates and the students bid for the best response.

The cycle aims to liberate the interactions at work in the tutorial session, the student is

not forced into a position where he is not allowed to initiate, he may initiate without

harming his tutors authority, since the culture is now one of equal power between

tutor and student-both are expert participants.

6.1 “Brains are biological. Minds are created.”

The Institute of Critical Thinking at the University of the West Indies has the above

quote on the website as one of the driving forces behind the importance of education

for critical thinking. Using this statement as a foundation, it should be added that, in

the same way that brains are biological, classrooms are physical. It is the knowledge

that is imparted in these classrooms and the manner in which it is imparted that create

minds. As mentioned in 3 the notion of critical thinking, though recently made

popular, has been in existence for a number of years. In the article explained in 3,

Schafersman outlines some teaching strategies of critical thinking. These strategies

will be closely examined as it relates to the findings and data collected as well as with

the University’s guidelines on critical thinking. This closer look will identify which
tutors employed critical thinking strategies and which ones employed strategies that

clearly did not foster critical thinking.

Schafersman gives an idea of the “don’ts” in critical thinking. “Critical thinking

cannot be taught by lecturing”. Unfortunately, this is the format that Tutorial A takes.

There is very little discussion in this tutorial and more ‘mini-lecture’ type utterances

from the tutor. This type of tutorial, certainly, would not fit into the University’s ideas

of encouraging critical thinking since it does not allow for “careful analysis, clear

thinking and reasoned deliberation”. When student responses are given they are

usually very basic and the tutor generally does not encourage the student to expand on

their response or even other students, but rather voluntarily takes up the mantle and

expands on behalf of the student and the rest of class. This brings up the other “don’t”

referred to in the article where questioning is encouraged – “Do not immediately

answer such questions yourself, leave sufficient time for them to respond”

(Schafersman). Tutor A continuously and unashamedly answers his or her own

questions after brief student responses. Students do not get enough time to respond

which is seen in the lack of pauses after an initiation or even after basic student

responses where no room is given for the rest of the class to respond. This is further

discussed in 6.2 and 6.3.

On the other and, Tutorial B seems to be heading in the direction of critical thinking

as there are some strategies employed by the tutor which does foster critical thinking.

On examining Tutorial B, the most obvious factor in comparison to Tutorial A, is the

presence of discussion between the tutor and students. Even though at a first look at

Table 5.2.2 and Table 8.2.2 it may be said that Tutor B spoke far more words than the

students, on closer examination, it is evident that there is much discussion with the

students. Tutor A, however, speaks much more than the students but in a ‘mini-
lecture’ format as previously mentioned, rather than in a discussion format and there

is not much substantial input by the students. One of the aims of the Institute of

Critical Thinking is that of promoting independent thinking and discussion definitely

promotes independent thinking. Thus, Tutorial B facilitated much more opportunities

for critical thinking than Tutorial A.

Another example of critical thinking strategies employed by Tutor B is that this tutor

uses what students say to build upon the discussion. Tutor B initiates discussion by

expanding on a student response when she remarks “…one word that Student X used

was humanised”. Again, this is illustrated in Tutorial C where Tutor CE initiates a

topic by stating “Student X was saying on the other hand….”. Both Tutors “use the

students’ names as an initiation strategy” (See 3) and draws from their contributions

to advance the classroom discussion. Tutor B also positively acknowledges students’

responses as seen when the student gives a response and the tutor says “Yeah yeah

yeah...and the other thing is we do get you talked about a despotic God...” This

promotes a learner-centered, democratic classroom environment which advocates

learning “of the student, by the student, for the student” (See 3). Yet the presence and

guidance of the tutors still maintains “a structure and order” (See 3).

Tutor CE is probably the model tutor in terms of promoting critical thinking from the

data collected. This tutor employs some of the critical thinking strategies proposed by

Schafersman. One such strategy being “ If an individual cannot answer a question,

help them by simplifying the question and leading them through the thought process”.

In Tutorial C the tutor does not get an appropriate response and so guides the student

accordingly using a series of simpler questions until the student comes about the

appropriate answer for oneself. This is seen in “ Ok...well ammm I actually wanted to

know if you agree or disagree with the ah am the statement...” this is preceded by an
inappropriate response and so the tutor encourages the student to continue to respond

in the hopes of the student realizing what exactly is required of him or her. The other

strategy present in Tutorial C is that of calling upon students by their names to answer

questions or contribute. Schafersman proposes to “Learn students’ names as quickly

as possible and ask the questions of specific students that you call upon by name” this

is practiced by tutor CE in the following utterance “Ok well let me ask you

Shivana...”

The previously mentioned strategy of allowing enough time for students to respond is

also seen in Tutor CE’s teaching style. When the tutor poses a question to the class

there are pauses after the tutor’s speech as enough time is given for students to

respond. In addition to this, when a student responds the tutor also allows time for

other students to contribute before giving any feedback or evaluation. This is seen in

the end of one students presentation “...somebody who who is willing to you know as

they [they] say make the best of the worst situation you know that aspect if you look

at it like that (0.3)”. This three second pause indicated here is the tutor’s allowance of

time for other student contributions. When there is no contribution the tutor goes on to

encourage students’ response by asking “Any other comments” which is followed by

another three second pause before the tutor calls upon a student to expand on a

previous contribution.

In the data collected it is noticed that there are certain aspects of critical thinking

present in some tutorials while some tutors seem to not even be aware of the notion

entirely. In keeping with the views of the Institute of Critical Thinking it is important

to note that in order for brains to transform into minds, critical thinking has to be

developed in the classroom and in this instance in the tutorial sessions. The effects of

critical thinking strategies are clearly seen in the data collected as students go through
the thought processes and the benefits are seen as the “appetite to think analytically

and critically” is stimulated and developed.

6.2 Democratic Space Hypothesis

John Dewey’s notion of democracy must be considered. Dewey upholds that a

democracy allows for the “extension in space of the number of individuals who

participate in an interest so that each has to refer his own action to that of others, and

to consider the action of others to give point and direction to his own…” 1 If we chose

to apply Dewey’s definition of democracy to the classroom situation, then it is an

understood but unwritten rule that each individual, whether student or tutor, is allotted

a certain democratic space. By democratic space we mean a conceptual space within

the realm of linguistic exchange that gives a speaker freedom to interact within his or

her space yet ever conscious not to overlap upon or devour completely another’s

space. We shall refer to this notion of democratic space as our Democratic Space

Hypothesis. Each individual’s democratic space is marked by the constraints of the

boxes in the table:

T Any questions? Tutor’s

S I don’t - I don’t think he necessarily: MOCKing the democratic
space
whole: Roman Catholic way of Canonization right but I
think kinna way like hmm he kinna looking at it from the
Student’s
spiritual level↓ for anyone who he sees (0.1) fit or
democratic
deserving of heaven (0.1) daz what I feel uhhm (0.2) space

1
Dewey, John “The Democratic Conception in Education” Democracy in Education 15 March 2008
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education/Section_7#The_Democratic_Ideal
If every student should have an equal opportunity to interact within the classroom,

then it goes without saying that each student’s democratic space should be equal.

However, our findings suggest otherwise. Many times, if not most times, the tutor’s

democratic space exceeds the students’. Our findings indicate that the law of two-

thirds operates actively in tutorial sessions at the Liberal Arts Department of the

University of the West Indies. This information is quite disappointing since the

studies which revealed this law of two-thirds were conducted primarily in primary and

secondary schools. At a University level, changes in this fraction is expected to

occur; possibly a reverse in the law where two-thirds of classroom talk was done by

students instead of tutors. Disappointingly, the law of two-thirds is also alive in some

tutorials sessions.

Note the Table 5.2.2 in 5. If approximately 33% represents 1/3 and 66% represents

2/3, then the data reveals that in Tutorials A and B students spoke for less than 1/3 of

the classroom talk and tutors spoke for more than 2/3 of the tutorial. A very poor and

unsatisfactory finding for sessions designed to encourage classroom discussion for

students. Tutorial D shows more or less an almost perfect example of the rule of two-

thirds where about 33% of talk was done by students and 66% by tutors. While this

may be quite a favourable result for Flanders and his researchers since it solidifies

their view that “the law of two-thirds operates in most classrooms…” 2 it is an

unfavourable reflection on the nature of tutorial sessions at a University.

Nevertheless, despite these austere results, Tutorials C and E seem to stand aside and

model the anticipated results for an institute of higher learning and critical thinking.

Tutorials C and E is a closer reflection of the reverse of the law of two-thirds where

near 66% of classroom talk was done by students and near 33% by the tutor.

2
“Classroom Interaction” Theory and Practice of Education p.2.
Consequently, further analysis must be done on Tutorial C and E. Notice that in

Tutorial C, Tutor CE’s democractic space is significantly smaller than the students’.

Added to this, in Tutorial E, Tutor CE’s democratic space was only slightly expanded

for initiation purposes and it was clearly expanded to sum up the session in the end.

This latter expansion is anticipated and thus acceptable, since the tutor is expected to

summarise the discussion and to present a closure to the session. Yet this final

expansion of the tutor’s democratic space did not exceed even the lengthiest student

discourse. Tutor CE allows each student to utilise his or her democratic space by

calling upon him or her for a response and thus a contribution to the classroom talk.

On the other hand, Tutorial A stands in stark contrast with Tutorial C and E. Tutor

A’s democratic space seems to occupy the entire interactive space in the classroom.

