Clarification Checks

In a simple information exchange, the questioner positions themselves as less knowledgeable (i.e. K−) and is seeking a K+ response from anyone who can help.

A successful exchange will involve a K+ response. In instructional talk a tutor (K+) asks a question, builds on the answer with prompts and cues and finally confirms or provides an answer. The turns-at-talk indicate that the tutor has a specific intention or learning point in mind, has themselves a higher epistemic stance and status, and we assume and later see that the recipient either doesn’t know or needs help in arriving at the answer. In contrast, although similar in the format (question, answer (evaluation)), confirmation checks are subtly different in that the starting point is to check the understanding of content the speaker has previously made, i.e. the recipient of the question is at least to some extent already regarded as K+. The questioner may be a student checking their own

understanding of points the recipient has introduced. They do this by either checking or building on their knowledge, as a repetition, reformulation or as an additional question. In the case of the tutor, they are checking the accuracy of information the speaker holds. In either case the information request comes from a speaker who also has at least some knowledge. The questions ask for further demonstration of knowledge (Koole, 2010). That is to say, the person asking the question is asking for information and checking either that their own information is correct (from the point of view of a student¹⁴) or that the speaker understands a point (from the point of view of the tutor or at times students).

While both seek to redress knowledge imbalances, this checking is in contrast to instructional talk, which aims to guide students to unknown information. As we shall see in PBL2s the responses appear to involve fuller answers as students frequently have more to say.

Example 18 illustrates a tutor-led clarification check. This excerpt occurs in the follow-up discussion stage to a presentation in PBL12.2. One of the tutors asks the student to clarify the difference between syndromic and nonsyndromic cleft.

In this example, the tutor (both more knowledgeable and with more rights to knowledge) asks confirmation check questions about a specific aspect that the recipient of the question has researched (i.e. and so who should at least to some degree be K+). Questions continue until the tutor receives a satisfactory

response.

(18)

01 S38T6: can (,) can i ask you ehm (,)

02 you spoke about syndromic cleft versus nonsyndromic cleft 03 what what's the difference?

04 S7: syndromic clefting is where um (1)

05 it is it has a particular inheritance pattern (1) 06 in the family (.)

07 when in nonsyndromic occurs sporadic most of the times (1) 08 S38T6: but it wouldn't be (1)

09 sporadic if there's a genetic cause (2)

10 S7: uhm (,) a mu- a mutation in these loci could be sporadic 11 which causes nonsyndromic clefts (.)

14 Students may in fact be very knowledgeable in an area, for example having expertise from previous studies, or having researched the area themselves.

12 (3)

13 but (2) ((S27 whispers it's not inherited behind S7)) 14 um it's not inherited yeah

15 S38T6: ok ehm (,) (2) right (.) [next question removed] (PBL12.2)

The tutor (S38T6) starts off with a pre-opening, signalling they will ask a question (can i ask). Given that the topic is immediately introduced in line 2 followed by the specific question in line 3, what is the difference?, this opener acts as a token of politeness. Having researched the area, S7 is in a supposed K+

position and gives their response (essentially that syndromic cleft is inherited, and nonsyndromic cleft is sporadic) interspersed with brief pauses (although not interrupted) in lines 4 to 7.

In lines 8 to 9, the tutor contests this answer indicated by the disjunct but and by contesting the student’s point on sporadic and inheritance (i.e. that it can’t be sporadic if it is genetic/inherited). This is responding to the immediately preceding point asserting their higher epistemic stance and knowledge of the subject area (nonsyndromic is not sporadic if it has a genetic cause). This is followed by a pause of 2 seconds. The student then starts to repeat the point (lines 10 to 11) about sporadic occurrence. The pause may indicate online planning or indicate uncertainty at this point; the latter appears to be the case when we then see S27 whisper behind S7 it’s not inherited, which is then

repeated by S7. This confirms the tutor’s point and is then accepted with the ok acceptance token. The tutor then continues with another follow up question (not shown here). The tutor’s concern here is with checking that the information provided by the student is correct. In order to satisfy the tutor, the student needs to demonstrate, rather than just claim, understanding of the content.

In summary, the recipient of the information request in these checks is regarded to some extent as knowledgeable and it is expected that they can provide

extended responses. This is particularly noticeable in the PBL2s after a period of study. However, the requester is also in these examples building on some

previous knowledge and could be said to be somewhere on the epistemic stance gradient (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b); epistemic stance is relative. When it is the tutor asking, they are likely to be regarded by all as having both higher

epistemic stance and status (e.g., the tutor in Example 18). The requester also

assumes the right to continue questioning until satisfied or other students start to join in (observed in other examples of similar episodes). There are often chained question-answer sequences of turns and may include (but not always) a final evaluation. In this type of talk the responses are also frequently long demonstrations of knowledge.

Clarification checks then indicate at their starting point some shared access to

“epistemic territory” (Heritage, 2012a, p. 4), indicated by repetition of

questions and responses in their attempts to redress an imbalance. These checks again demonstrate the collaborative nature of the development of content knowledge.

The types of talk discussed so far have shown how PBLs are managed and how knowledge imbalances are dealt with through highly interactive turns-at-talk.

The next section looks at the interactive aspects of the longer student report or presentation, another form of talk related to developing subject knowledge.