Simple Knowledge Exchanges

In simple knowledge exchanges, an information request is made indicating the requester’s lower (K−) epistemic stance. Examples (13) and (14) below show how other participants respond with a knowing (K+) response.

In Example 13 to follow, before this exchange all the students have had time to read the scenario and the Scribe has drawn a visual representation of the

pedigree on the board. The Chair (S1) opens the phase at line 1 with a FPP question about any unknown terms, asserting their right to direct the discussion in the role of Chair. The question is directed to the whole group, opening up the floor to all to make requests for information (i.e. to self-identify knowledge gaps) and to any participant who can, to define. Participants self-nominate to respond.

(13)

01 S1: are there any (,) words and phrases anyone (,)

02 doesn’t understand wants to define? (2) ((looking round)) 03 S3: what does it mean hemizygosity? ((looks at S1))

04 (4)

05 S4: i think it’s when there’s only like one copy (2) 06 ((S7 also nods in agreement at the same time)) 07 S3: isn’t it homozygosity? (1)

08 S4: i think its cos it’s only one there’s only one copy or something

09 (11)

10 S1: are there any other?

11 S5: C (,) GH

12 (3)

13 yeah

14 S3: is it not a techniques that's (,) [=com 15 S7: [yeah

16 S4: =comparative geno=

17 S7: = genomic hybridisation (PBL7.1)

After the opening question in line 1, there is a brief silence followed by a SPP question in line 3, when S3 makes an information request for the meaning of hemizygosity. In fact, this SPP becomes the FPP for the following response. S4 looks first at the Chair who instead of answering directly looks around the room allowing another participant to speak. S4 provides a response, downplayed with an i think (line 5). S7 agrees with this with a nonverbal nod. However, S3 queries the verbal response with a similar term (homozygosity). S4 repeats the

information (one copy), again downplayed with i think and also adds or

something at the end and, despite this tentativeness, this appears to be taken as the term. The discussion then moves on to a new question at line 10 with no further acknowledgement or action by S3. (Sometime later in the PBL, however, S3 makes use of this definition and at that stage there is evidence that it has been accepted.)

Here we have an initial question (line 1) which serves as an instruction, shaping the following sequence of question and answer in response, i.e. the response in the form of a question opens a new FPP and question and answer sequence (lines 3 to 8). This series is amongst students and is not always followed by a

confirmation nor is an acceptance or change of state token (such as ok or oh) provided. The lack of evaluation may be because the questioner has not positioned themselves as K+, and so is also not in a position to offer an evaluation on the veracity of the response.

This pattern is repeated in lines 10 to 17 in a second sequence of an initiatory question followed by a response by S5 at lines 11 to 13 with C, GH, the speaker themselves confirming the abbreviation at line 13 with yeah. This time S3 makes a tentative suggestion, downplayed in the form of a question (is it not a

techniques). This is confirmed by S7 at line 15, immediately followed by S4, who

starts to explain the abbreviation, finished off by S7 at line 17. Here three participants contribute to fulfilling the information request. This time we have a question and answer with the SPP answer started by S3 (line 14), confirmed and developed by S7, with S4 also confirming and overlapping with S7, but again with no acknowledgement or confirmation by the requester (S5).

Essentially, we see a pattern of an initiatory question which opens the floor to subsequent question and answer sequences, with a question or term given (e.g., C, GH) as an information request followed by a short response. In both these extracts the responder downplays their K+ epistemic status with a hedge, i think, or indirect response, is it not a. The sequences are quite short and no further discussion of the terms occurs here. This occurs primarily when the phase of identifying unknown terms is signalled and kept as a distinct stage. The students appear clearly orientated to the aim of explaining when they know the meaning. In a number of extracts such as these, there is no further discussion of these terms and the tutorial then moves on. As such they are ‘standalone’

examples of information requests. However, this type of information exchange may also start off longer stretches of problem-solving exploratory talk. This is discussed in 3.7.3.

In one PBL, clarification of a linguistic item was requested¹³:

(14)

01 S33: what about assured? ((looking down at papers)) 02 S34: assured? like if i keep telling you it's going to be ok 03 i've given you assurance

04 S33: ah assurance ok (PBL9.1)

Prior to this extract, students have either been listing unknown terms or explaining ones they know to each other. In Example 14, S33 asks specifically about the meaning of assured. S34 responds looking directly to S33 with a confirmation check question by repeating assured with a rising intonation but immediately provides an explanation in lines 2-3. S33 acknowledges

understanding, or rather makes a claim to understand (Koole, 2010) with a

13An allowance for this type of specific language related request is built into the guidelines and directed to students whose first language is not English (see Appendix 1, point 1).

confirmation acknowledgement ah, which I would suggest here is similar to ‘oh’, operating as a change of state token (Heritage, 1984, p. 299), a repeat of

assurance and the confirmation token ok. Here we see an IRF pattern, in the form of a ‘genuine’ question but rather than a teacher asking, we see a student information request, a student response, and a student acknowledgement of change of state (i.e., the third move acknowledges).

In Example 15 below from PBL11.1, we see how a known and an unknown term might be dealt with.

(15)

01 S28: thank you very much (,) er S25, 02 is there any terminology problem?

03 S7: FAP [?]

04 S29: yeah MAP

05 S25: MAP i’ve never heard of.

06 FAP (,) i think, Familial ((looks to S5)) 07 S5: Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

08 S25: mm ((laughs) yeah 09 S7: ok (PBL11.1)

S28, the Chair, thanks S25, who has just read out the scenario and then asks the group for unknown terms (line 2). FAP and MAP are both called out (lines 3 to 4).

The unknown term (MAP) is merely listed, with one student making it clear they do not know the term (line 5) and no one else offers a definition. Most likely due to the specific purpose of this stage, but unlike the findings of Jakonen and Morton (2013), students do not continue exploring the term. In line 6, S25 in a tentative tone starts to offer the full term for FAP, which is completed by S5.

S25 then acknowledges this with mm, laughter and yeah acknowledging the help, as does S7 with ok. S5 later goes on to provide more terminology in the PBL, who now seems to be regarded as K+ in this area (see Jakonen and Morton, 2013 for a similar pattern).

This phase of checking terms and language, which is intended to be a point where a ‘knower’ can share information, is typically quite short when kept as a distinct section. There is either an exchange of information, or a listing of unknown terms. When a participant can answer, they do; typically, when the

sequence of questions and answers is complete, the students proceed on to a new term. Not all information requests and responses are finished off by an evaluation or acknowledgement.

However, the fuller discussion of terms typically occurs in the discussion of main issues or when the unknown terms phase merges into the “discussion of issues”

and becomes part of problem-solving exploratory talk.