In just a single glance at the transcription, Tutor A’s lengthy and lecture-like

discourses are evident. Student responses are generally limited and minimal. The

longest single student utterance includes 65 words while the longest single Tutor

utterance includes 446 words without any noted pauses to elicit student responses.

This is an absolutely distressing finding. Tutorial A boldly defies the description of a

tutorial sessions in the Experience UWI Undergraduate Prospectus which states that a

small group “meets their tutor and discusses topics or issues and work out practice

problems related to the course content” (See 1.1). If discussion is defined as “a talk

between two or more people about a subject, usually to exchange ideas or reach a

conclusion, or talk of this kind”3 then it is safe and also sad to say that discussion

never graced the classroom of Tutorial A.

6.3 “Gatekeeper to Knowledge”

3
“Discussion” Encarta Dictionary Tools: Microsoft Encarta 2006. Microsoft Corporation
Hall and Walsh assert that the tutor functions as a “gatekeeper to knowledge , an

expert and initiator whose primary task is to elicit information from the students in

order to ascertain whether they know the material”. The results and findings depict

some instances of the tutor opening the gate to knowledge but then engaging in a

lengthy discourse that seems to impair the students’ participation in this newly

unlocked world of knowledge. Their contribution is blocked and their potential to

participate is untapped as the tutor opens the gate and proceeds to stand infront of it,

restricting access into the knowledge itself. This is evident especially in Tutorial A.

The broad disparity in Tutor A’s democratic space and the students’ democratic

space has already been noted. Of concern is Wardaugh’s claim that “you have to say

enough to do the job that must be done; not too little must be said nor, on the other

hand too much…too much and someone will feel either imposed upon or the

unwilling beneficiary of a performance rather than a genuine instance of

communication” (See 3). When Tutorial A is reviewed, it is evident that Tutor A’s

impartation of knowledge is likened to a performance and the students are

beneficiaries. As the gatekeeper to knowledge Tutor A stands at the entrance, recites

the knowledge and rigidly controls student input. For instance, Tutor A is recorded as

saying “Before we get to: Berbice Dutch or any at all he talks: about…” and “Right.

But before we get to the: African source:…”. This gatekeeper appears to abruptly

stop the ‘trespassers’ who were not able to produce the desired password. In other

words, Tutor A controls the direction of the discussion and assumes the authority to

postpone topics and steer the course of the classroom talk. Considering that tutorial

sessions are designed to enable students to flesh out concerns of work covered during

lecture classes, the nature of classroom talk in Tutor A’s tutorial is inappropriate.
Also, Tutor CE uses the role of gatekeeper to promote critical thinking by enabling

the students to expound upon their ideas and work out solutions for any problems for

themselves through “deliberate consideration” (See 3). This Tutor, like Mr.

Durgasingh, “makes a conscious effort to have students arrive at answers on their own

during tutorials without divulging everything all of the time” (See 8.3.2) . This is

clearly depicted in this tutorial where Tutor CE poses a question in order to initiate

discussion between the presenter and another student after the student indicates her

blatant disagreement of a particular aspect of what was presented. Tutor CE does not

forthrightly tell the students what is considered right or wrong but allows the students

to engage in a critical discussion in order to clarify misunderstandings and reassess

previous views by tactfully guiding their discussion in a desired direction. The results

are favourable since no one feels like a particular view is imposed upon them and both

students are able to resolve any misinterpretations while mutually respecting each

other’s contribution. These students proved to be critical thinkers by acknowledging

that they “may be wrong” and admitting that “the other side or sides have some good

arguments” (See 3). Furthermore, Tutor CE, the gatekeeper of knowledge proves to

be a dual expert displaying concrete and abstract expertises. Whereas the tutor’s

required concrete expertises are based on content knowledge, Tutor CE introduces

another dimension to the expert duties of a gatekeeper namely the ability to use

dexterity to elicit critical thinking in classroom discussion. This use of dexterity is the

key that unlocks the students’ ability to think critically.

 6.6 Melodies of Classroom Interaction

Moreover, the term triadic bears such as a close resemblance to the musical term

triad that a comparison between the two was explored. According to The Pocket

Oxford Dictionary of Current English, a triad is simply “a group of three”. When

applied to music, it refers to “a musical chord consisting of three notes” (Encarta,

2006). The triadic exchange in linguistics consisting of the Initiation-Response-

Feedback or Initiation-Response-Evaluation format, can be compared to the musical

triad where initiation, response and feedback or evaluation represent each note. The

limits of this triad are evident even when applied to music. In order to abstain from

the monotony and predictability of the repeated musical sequence of three sole notes,

all seven notes together with their respective sharps and flats must be explored in

order to create music that is truly outstanding. In other words, classroom interaction

like music, should not be restricted to a rigid three note structure if its fullest potential

should be realised.

This initial comparison roused a further examination of other musical concepts as it

relates to linguistics. Monologic contributions within the classroom are a cappella

performances which is “vocal music or singing without musical accompaniment” 4.

While a cappella contributions are sometimes required in some tutorials through

presentations, it is certainly not appropriate for classroom discussion especially when

the tutor’s contribution resembles a “mini-lecture”. Classroom discussions must

resound with musical explosions of sound and harmony where each student

instrument creates melodies of revelation, clarification and contribution within the

classroom. Each note occupies its own democratic space on the stave of discussion

and its input is never compromised, only complimented by other musical

4
“A cappella” Wikipedia 18 March 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_cappella>
contributions. The tutor is the experienced conductor, guiding the orchestra in their

unrehearsed performance. The students are in ad libitum mode improvising and

exploring “a freedom with the beat for expressive ends” 5. He or she ensures that the

students respect each other’s democratic space as they take advantage of their own.

5
“Ad libitum” Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_lib>
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Recommendations

7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and subsequent discussion, the following is proposed:

1. The implementation of the Initiation Response Follow-up Cycle in tutorial

sessions. To successfully do so, there must be tutorial reconstruction. By assigning

specific tutorial topics the lecturer initiates the sessions which is unfavourable.

The students should be responsible for their own thinking and learning. As such,

the student researches his or her selected topic of interest covered in the lectures,

consults the tutor with his or her ideas and presents this topic before the class,

thereby initiating classroom discussion and critical thinking. The student thus

enters the session with a sense of autonomy and the tutor becomes a mediator.

2. A 66:33 Model for classroom interaction where Flanders’ law of two thirds is

inverted and students talk for two thirds of tutorials while tutors talk for the

remaining one third. Furthermore, a ratio of 66:33 as opposed to a conventional

80:20 ratio was chosen because it was felt that the tutor’s input should not be too

minimal if their ultimate role is to guide the students in the respective content

matter. The tutor’s allotted democratic space should account for student

guidance, allowing for enough room to correct the students and to generate

substantial feedback. Thus, tutors should aim to maintain a 66:33 ratio of student

to tutor talk within tutorial sessions in order to allow students to explore their

democratic space and thus facilitate critical thinking.

3. Schafersman’s teaching strategies for the development of critical thinking should

be incorporated in tutorial sessions. These strategies, when applied were deemed

effective in the data collected therefore, if employed in tutorial sessions they may,

if not immediately at least eventually, foster critical thinking.

7.2 Conclusion
It has been resolved that:

 Tutor A teaching styles does not encourage critical thinking

 Tutor CE teaching styles model a classroom of critical thinking

 Tutor B and Tutor D’s teaching styles encourage critical thinking but they

could be improved

Ultimately, it has been deduced that the hypothesis “Classroom interaction in tutorial

sessions facilitates critical thinking” does not captivate the essence of this study. The

phrase “classroom interaction” cannot be used so loosely. If classroom interaction in

its most simplified form means verbal exchanges within a classroom setting, then,

according to the hypothesis, any such exchange should facilitate critical thinking. Yet

the discussion suggests otherwise. It is this disparity that proves that a certain type of

classroom interaction favours critical thinking in tutorial sessions. This study has

shown that the application of the IRF Cycle and The 66:33 Model of Classroom

Interaction in tutorial sessions fosters critical thinking.

8. APPENDIX
8.1 Questionnaire
8.1.1 Questionnaire
Dear Recipient,

We are final year undergraduate students, in the department of Liberal Arts

Humanities and Education. We are currently conducting our Special Project in Linguistics
(Ling 3099) Project, under the supervision of Professor Valerie Youseff.

Our study looks at the structure of Tutorial sessions in the Department of

Liberal Arts. Your contribution to the data collected in the course of this study would prove in
valuable. Please fill out and return the attached questionnaire, the completion of which will
take five minutes of your time.

We thank you for your time, contributions and effort.

Respectfully,

Group E Special Project in LInguistics

Background Information

1. Sex: □ Male □ Female

2. Age: □ 20-30 □ 30+
3. Year: _______
4. Faculty: ___________________
5. Department: ___________________
6. Degree Option: ___________________
7. Which of the following describes your personal interest in the option selected in 6
above:
□ Related to Professional interest
□ Personal interest
□ Fulfillment of a minor
□ No Reason

Course Description

8. Do you like this course?

□ Yes □ No

9. Does your answer in 9 above affect your participation in tutorial sessions?

□ Yes □ No

10. What is your general opinion of tutorials in this course?

□ Informative
□ Interactive
□ Unproductive
Tutor Description

12. How would you describe your relationship with your tutor for this course?
□ Amicable
□ Open to ideas
□ Fairly Communicative
□ No Response

13. Does the tutor’s teaching style encourage student participation in the class?
□ Yes □ No

14. (a) If yes question 13 above, how does the teacher elicit responses.

□ Questioning
□ Feedback
□ Additional comments
□ Other

14. (b) If no, to question 13 above, how does the teacher hinder or avoid student
Responses?

□ No response
□ Evaluative Responses
□ Incomprehensible Feedback
□ Rejection of Answers
□ Other
Description of Respondent as student

15. Rank Yourself in terms of class participation on the scale below:

□ Excellent
□ Very Good
□ Good
□ Satisfactory
□ Poor

16. Which of the following factors influence your willingness to participate in class?
Please rank these factors on a scale of 1-5, where one is highest and five is least.

□ Tutor
□ Content
□ Students
□ Classroom Environment(ergonomics)
8.2 Annotated Transcriptions
for Recordings
 Table 8.2.1: Annotated Findings for Tutorial A

Speaker Utterance Annotations

T What was his FIRST concern? (0.12)  (I) Elicitation

S-M The controversy surrounding what is a creole↑ Or the definition exactly what a  (R) Limited
creole is↑

T Right: So he talks about the controversy but what what did he mention was one of  (F) Positive confirmation – negative face saving;
the main reasons for this controversy?  Expansion of discussion

S-A One of the main reasons for this controversy was the fact that [inaudible]  (R) Attempt to expand upon previous response

T Before we get to: Berbice Dutch or any at all he talks: about the am: field of  (I) Tutor maintains her role as coordinator, expect
Creole studies and this controversy that seems to be: there but he talks about and gatekeeper of the activity
what he thinks is one of the main: am: reasons for this controversy (o.4)
Remember? (0.8) The second paragraph

S-A The adequacy of data  (R) Basic response

T Sufficient data. The adequacy of data. Now (0.2) what you’ll find in linguistics is  (F) Confirmation of response
that there are there will be a lot of theories about different things right. These  expansion of discussion - introduction of new
theories will evolve over time. Now persons might come up with a theory based elements with the use of now
on: either set of data that they choose to look at or: what is available to them.  use of a rhetorical right
Now: what: he mentions is that this seems to be am: present in the whole Creole  the use of rhetorical questions limiting student
studies where there is this lack of data the data that persons use to come up with response
these terms these definitions these characteristics does not account for the whole
right↑ So you: you you’re expose to these languages or this set of data and you
come up with these terms that seem to be carved in stones NO NO little flexibility:
no right so he’s saying that when when you meet up on a language that doesn’t
FIT neatly into what you came up with before how do you deal with it? Right. So
persons were saying Berbice Dutch isn’t a Creole based on the fact that: it doesn’t
fit neatly into what they characterise as Creole. The sociohistorical am: am:
characteristic doesn’t seem to fit neatly. The structural characteristics doesn’t
they even went as far as saying that Berbice Dutch might belong to another
variety of language that they have not looked at yet right? So: this is one of the
things with theories nobody want to know that the theory not correct or not able
to account for everything that’s in there↑ so: you come across some new data
that doesn’t am: go with what you have and you you you start to accuse the data
instead of try to modify: or account for the the new information that you have
right? So da-data is am you might want u might think to understand there is still
inadequacy in data but a lot of a lot am: a lot of it has to do with what happened
then there’s nobody there to tell you: the historical records are NOT perfect. So
you can’t rely solely on them and sometimes the language speak am: the
language speaks to you yeah but you you have no historical data or documents or
to match one of the structure with so you kind of: in in the middle so can’t
 assume↑ you can’t am: say alright based on this this seems to be what happened
what: you can not say this is exactly what happened then alright? Am: so:
 (I) Tutor’s feedback culminates in an expansion of
inadequacy of data in terms of defining and classifying languages (0.3) he: talked
the discussion leading to an initiation specifically an
also about indigenous people what did he say about them? (0.2)
elicitation.
S-A He questioned whether Berbice Dutch was am: heterogeneous or am: he was  (R) Student gives an expanded response
talking about am the indigenous people (0.2) and: ok when you talk about Creole
we normally talk about a contact situation where we have different languages am
substrate languages coming into play but he’s saying you have to re-REASSESS↑
Berbice Dutch because we might just have one African language

T Right. But before we get to the: African source: what he mentions he speaks  (F)Tutor maintains her role as coordinator, expect
about: the indigenous language or indigenous peoples that were here long and gatekeeper of the activity
before: superstrate and substrate am: came into play what did he say about  (I)Tutor’s feedback culminates in an expansion of
them? what is the importance? (0.3) is there an importance? the discussion leading to an initiation specifically an
elicitation
S-N It’s never been really been addressed before↑  (R) Basic response

T Right. He’s saying that: basically am this set of people have always been down  (F) Confirmation of response
played the role they played: hasn’t been stressed hasn’t been important or even  expansion of discussion - introduction of new
conSIDered in a lot of cases but in some cases they tend to have am a lot more elements with the use of now
influence then the persons who [inaudible] right even though Berbice Dutch  use of a rhetorical right
might be an extreme case you can’t go about thinking that these people didn’t  the use of rhetorical questions limiting student
 make any contribution at all in the formation of am: the the new languages response
right↑ so it’s not that am: the Caribbean was was empty before the English came
and brought language etcetera there were people here that would have come
into contact whether its minimal contact right: whether it’s major contact they
would have come into contact with these people right↑ in the territories and
what does THIS initial contact am: does this have an influence on language
[inaudible] now: am: you also mentioned that: (0.3) right there was contact on the
in Berbice Dutch situation there was contact not only between the the am:
Amerindians and the Whites but also the Amerindians and the Blacks. Right so
you’ll have: right you you you had those and you would have had contact with
these door opens morning. Right you’ll have contact with these so that that that
alone will influence the language. Anything else about the article am: [inaudible]
examine the lexical items shared between Berbice Dutch [inaudible] Berbice
Dutch and Dutch itself etcetera etcetera and will be amazed to see how many
lexical items are in Berbice Dutch of: other Caribbean origin right. So: not only
does he stress the: inadequacy of data he talks about something that a lot of
people tend to forget. The importance of Amerindian peoples in the forming of  (I)
am: other languages right? Am: right so: what you were talking about earlier
about substrata influence?

S-A I thought it was so interesting  (R)

S–N Uh?  (R)

S-A I I thought it was very interesting  (R)

T Uh ha  (E) Encouraging evaluation

S-A Especially when he spoke about am the African people already being predisposed  (R) Expanded response
to acquire: cause they exposed to different languages and different tribes and all
of that on their continent and then they come across here they already
predisposed to different language contact situations.

S [inaudible]

S-A Right: I never really considered that  (E) Student evaluates the previous response

T Ok what is the importance of the substratum input in the Berbice Dutch speech?  (E)Confirmation of response
What did he talk about? What is the focus? How would alright let me phrase it  (I) Initiation to elicit desired response – structured
differently. How is the substratum input in Berbice different from other Creoles? to save negative face
(0.3)

S–A Is it that he is saying that it’s only from one one substratum  (R)Limited/Basic response

T Right so: Berbice Dutch Creole seems to be linked to this ONE African language. Is  (F) Acquires only a one part of the desired response
is one one  Refines response

Laughter

T Alright am: what is the language  (I) Elicits further information

Class [Eastern Ijo]  (R) Basic response

T Eastern Ijo. Right OK  (E) Stereotypical example of IRE

 Primary school effect
Class [inaudible] (0.16)

Tutor writes on board

T So: unlike other particular languages where its hard to pin point one one am:  (I) Use of rhetorical questions
Africa language that could account for most if not all the features of the in the  Use of so to introduce topics
language here in Berbice Dutch that that seems not to be a problem because its  Expectation of student response after 10 seconds
easy to identify that Eastern Ijo is the major is the main source am: of African pause followed by a continued attempt to initiate
input in this: variety Alright am: (0.2) so there’s a strong link between Eastern Ijo discussion
and Berbice Dutch what sociohistorical information does he present am: what
evidence does he present in terms of historical data (0.10) so he talks about not
only the internal linguistic features but also sociohistorical information. What
sociohistorical information does he talk about?

S-A He looked am he talked about the mixing of the tribes↑ am:  (R) Basic response

T Tell me about the mixing of the tribes  (I) Encourages student to expand upon response

S-A It has to do with timing and all of that. If the if the tribes were mixed before the  (R)Expanded response
Creole was formed laughter (0.5) then you could say that it’s a result of a contact
language situation but if it was formed beFORE mixing then you can’t say that
T If: go again  (I)Clarification of student response

S–A Right ok sociohistorical right. We talking about how when the Africans came at  (R)Expanded response
some time the planters will mix mix the different groups of Africans so that they  (I)Student’s attempt to initiate by checking is
weren’t have rebellion revolt and all of that he’s saying if the Creole formed greeted with no feedback
before this mixing is done then it would be a result of different am African
language input. You all understand what I saying?

T But would the Creole would be formed before the mix because the mixing would  (F) Saving student’s negative face
have been before the African’s left their the coast  Informative feedback

S– A Ok  (R)Basic response

T So: would the Creole am: be formed before that?↑ (0.4) alright let me let me ask  (I)
another question what evidence does he present am: to say that to account for
Eastern Ijo being the major main source does he have any historical data? (0.26)

S-N The thing with the plantation where it upstream and  (R)

T He mentions that during the time when the Dutch were in control of Guyana or  (F)
the Berbice colony they were also in control of the area in Calabar where this
language is spoken

S – JF That’s the: Niger Delta  (R)

T Right. (0.3) so: that would mean: you would be more it would be easier for am:  (F)
Africans to be shipped from this area since the Dutch were: in control of the
 areas. Right? And probably if you: check you’ll find historical records to show you
movements. Ships coming from Niger Delta to Guyana in the time when am: that
you looking at. Alright. So that’s very important the fact that the Dutch were in
control of both areas: simultaneously means: slaves would have been am: it
would have been easier for African to be slipped from the Niger Delta to: to the
areas where the Dutch were in control. Right. Now: what you’re talking about in
terms of : African already being predisposed to multilingualism the [inaudible] try
to be is that he’s questioning whether the idea of heterogen am:- yeah

S [Uhmm:]=

T That word (0.13) writing on the board right that word (0.8) writing on the board
heterogenity

S Laughter

T Right: am his question whether this how important is this in the formation of  (F)
Creole languages right. How: how important is it for you to have a variety of
African substrate languages in contact at the same time. Is it is it possible for you
to have just one. Rite: because Bickerton Bickerton has two main sociohistorical
characteristics from Creole languages ONE: is that: am: (0.2) the: population must
be mixed right↑ eighty percent to twenty percent if the twenty percent would be
Europeans eighty percent would be am: Africans but the importance of this eighty
percent is that what he mentions is that this eighty percent needs to be a VARIETY
of different African languages Alright↑ so: not only is the population split
between in terms of eight twenty but the eighty percent has to be distributed in a
certain way. Let me see if I can find if you look AT: page ten (0.3) so: (0.1) the:
Creole arose arose out of a prior pidgin had not existed for more than a
generation right↑ that goes with what he talks about in terms of the children
being responsible for the formation of the Creole languages and TWO arose in a
population where not more than twenty percent were speakers of the dominant
language to be [inaudible] and where the remaining eighty percent was
composed of diverse language groups: Alright↑ now what am: Robertson is
saying is that the second the first one [would throw out] talk the same as ah as ah
Creole language the second one (0.3) diverse language groups would throw out
or: would throw out Berbice Dutch as a Creole Language because: Eastern Ijo is
the main [inaudible] language then: there wouldn’t ne anything diverse about
that↑ alright↑ so: he questions whether the the substrate needs to is to be
heterogenous. Now: (0.8) Right so what he is saying about Africa is that: there are
many languages in Africa and in order to survive in Africa anyway most am:
everybody would need to [inaudible] their own language. So you’ll probably have
a national language you probably have each individual language depending on
where you’re FROM↑ as such persons who would have already been predisposed
to mutilingualism so its not its not needed necessarily on the plantations its am:
 its Cre-Creoles right↑ and it’s even though it happened it’s not a NEcessarily am:
ingredient in the in the in the the [inaudible] right↑ now: my question is this why
 (I)
is it that IF most if not all the slaves spoke Eastern Ijo are they coming into contact
with persons who came from Dutch? Alright↑ why is it that a Creole
develops↑(0.7)

S - JF Well again a language had to be formed for communication↑  (R)

T Uhm:↑  (E)

S - JF Am: a language has to be formed for building good communication between  (R)
them↑

T Yeah but remember this these Africans would have already been predisposed to  (F)
multilingualism and it would be easier for them to learn new languages. Why is it
that: am: a bilingual situation did not develop? Why is that they didn’t learn:
Dutch↑  (I)

S-S I think they say something about am: the Dutch encouraged them to speak their  (R)
own language because they they believed that their Dutch was superior and they
didn’t actually want them speaking the Dutch so they sort of discouraged them

T ok↑ any other reason why am why the why ah the Africans didn’t speak Dutch↑  (E)

 (I)
S because↑-  (R)

S–A -Dutch they didn’t stick around long enough they left  (R)

T Ok they didn’t stick around long enough for them to acquire the language so  (F)
that’s two so far even they if they had been there long enough what other reason
would have am invited a division of Dutch

S–A [Inaudible]  (R)

T Contact? What about the contact?  (I)

S-L The type of contact  (R)

T The type of contact what you know about the type of contact?  (F)

 (I)

S - JF [miss they intermarried:]  (R)

S [married or not] laughter  (R)

S–A Master slave relationships  (R)

S Well the hostility then  (R)

[inaudible]  (R)

T So not only you have to look at not lonely the set up of the plantation right↑ and  (F)
how the: the am: Europeans interacted with the Africans but also ratio is very
 important right↑ so what was the ratio of whites to blacks↑

 (I)

S [very very little whites than blacks]  (R)

T alright↑ how what how big is the gap? How long was the Dutch in control of this  (F)
area↑ right↑ how soon after the Dutch were in control did the English
[inaudible] why is it that when we have two language situations we have two
languages in contact but a Creole still develops that means there must have been
interaction between the two groups anyways right↑ there was still need for some
kind of communication (0.3) right↑ so the time the ratio or the time period that
the Dutch were there for how long would it take for the Creole to develop all of
that am: [inaudible] try to account forwhy is it that a Creole still develops under
this situation alright↑ that means this am: idea is not so: important after all cause
here we have a situation where: there’s only one substrate language but still we
have a Creole developing alright↑ so: am: what he’s saying is that an idea of the:
am: substrate language being diverse IS sufficient but not necessary it is sufficient
but not a necessary am: condition for creolization alright↑ so you get am:
creolization under other circumstances agree↑ alright so: Ian goes on to: look at
the linguistic features of Berbice Berbice based on Bickerton’s twelve features
(0.3) but before we go into that last week you discussed three↑ three such  (I)
features right↑ what are the three you discussed last week↑ don’t remember↑
 (0.3)

S Tense mood and aspect (0.15)  (R)

S [Fronting ]  (R)

S [articles]  (R)

T Writing on board what else↑  (I)

S Articles  (R)

T Writing on board alright okay now what are we focussing so far  (I)

S-S Is when you I think is when you put a word in front of the sentence for  (R )
emphasis↑

T okay↑  (E)

S–S In Trinidad Creole is drunk they drunk I think in Jamaican is a drunk he drunk  (R)
instead of putting the is (0.7)

T Writes on board is drunk he drunk  (R)

S - JF [a Bab we a taak bout a Bab we a TAAK: bout]  (R)

S-A A: Bab: we a taak: bout:  (R)

Laughter

T Writing on white board

S-M We got the example for the Berbice Dutch from: Berbice example as well with the  (R)
da krishii a krishii is cry he cry↑

T Writing on board da krishii↑  (I)

S–M Da krishii a krishii I I at the end  (R)

T And this one is what↑  (I)

S–M Is cry he cry  (R)

T Writing on board okay↑ so: front focussing has to do with the the movement of:  (F)
a lexical item to the FRONT of the sentence for emphasis right? Most cases you
use a: topicaliser or a frontal marker right↑ some cases you don’t necessarily
need it alright↑ now: what lexical items can be fronted↑  (I)

S Nouns  (R)

T nouns↑  (E)

S [nouns verbs]  (R)

T Give me an example of the noun  (I)

S Or they could be a [inaudible]  (R)

S Yeah yeah  (R)

S Bob  (R)

T uh↑  (E)

S Bob we a talk bout  (R)

T Right BAB  (E)

S Use adjectives such as [inaudible]  (R)

T Verbs cry: chuckle  (F)

S-M [krishii]  (R)

T Writing on board 

Laughter 

T So you seem to be able to front almost every am: word class right↑ now: another  (F)
important thing about the topicaliser is that: it ten - it tends to be: (0.1) similar to
the form: the COPULA the equated copular (0.2) right↑ so for example in
Jamaican Creole: you have am: (0.3) writes on board right↑ (0.5) writes on board
right↑ dem a bad man where the a here is identical to writing on board the a
used as the frontal marker alright↑ so that is another am: feature that you’ll you
tend to find across Creole (0.1) more than likely if you check the Berbice Dutch
example you look let’s see if Robertson has any examples in his: paper (0.10) right
take a look at page fifteen: (0.2) AT example number fifteen: (0.8) writes on board
dida da eke bukuu right↑ the da here this means that this: [inaudible] the da here
 is similar to the da used as the topicaliser and here [inaudible] right↑ the equated
the equated copular so: it’s a feature you you tend to find across Creoles of
different lexifiers alright (0.4) now: what you’ll find about Creole also is that they
have: they tend to have at least three different types of copula situation copula
expression alright so: that is why I keep stressing the equated copula that is when
you have: writing on the board noun phrase then the copula: writing on the board
then another noun phrase writing on the board right↑ so: this equal this (0.2)
alright (0.2) now articles what so interest - am: interesting about the articles↑
 (I)

S - JF In that am: the definite article: is presupposed: in noun phrases am: example in  (R)
Jamiacan Creole lef lef di chiljren opa de hou – hous DI hous

T Opa di hous yes  (E)

S - JF Di am: di hous is am: [inaudible] specific [inaudible] the house so: (0.5)  (R)

T Okay writes on the board  (R)

S [di house is presupposed in the specific phrase so the indefinite article is used]  (R)

T It’s presupposed:  (I)

S - JF In a spec – specific  (R)

T Writes on board

S - JF As opposed to the: asserted specific where the indefinite article  (R)

T As opposed to↑  (I)

S - JF The ASSERTED specific where the indefinite article will be used  (R)

T Ah ha example↑  (E)

 (I)

S - JF Yu hav a glass church op de (0.12)  (R)

T Writes on board

S - JF Church with de:: de: asserted specific so you use the indefinite article  (R)

T [Okay] writes on the board (0.15) yu av wan glass church op de alright:↑ and this  (F)
one is what↑
 (I)

S - JF [asserted specific]  (R)

T Writes on board

S-S [so the one over there could be [inaudible] de one [inaudible]  (R)

T Which one↑  (I)

S Yu av wan glass church op de a glass  (R)

T Is wan as opposed to a (0.6) persons don’t usually use: a in Jamaican alright (0.2)  (F)
it’s a: yu av wan glass or: wan glass church or wan wan bwoy: or: that’s the
difference between if you speaking Jamaican or if you speaking Standard English
 a↑ bwoy as opposed to wan bwoy right↑ alright what else↑

 (I)

S - JF The zero: zero marker used for non-specific noun phrases  (R)

T Writes on the board 

Laughter 

S–S Jamaican Creole: bad man dem taim de  (R)

S [yeah I don’t even know what it means↑]  (R)

S-S Bad man dem taim de [what that mean↑]  (R)

[inaudible] 

S – JF Am: this is the: the Trinidad one birds does fly  (R)

[inaudible] 

T Writing on the board what is the Trinidad Creole example you have↑  (I)

S - JF Birds does fly chuckle BIRDS DOES FLY  (R)

T Writing on the board (0.6) alright so you’re given me what Bickerton says about  (F)
the three: am: types of articles that Creole: that you have right↑ so you have
presupposed specific what does that mean↑

[inaudible] 
T But presupposed is important knocks white board thrice  (I)

[inaudible] 

S-S You already know which house it is  (R)

T Right so this is CHURCH shared knowledge between the the: the participants in  (F)
the in the conversation so if we’re talking and I said lef de chiljren opa de house
it’s understand between me and you: which house right↑ so not only for a
specific house: but it has to be knowledge that is shared between the the the am:
participants the speakers right↑ asserted specific what does that mean↑

 (I)

S-N ONE person knows what you’re speaking about well the person who’s speaking  (R)
the person knows what they’re talking about the person you talking to doesn’t
know

T Alright so: you have a glass church op de alright↑ [inaudible] that there is a glass  (F)
house alright↑ I know about it and I’m telling you about it right↑ (0.4) so: as
opposed to when de is used when it’s a specific house that: you and I both know
about I↑ know which am: glass church I’m talking about alright↑ but it’s not am:
it’s not a-a-a necessary fact that you also know the-the-the glass house and non
specific (0.4) alright (0.1) you not-you not talking about a particular group of
 people or a particular thing birds does fly means birds-birds in general right↑ so:
according to-

S-S -What does am: dem  (I)

taim bout what does it mean: in English↑ in Standard English bad man dem taim
bout DE TAIM DE=

T =Dem taim de↑ (0.1) am: (0.1) ah:: how  (R)

do I say this

Laughter (0.7) 

T You’ll sometimes hear am: persons say stuff like yu a nad man from dem taim de  (R)
right↑ it means from way: back right↑ so: am: dem a bad man dem taim de
means a SPECIFIC placing them in a specific time am: time period and this talks
about this other one is the generality of the situation means basically they have
BEEN am: bad boys bad men from way back when or since them alright↑ bad
 (I)
man de bout means bad man around the place bad man inna de place bad man
alright↑ why you laughing at me↑

Laughter 

S-A It sounding good  (R)

Laughter 

T Okay so that takes care of the article now Robertson presents examples that show  (I)
 that Berbice Dutch: follows the: similar am:specifics for the article right↑ dii
potman bii a suukuu fii muu ka the oldman say he want to go (0.3) een doomnii
wa kom hiirii een kruukruu doomnii alright↑ a pastor come here a black pastor so
it-it talking about a SPECIFIC pastor right↑ as opposed to THE oldman which
when we’re talking we’ll know WHICH oldman maybe you had a conversation
about the oldman before: so now↓ as opposed to a black pastor which is any
black pastor you don’t know what I’m talking about and man lombo keke waatii
bad man-MAN BAD like what everybody seem to have this bad man story eh↑

Laughter

T So man bad like what but again it’s not talking about general right↑ alright so: tell  (I)
me tense mood aspect what so you know about that so far now: that is not so
straight forward as the others it’s a lot to take in you have to-have to talk about
aspect alright↑ so that goes three ways and within those there are [inaudible]
things right↑ what do you know about t m a so far↑

[inaudible]

T What so you know about t m a so far↑ u know what t m a means↑ apart from  (I)
you know that is means

Class TENSE MOOD and ASPECT  (R)

T What does tense address↑ What does mood address↑ what does aspect  (I)
 address↑ it’s very important because you could start to get it con- am: mixed up
alright↑ so it’s: very important for you to know: what exactly does tense deal
with↑ what exactly does aspect deal with↑ what does mood deal with↑

S–A Tense is like time frame you know↓ [past present]  (R)

T Okay  (E)

S-A Present continuous preterit  (R)

T See you’re gone into aspect  (F) the student attempts to initiate and the tutor
brings him back

[inaudible] 

T So tense basically has to deal with placing your event on a time line writing on the  (F)
board right↑

S - JF The aspect is whether the:-the action is completed or not  (R)

T Right the aspect must deal with THIS EVENT that occurs on-in which ever time  (F)
period specified whether: it was a completed action or a continuing action
etcetera

S What does mood deal with↑  (I) the student initiates and the triad is completed
this is how it should be

S-N First is speaker’s assessment of events in terms of its likelihood or probability  (R)
 Laughter 

T Wa-wa-wa-wait no  (E)

S-N I know what it mean I know what it mean  (R)

T Say that again↑  (I)

S FIRST is speaker’s assessment of events in terms of its likelihood or probability  (R)

T Okay understand↑  (I)

S-A Conditional tense  (R)

T Right so: did it happen would it happen etcetera should it happed etcetera alright  (F)
and then all these three things can be combined some people tend to↓ link mood
with TENSE for example future a lot of people say future tense but it’s more
MOOD: than – because it’s conditional you don’t know IF it would actually happed

S-N You use words like would [inaudible]-  (R)

T [Right]=  (E)

S-N Could or would or should  (R)

T So: it’s good to: read up on these things and make sure you know EXACTLY what  (I)
each addresses: alright so what do you know about Creole and T M A so far↑
what time is it please↑
 [inaudible]

S-A Eleven o’clock  (R)

S-N Creole focus more on aspect [inaudible]  (R)

T Uhm:↑  (E)

S - JF Creoles focus more on aspect [inaudible]  (R)

T ah↓ ha↑ (0.4) ah ha↑ tell me about it what do you mean by that↑ when you  (I)
saying that they focus more: on aspect rather than tense (0.35) hmm↑ alright
next week: (0.15) Vishmala↑ [inaudible] that’s your task T M A right↑

S-M okay↑  (R)

T [inaudible] you look at negation Alana  (I)

S–A Yes yes↓  (R)

T You look AT copula↑ now you have to get examples from at least three different  (I)
creoles of different lexifiers right↑

S–S Different lexifiers  (R)

[inaudible] laughter 

T questions↑ hmm: realised and unrealised complements alright so we’ll just pick  (I) (F) the tutor inititates and gives no room for
up where we left of next time anyone to respond
 Table 8.2.2: Annotated Findings for Tutorial B

Speaker Utterance Annotations

S1 I think what you need to bring yourselves back to as it relates to the fact that one  (R) Provides an extended response
yeah who the fact that he is being portrayed character having those qualities
[inaudible]

S2 [Yeah you can\t cant cant]  (E) Evaluation

S1 Rather than the whole biblical thing about ok patience is bad [or your love for him  (R) provides and extended response
or whatever]

S2 [Yeah yeah yeah yeah] hmm and even the way that Milton goes about giving him  (F) Confirmation followed by
almost he’s this immortal being but he has mortal↓ [inaudible]-  (I) Informative initiation
T He is one word that Farisai used was humanized  (F) feedback, refining the students response

S [Right right]  (E) Evaluative confirmation

T He is humanised he is give he’s a well rounded character and you talk about the  (I) Informative Initiation
fact that he well tragic heroes any anyhow were not wholly good or evil

S [Yeah ]  (E) Evaluation

T And ah mean he isnt really shown as evil you know even in in in am: in defying God  (I) Informative Initiation as the teacher provides
yes it was not done he was supposed to do it and he was committing a crime I information which
suppose in that sense but it it it isnt really portrayed to us in the text as really. evil/  Expands the discussion
its not evil being really. you understand what I mean and and the text doesnt I
mean it says yes he’s going to to to to pervert all good and and and and am: and
yes hes going to you know just just to wreak havoc and and and all these things and
seek revenge and all of that you understand why he’s doing it as well. as you know
you understand the motivation for these things so is not that hes just >>pick up
himself and say well I just I going to defy God and I going to be evil and thats it its
much more much more to it it’s much more complex than that and I mean that’s
why he can/ feel sympathy for satan [you know the character of course right feel
sympathy for satan because] of because as she said he’s not a flat character. Adam
tend to be a flat character but satan is well as a well developed character you know
with with with and we hear a whole lot a whole lot about how he feels you hear a
 whole lot of internal conflict.. right am: \

F His his his am his form if you want to call it that is the most dramatic o  (R) The student pro-offers information in his
response
T [Yeah yeah]  (E) confirmation

F {[inaudible] like hm: Adam’s fall is is am: cushioned i-i-is am [laugh ]by by being  (I) the student pro-offers information initiating
[old] mercy and hopeo } and expanding the discussion

T [Yeah yeah yeah]  (E) Confirmation

F [inaudible]

T [hmm] /and the other thing is we do get you talked about a despotic God and am  (F) recall
that is

S [Cough]

T What that is actually am satans view of God and he sees God as a tyrant and you  (F) feedback is not accompanied by any type of
know a that is why he rebels as well as is is not just [Cough, cough] God he does not confirmation, rather includes information pro-
is not that he feels that God is good and he just decides to go against God he offered in a casual manner to extend the
actually feels that God is a tyrant/- discussion i.e. informative initiation

S And I think he was cheated  (R) student volunteers his opinion in response
to tutors initiation
T He feels yes he feels cheated [and he]-  (E) confirmation and repetition

S =And that’s why he prepared to take on the cause that  (R) student responds and extends the
 discussion further
T [Right exactly]  (E) confirmation

S You know if I’m going to reign in hell let me reign in hell you know  (R) student continues the point raised by the
previous student
S [because you could hurt yourself by saying that]

T Well yes  (E) confirmation

[inaudible]

T And and that kind of sad to  (F) feedback

[inaudible]

S [cause is like you know that yeah]

T There is no hope for him anyway and what is he supposed to do [is just that] well  (I) Tutor expands the discussion by providing
alright is back to live in hell I’ll reign in hell you know am: yeah so he does see God information
as a tyrant but one critic did point out however that the poem goes on to show that
that is his perception but not necessarily true and he in fact turns out to be the
more of a tyrant than God so that might be something to look at

S Ok  (R)

T But you were saying that some critics like Shelley and [inaudible] did see see see  (F) tutor confirms the students attempts at
God in the poem [inaudible] God laughter God am: yeah am: you also talk about initating with information
the tragic hero I I would suggest that in  (I) tutor directs the students next course of
 your write you find a more detailed. and better definition of tragedy action and as such their thinking processes.

S [Ok ] (E)

T Right when you writing it up am: you did touch on it but you didn’t on the the  (F) tutor confirms the response
elements though a person high up falling from from that higher place to the lower  Saves face by extending the students response
place through the through the tragic flaw right which is of course Greek tragedy as under the guise of a informative initiation
opposed to Shakespearian where they talk about [inaudible] right

S [inaudible]

T Eh? Yeah  (E) confirmation

[inaudible]

T Right and am: yeah but but and we could we could talk about hubris/ in terms of  (I) informative initiation
Greek tragedy but hubris is/ satan’s tragic flaw. Hubris is overweaning pride alright.
So i-i-i-is it does relate to to am: satan as well this whole idea of hubris the
overweaning pride and yeah and I think it is important that that point you brought
up as a –about am: the tragic hero also not being entirely good or bad\ because-

S Yeah yeah yeah that is the [inaudible]  (E) confirmation

T Yeah ah mean yeah when we think about satan as evil but when we think when we  (E) Tutor confirms the students resonse and
see the way he is drawn in the test the way he is characterised in the text he is not offors information
really evil as such you know like I said what he does has he has motivation for doing
what he does in the text right and you you you understand why he does the things
 he does and and I think it is [inaudible] that humanised is [very important] as well
because he is drawn: with. flaws and faults and and and wants that we can actually
relate to as well ah?

 Tutor ends her response with an initiation

S [inaudible]  (R)

T Yeah yeah yeah am: so: up so ok so some of the things that tend to make us have  (E) Tutor confirms the students response
sympathy for him is that we we defend him is that he is we are given a whole lots  (I) Tutor offors information
of information as how he feels right there are so many many many words telling us  Tutor expands the discussion
in the [inaudible] that he is sad he is sad being say he feels despair alright and I just
to see also that we have the internal conflict and that he is a well rounded and
humanised am he’s also the first character in the poem to speak so he’s the first
character we meet as well I mean we hear about Adam and Eve from the very
beginning the prologue if you want to call it that but he actually is the first
character to speak and we also see him already in his fallen state at the beginning
from the from the time we see him he’s already fallen and that I think tends to
draw sympathy as well that you already see him in this dejected and fallen state at
the very beginning and we also get also get all of these contrasts between his
previous state and his present state and that also you know am: emphasizes that
 am: [inaudible] also elicits our sympathy right now in terms of admiration\-

S [inaudible]  (R)

T Yeah he does strong character and mind I I don’t know if you all remember when I  (E)
was talking about the fact hat he is also charismatic you know I mean he is able to
seduce so many angels to go with him and he is able to seduce Eve as well\ alright
so he is charismatic and he tends to be charismatic he is a good orator as well he
does have talents you know remember he was angel he was the highest angel so
there are there would be qualities in satan that you could admire. its just that he
probably uses them to do evil/. right but the qualities themselves his determination
his strength of character his strength of mind the fact that he thinks about these
these other angels who have followed him and he does not desert them- what?

 (I) Question
S No no like in those am hero movies and stuff the the evil character always have  (R) Rejection
powers as well but-  (R)

T [Hmm:]

S They have powers and one uses it for good and one uses it for bad and I guess  (R)
 that’s the same thing

T Yeah and it becomes very interesting movies then become very very interesting  (E) Confirmation
when the evil character the villain isn’t just one dimensional if is just evil is just like  Teacher provides information
oh yeah yeah but then when you see the conflict and we have a really good like am:  (I) The teacher initiates embedded in his
in these Batman movies remember the one with the octopus/ man I can’t initiation is an elicitation
remember what he was called\

S [inaudible]  (R)

T [Ah/]

S [spiderman]  (R)

T It was Spiderman?  (I) Questions

Class [yeah]  (R)

S It was Spiderman  (R)

T Or even the one with am:  (F) the teachers attempt to give further
information is inhibited
S [inaudible]  (I) The student provides information
expanding the discussion
T Professor who?  (I) the tutor asks for clarification

S [fantastic four]  (R)

T Fantas-fantastic who you talking about?  (I)

 [inaudible]  (R)

F Even even programmes for the younger ones like am pokemon  (I)

T Oh gosh well I doh know anything about pokemon  (R)

Laughter

[inaudible]

F Pokemon has ah these two characters Jesse and James who are to steal/ other  (F) She provides clarification
people’s am: pokemon

[inaudible]

F But they yeah they have

[inaudible]  (R)

S POKEMON!

Laughter

S One is not the charac it not the cartoon  (F)

S [No it have other evil ones does want to take the evil one]  (R)

[inaudible]

F Every now and then the heroes tend to  (F) expands the discussion by giving
information
[inaudible]
S I thought pokemon was the name of a character  (R)

[inaudible]

T Anyway so are they do are they bad  (I) resumes control by initiation

F They have elements of good in them you know they they can be relied upon when  (R)
things are really really crucial to help out

T But that’s not exactly what I mean I mean right in terms of the octopus what was  (E) The tutor evaluates the question
his name? the octopus man in Spiderman and wny he became bad. It was because recognising the answer as unwarranted she
what what had happened to him? then clarifies and restates her question as
initiation
F [I think his wife was going to die]  (R)

[inaudible]

T Ok well not that one like am [inaudible]  (E) she rejects students response and
clarifies
[inaudible]

T Except in those two cases the difference however in those two cases with the  (E)
lawyer and with the sandman they were doing yes they were committing crime but
for a cause whereas with satan\

F Yeah  (R) confirmation

[inaudible]
 Laughter

T Perhaps because then...  (I)

[inaudible]

T No no I suppose yeah if he did see God as ty/rannical maybe he did think that he  (I) rejects and re -routes the discussion
was doing it for a good cause\

S [inaudible]  (R)

T So for example rebellion of slaves against  (E)

[inaudible]

T You wasn’t suppose to do that/

[inaudible]

T Those were the gods no you understand what I mean

[inaudible]

T [inaudible] class stratification and whatever. right and [inaudible] as well but am:
[b-but] is the same thing but if the the slaves saw that the masters as being
tyrannical and whatever and and they rebelled that would have been seen as you
know as a transgression in the same way it was a foul revolt as well right but

S [inaudible]
T You understand what I mean/...  (I) Tutor checks for students understandings

S Yeah  (R) confirmation

S Uhmm: 

T So so yeah so so so it not so it simple an mean if if you just think of the Bible and  (E) teacher confirms students
whatever and and you know you kind of apply that to it then you kind of mix what understandings and expands the discussion
Milton is doing in his poem because actually you know complicating the whole offering additional information
things such that I mean yeah people don’t like to say we feel an admiration
[inaudible] satan because is satan but [inaudible]

[inaudible]

T You have to you have to ah? (I) elicitation

F Paradise that website paradise lost dot org\- (R)

T Oh yeah by the way I would say even though you have to use paradise lost dot org (E)
for thing that you have to write up-

F Go to the library (R) this response is unsolicited

T Go to the library laughter and don’t go to the library and use the computer and go (E) Initiation
to paradise lost dot org right. You have to have proper proper academic sources as
well even though that those things might be a starting point and just am not not
necessarily for you but for everybody because I saw that in somebody’s essay am:
 don’t start off your essay according to Sparknotes and thing right\

S Huh? (R)

[inaudible]

T Pink Monkey and whatever right and according to Wikipedia no no no start off (E)
[your essay with an academic quotation/] from an academic source right

[inaudible]

T Alright anything else/ (I)

S What if is ah fairly academic looking website (R) students response is meant to elicit a response
from the tutor

T Well::, the iluminarium dot org that I told you all about for John Donne there are (E)
actual am journal articles on that there are good ones as well on John Donne on
(I)
that ah website. Alright um:: anything else to add?

[inaudible]<1>

T Why do you think he is the hero of the poem? (I)

F Why is he the hero? [inaudible] (R) students response is in the form of an elicitive
question

T Ah? (I)

F Gimme half a minute and I’ll get back to you (R)

S [inaudible] he is like the central character in the am who he’s the character who (R)
well who fought the hardest↑

[inaudible]

F Yes but hero HERO doesn’t necessarily mean doesn’t necessarily mean am in (E)
pursuit of a moral end or in in in pursuit of good over evil I think hero has to do
with more where (0.3) the idea of am facing head on a difficult challenge. being am:
those kinds of qualities as opposed to whether your your aim was entirely good or
entirely\-

T And you could see hero in terms of the ROLE of the well [inaudible] half of the time (E)
what how were we defining hero I suppose (0.1)

F [ok] (R)

T It depends if you start by saying it’s a [inaudible] (E)

[inaudible]

T It pushes you into into one direction but if in the case [I did ask] why you [choosing]
the hero what do you think you if u did get that question whatever you not
gonna get↑ because am [inaudible] but I’m just saying if there was such a question
then the first thing you want to do would need to do is define what hero meant
now by the way I hope you all did notice this tragic hero thing which like I guess you
would have to talk about tragedy and tragic hero not only talking about the
 [admiration] ok alright↑ well I’ll see you all next week

S Who who’s next/ (I)

Table 8.2.3: Annotated Findings for Tutorial C

Speaker Utterance Annotations

S Amm right another reason why we feel sympathy towards Satan is because he  R) Student presents to
realizes that you know he has fallen from heaven he has fallen from the the class
from the well the greatest place you know ever created and he is now the
lowest of low you know the darkest of dark you know the worst place that
anybody can fall from right he realizes that he can no longer regain entry into
heaven he no longer has he can no longer get Gods forgiveness or his mercy
and he realizes that he is powerless because its only with gods mercy and his
forgiveness that he could be he could regain entry into heaven amm ok amm
looking at admiration amm the way that that Satan is portrayed you now
although he is thrown form heaven you know are ahh his his character his
overall character is that ok amm you know I am in this place now so I’ll the
best of the worst situation kind of thing you know hes is am as his his amm his
rebel his rebel amm angel [inaudible] they they address him as oh prince you
know so he now basically lord of hell so he he turns around the a bad situation
you know to to help him to to help him you know to to get over what has
happened to him to get over the situation that he is in so now you know being
the lord of hell and he has his servants there you know he puts on a face to
show them that you know them ok I it it I would rather rather reign as you put
it I would rather you know better to reign in hell than serve in heaven you
know with his determination and pride he still wants to to be master of
something and you know the circumstances the only thing he could be master
of is hell wher he is amm also when he goes to to amm the garden of eden you
know he realizes that hes hes barred from entering into to Eden you know and
he well he decided to plan you know after after amm looking at Adam and Eve
and and the way they they interact and and how they are in the garden
[inaudible] he realizes that ok he cannot enter as he is so he changes himself
inot a serpent to get into this garden and to noe tempt eve you know his
cleverness his cunning his his his am desperation you know he doesn’t want to
be the only one [dammed] to hell you he wants to [inaudible] so you know you
kind of admire his charac- his overall character you now the way how he amm
deals with the situation deals with amm the [ inaudible] situation that he is
put into he makes the best of a bad situation so that’s

T [inaudible]  (I) Elicitation

 Table 8.2.4: Annotated Findings for Tutorial D

Speaker Utterance Annotations

T (0.10) Nothing? (0.1) You have questions for them? (0.3)  (I) elicitation

S1 –P [You all understand what I said?] (0.1) [Sure?] (0.6) [You have any questions for me?]  (I) student elicits responses from
peers and tutor
T No: I have some stuff I would have added in:  (R) response from tutor

S1 –P [Alright where?]  (E) positive evaluation of tutor’s

response
 (I) elicitation directed to the tutor
T I would have LOOked: at a couple more theories  (R) basic response

S1 - P [ok]  (E) positive evaluation

T Not: just Vigotsky because Vigotsky is: ONE theorist who deals with the idea: of language  (F) tutor comments on student’s
thinking and learning. There are many other theories in there as well (L0.1) so: I felt you could presentation and gives
have done a bit more on Piaget and I would have looked: at: Chomsky. You can’t get away from recommendations
Chomsky if you’re going to be talking about language [thinking and learning] (L0.1) am: [I guess  (I) introduces elicitation with the
about] Sapir Wharf and [inaudible] and Bruner. SO↑ The class is going to tell me about one of word so
those (0.15) So you have Vigotsky here right? (0.1) this idea: that: thoughts developed is
determined by language. The child’s intellectual growth is contingent upon his mastering the
 social means of thought that is language. What do you all think? (0.8)

S2 - C I am somewhat torn between Piaget and Vigotsky because I could see what Vigotsky is talking  (R) expanded response
about when a child reach about the age of school five years or so forth where they are exposed
to language, they’re exposed to learning so forth the their: mental processes develop and they
could make links: between different concepts and so forth but when a babe is born and before
ok zero to five that age they don’t really know much about language but they’re able to let us
know I need this I need that I need the other so their thought processes is there and it’s working
for them. It’s sort of like (0.1) together I don’t know I kind of caught between the two.

T Can you say that they don’t know that much of a language? Because I think they get bombarded  (F)
with the MOST language information at that point (0.2) cause those are the years in which
they’re acquiring the language so I think that they get just kind of overWHELMed: with all kinds
of linguistic knowledge at that point (0.6)

S1-P [inaudible] [she is saying that thinking and language is not linked↑] (0.3)  (I) student elicits response for
clarification
T I think she  (R) incomplete, interrupted response

S2 - C No I’m saying that they’re linked you know but just I just find it more relevant from age: five and  (F)
so forth and you know like zero to two↑ and those ages and they very young and is mostly you
trying to: connect with the world

T Ryan is burning to say something (0.4)  (I)

S3 - R If you say door opens [inaudible] you get to when they go to school although they are exposed  (R)
 to the language and exposed to the information through reading and so on is the same way they
learnt↑ yes (0.5)

T but↑ (0.1) Cognitivists argue that: learning a language is like learning ANY OTHER cognitive skill.  (F)
It’s no different and that whether: we have caretakers pounding it into them or NOT they going
to acquire the language (0.1) so what does that suggest about the link between language and
thinking and learning? (0.3)

S4 I think Chomsky was saying that [inaudible] so there are certain things we know about the  (R) Expanded response
language that’s that’s in it that that am: as we grow: although we: we are: am: as you say
bombarded with it at the same time we we are able to grasp it it in such as way according to
you at at such ah quick pace according to [inaudible] there’s something innate in us (0.1)

T The language acquisition device that is essential to his critical age hypothesis: (0.2) but: then:  (F)
you have theorist like Vigotsky who will argue that it is social and cultural influence that that
determines language and thinking and it isn’t necessarily something that we had built into our
heads already thought (0.15)

S5 – L Am: with regards to what she was saying about am: language itself becomes more important  (R) student gives an expanded
today at about four or five. If you look at Vigotsky am: well sorry Piaget when he says you response after lengthy pause
know: the am it’s almost as though he’s saying the CONcept is also important at the stage of
zero to two unlike Vigotsky and I think it comes across well when: let’s say a child gets: grasps
the concepts and the actions around him rather than actually what appears I think because HE
might look at you know his mother doing: you know his his father wearing a particular shirt
 everyday or does something everyday and he would be able to link his father with whatever
object it is so that let’s say somebody else comes in so that he may be able to string along two
words to show possession that its his language at that point and then eventually as you grow
older the grammatical structures and all that at the age of four to five when language becomes
important as she says steps in (0.4)

T Well we: we acquire syntactic structures a bit earlier than that you know I think we start  (F)
acquiring syntactic structures about two and a half to three years old before that because we
start stringing words together in a particular order but: it may be more semantic than syntactic
til you’re about three when you start acquiring the: the syntax (0.5) you’re right↑ Piaget is
arguing that: thought and: language are not necessarily linked and Piaget uses that: evidence
from very young children to suggest this now: what you can also argue is that people who
DON’T have a language am: these am: strange forest kind of people that they acquire the the
tribe kind of examples am: who they kind of bring out the the people who lived with no other
people in like these strange areas and all of that (0.2) they: can think, they have concepts they
understand the concept of trees, they understand the concept of ground they understand the
concept of: of hungry but they don’t have language (0.3) at some point we do teach them
vocabulary when we recover them but they don’t understand the syntactic structures at all↑
(L0.1) like am: (0.1) this child who was aged in Siparia some years ago Jullio: (0.1) I think his last
name is: Redding? Or something like that
  (I)
S2 – C [inaudible]

T Uhm?  (I) initiate a response for clarification

S2 – C Jullio Rears (0.6)  (R) basic response

T It’s not anyway his first name is Jullio he was caged as a child because they said he was  (F)
unmanageable they caged him up they didn’t teach him they didn’t interact with him they
obviously did not care for him he: when they found him was not yet seven which is: the critical
age hypothesis am: age and he was able to acquire language↑ he is actually quite a competent
reader my friend says he’s in the library EVERY SINGLE DAY he reads more than any other child
who uses the Siparia Public Library apparently as opposed to these wild woman wild men that
they brought back DO NOT acquire the structures but DO acquire the vocabulary the argument
is that after that critical age there’s some things about language that you don’t acquire. Now
THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that they’re not acquiring the concept associated with it.
Those that mean that they they’re learnt (0.6) and my last class had a very good time defining
thinking and learning and I’m going to torture you all by making you all define it too (0.5) how
could you define thinking (0.16)
  (I)
S6 - A It’s like a: a mental process manifested through language and action↑  (R) basic response

T One two three four↑ five six seven eight nine. Alright we’re going to split up into groups of  (I) initiation for group work
three one two three one two three one two three. I’m giving you: ah: because its agonising four
minutes to come up with a definition for thinking and: come up with a definition for: learning
and your definition that I wrote no next to it was not your definition of thinking you know its
your definition of education (0.8) education is not necessarily [inaudible] education is NOT the
acquisition of skills: or the acquisition of knowledge: education is: much much more we’re
discusses this already in our first tutorial so: we weren’t going into it again. But am: it wasn’t
your definition of thinking which made up [inaudible] alright↑ FOUR MINUTES

Class [inaudible]

T You are:? ONE two three Ryan is with [this group]  (I)

Class [inaudible] (0.36)

S6 – A Thinking and learning we have to define?  (I) initiation for clarification

S4 [inaudible]

S6 – A I said it was a mental process manifested through language and action  (R) basic response
S4 [inaudible]

S6 - A So action? How I supposed to know when somebody thinking  (I)

S4 [inaudible] (0.6)

S3 - R [I was in the class before but I don’t want to say what is thinking we still ent figure it out]  (R)

laughter

[inaudible] (7.0)

T Alright. We’ve run out of time So: we’ll just very very briefly we’ll look at that. Thinking the  (I)
active process whereby an individual makes an analysis of information gathered: or what is
known. Alright. The conscious or unconscious natural mental process which conceptualises the
world real or imaginary around us. A mental process reinforced by language and concepts
manifested through speech action and interaction with the environment. Is thinking necessarily
active? The second definition suggests that it isn’t always necessary necessarily active. The
second definition also adds: another dimension to the first definition instead of just information
gathered: alone. The second definition adds: am: that imaginary element which moves things  (F) feedback on group discussions
into a different place. Which suggest that not only does thinking involve a sensory reception of
the things or concepts in terms of: am: abstract or non-material objects persons places things
which is what am: this final one is arguing. I like the idea that: you all are covering both
information and concepts and: you’re covering both that thinking is: unconscious and conscious.
Now↑ do you all necessarily think in language is the question but we we ran out of time so:
 think about it and answer me next week. Homework. Do we think in language? And if we do:↑
which language do we think in?

 (I)
S6 - A [Spanish]  (R)

T I had asked my form sixers that and: SHOCKINGly most of them told me that they THOUGHT in  (I)
Standard English NOT Creole

laughter

T And I had to send them home to think again. So as I told the last class happy thinking and  (I)
learning I will see you all next week it I forget remind me to ask you all what do you think. Don’t
forget to give me your journals
Table 8.2.5: Annotated Findings for Tutorial E
Speaker Utterance Annotations

P My love is THAT great (0.4)  (R) Final line of student’s presentation

T [Thank you]  (E) Acknowledges student’s contribution

Clapping

S [yeah!]  (R)

T Any questions?  (I) calls for a verbal response from students

S I doh I doh think he necessarily: MOCKing de whole: Roman Catholic way  (R) Student responds to the Tutor’s invitation to
of Canonization right. But I think kinna way like (L 0.1) hmm he kinna comment
looking at it from the spiritual level↓ for anyone who he sees (0.1) fit or  (I) Initiation of topic for discussion through
deserving of heaven (0.1) daz what I feel uhhm (0.2) response

M It doesn’t seem as if he’s am: MOCKing the Federation of Saints only: am:  (R) Furthers the discussion which the previous
the structures or:: [yuh know de common circumstance] of surrounding student initiated
sainthood things like that am:: of the ceremony [various] kind of you
know levels of playin ground saying that anyone could (L 0.1) as long as
you have this mind set and this feeling

T Uhhm (0.4) k any comments (0.2)  (E) follow up utterance – rounds off the triad

 (I) calls for a verbal response from students

S No I’m good  (R) Basic response

T ok what about the presentation  (E) follow-up response

 (I) calls for a verbal response from students

S Excellent presentation. Very good  (R) Basic response

T Very good. Very good (0.2) u don’t have any comments right?  (E) acknowledges student response

 (I) Checking to confirm students’ grasp of

information
8.3 Letters
 8.3.1 E-mailed letter to Tutors of the Department of Liberal Arts

Dear Tutor,

LING 3099: Request for a brief description of tut sessions

We are final year undergraduate students, in the Department of Liberal Arts

Humanities and Education and are currently conducting our Special Project in
Linguistics (Ling 3099) Research Paper, under the supervision of Professor Valerie
Youseff.

Our study looks at classroom interaction in Tutorial sessions and how this facilitates
critical thinking. We recognise your position as tutors in the Department of Liberal
Arts and we do hold you in high regard.  As such, we have hand picked you to
provide us with a brief description of the role of tutorial sessions at the university
as it relates to critical thinking.

 Undoubtedly, your contribution in the course of this study is invaluable. 

 We anticipate a speedy response and are grateful for your time, cooperation and
understanding.

 Regards,

Group E Special Project in LInguistics

Vishmala Bissessar o5718994

Alana Z Hosein 05783024

Shivana Mohammed 05726337

 8.3.2 Tutors’ Response to Letters

Dear Group E,

 
I will try to answer the questions in the order you've given.
 
1. Since I expect that you can get a university definition of this term, I believe
that you are asking for one with which I work. I see a tutorial session as being an
opportunity for students to hash-out any issues they may have with the material
with which they are treating in the course. This can take the form of a
presentation, group exercises or general discussions on the material. In essence,
a tutorial provides the sort of immediate feedback that many students might not
feel comfortable gaining in a large setting like a lecture and, hopefully, the
interactivity to hold their attention.
 
2. I think the answer to this might be buried in the above answer. The tutorial
session's purpose is to basically reinforce the material that the students have
been dealing with in lectures and to provide a smaller, more approachable, space
in which they feel comfortable enough to err.
 
3. Once again I suppose this is asking for my opinion/definition of the term.
Critical thinking has to do more with developing an ethos than it does with any
particular one thing. Critical thinking is that ability to not just question the things
around oneself, but to question one's self. My best summation of it (if that is even
possible for a controversial term such as this) is that it is a blend of rational
thought and inquiry.
4 & 5. I do make a conscious effort to have students arrive at answers on their
own during tutorials without divulging everything all of the time. A fair amount of
time is spent discussing what was just said during presentations and the like.
Most importantly though, during the session, I ask questions which the students
can only answer by extrapolating from the material that they know towards an
answer that may take them somewhere else. In this sense I do believe that the
tutorials foster critical thinking.
 
6. Neither. The faculty is a proponent of the humanist philosophy of learning in
which teachers act as guides and facilitators to students as they become
responsbile for their own learning. In a real sense this requires cooperation
between both tutor and student which, hopefully, is not poisoned by the inherent
power bias of the tutor-tutee relationship. I believe that neither should really
dominate the session if we intend it to be that comfortable space I described
earlier.
 
I hope this helps,
Ryan Durgasingh
9. REFERENCES
 Bibliography

Atkins, Andrew. Sinclair and Coulthard's 'IRF' Model in a One to One Classroom: An
Analysis. July 2001.
"Classroom Interaction." Theory and Practice of Education. n.d.
Dewey, John “The Democratic Conception in Education” Democracy in Education 15

March 2008
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education/Section_7#The_De
mocratic_Ideal

Fairclough, Norman. "Discourse and Social Change." n.d.

---, Language and Power. n.d.
Hall, Joan Kelly and Meghan Walsh. "Teacher Student Interaction and Language
Learning." Annual Review of Applied LInguistics 22 (2002): 186-203.
Harris, Robert. “Introduction to Critical Thinking” Visual Salt January 1, 2001
<http://www.virtualsalt.com>
Howe, Christine. Gender and Classroom Interaction: A Research Review. The
Scottish Council of Research in Education, 1997.
Langford, David. Analysing Talk. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1994.
McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Teachers. London: Cambridge University Press,
1991.
Neill, James “John Dewey, The Modern Father of Experimental Education” 15 March

2008 http://wilderdom.com/experiential/ExperientialDewey.html

“Progressive Living: What is Progressivism?” 15 March 2008

http://www.progressiveliving.org/progressivism.htm

Richards, Keith. "Identity and Classroom Conversation." Applied Linguistics 21

(2006): 51-77.
Simich-Dudgeon, Carmen. “Classroom Strategies for Encouraging Collaborative

Discussion” Ed. Patricia Anne DiCerbo Directions in Language and

Education: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, No. 12, Summer

1998. 15 March 2008 http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/directions/12.htm

Sinclair, J and Coulthard M. Toward an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford
University Press, 1975.
--- Toward and Analysis of Dicourse. London: Routledge,
1992.
"The Discourse of Education." Describing Discourse. n.d.
“The Faculty of Humanities and Education”. The University of the West Indies at St

Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago 31 March 2008 <http://sta.uwi.edu/fhe/ >

“The Institute of Critical Thinking”. UWI St Augustine 31 March 2008

<http://sta.uwi.edu/cms/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1>

UWI Undergraduate Prospectus 2004

“Triad”. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Ed. Della Thompson.
New

York: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Youseff, Valerie. "An Alphabet of Conversational Features." January 2008.

Wardhaugh, Ronald. How Conversation Works. New York: Basil Blackwell Publisher
Limited, 1985.
ENDNOTES