3.4.6 Follow-ups

This final category of comments made by the following team comprises statements made in the imperative mood.  These statements indicate that the following team feels the need for an improvement in either the quality and / or the quantity of information and instructions from the leading team.

Demands for information (DDSINFOF) for example, “Gif us as much info as possible” and “Send something”
These imperatives indicate that the following team wishes to have more information than the leading team is presently making available.  In the examples above, they are, respectively, “give us as much information as possible” and “send something”.

‘Helicopter’ imperative (HELIF) for example, “Do not give inch by inch detail”
These imperatives are so named using the metaphor of the bird’s-eye-view afforded by a riding in a helicopter.  They indicate that the following team is seeking the ‘big picture’ of large portions of the route, or even the entire route.

Table 4 below presents a frequency table of all the discourse types used.

Tables 5 to 7 focus on the various discourse types used by the participants in their exchange of text-messages, as they attempted to complete the orienteering task successfully.

Table 5 presents an independent-samples t-test comparing the number of discourse types used by participants who had been successful in the orienteering task, against those who had not been successful.

It can be seen from the above table that the t-statistics generated fall within the 95% confidence interval.  This indicates that there is no significant difference between the number of discourse types used between those who had been successful in the orienteering task and those who had not.

Table 6 presents the results of a discriminant analysis of the three groups of discourse types used by participants who were trying to communicate the route directions to their respective following pairs.

It can be seen from the above data that leading pairs who successfully completed the orienteering task used significantly more ‘interactional scaffolds’ (for example, ‘questions seeking elaboration’ and ‘directed tips’) than those who had not been successful in communicating the given route to their respective following pairs.

Table 7 presents the results of a discriminant analysis of the three groups of discourse types used by participants who were trying to follow the route directions issued by the leading pairs.

It can be seen from the above data that following pairs who successfully completed the orienteering task used significantly more ‘follow-ups’ (for example, ‘demands for information’ and the ‘helicopter imperative’) than those who had not been successful in deducing the route from their respective leading pairs.

What conversations did the students have as they attempted to guide and follow each other in the orienteering task?  Some previous analyses of discourse types (Klein and Pridemore, 1994; Doran and Klein, 1999; Uribe, Klein and Sullivan, 2003) have employed a four-category model (question, answer, discussion, and off-task remark).  Such categorisations were too coarse and would not satisfactorily help to address the research questions of this study.

It was found that the ‘lead’ pairs in the successful teams used the following discourse types more frequently than their counterparts in the unsuccessful teams:
•    Instructions (issued once every 6.9 minutes on average, compared to once every 9 minutes for ‘lead’ pairs in the unsuccessful teams; t = 1.006, p = 0.344).
•    Directed tips (for example, “The signb0ard is hiden am0ng the trees” and “It’s between the veritas and an0ther building” – these were used once every 6.8 minutes by successful ‘lead’ pairs, compared to once every 14.2 minutes by unsuccessful ‘lead’ pairs; t = 2.312, p = 0.050).
Together, the above means that every three minutes or so, successful ‘lead’ pairs would have either issued an instruction or a directed tip.

Successful ‘lead’ pairs also used the following discourse types, which their counterparts in the unsuccessful teams did not at all:
•    Questions seeking elaboration (for example “Wat ting yes?” and “Found.. Pls specify again..”).
•    Questions addressing misconceptions (for example, “U gt cr0s the rd ar? U cant cr0s it” and “U didn’t walk towards the p0ol rite?Er ,u c0uldnt walk there.”).
•    Questions seeking to verify attainment, specifically by utilising learner’s own terms / modalities (for example, “Y g0t hses?” and “What is the mms u send?”).
•    Conditional presentations of alternative (for example, “If you do not, find the track.” and “Or jus try ur best to find xiao guiling first”).
•    Statements of assurance (for example, “i tel u where to go after that”).

As described in Table 2, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed on the various discourse types used by the ‘lead’ pairs, and this resulted in three major categories of discourse, namely ‘task frames’ (questions checking for understanding, questions seeking to determine or verify attainment, instructions and re-instructions, and exploratory questions), ‘interactional scaffolds’ (questions seeking elaboration, conditional presentations of alternative, and directed tips) and ‘acknowledgments’.

A discriminant analysis (Table 6) performed on the three discourse categories demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the number of so-called ‘interactional scaffolds’ between successful and unsuccessful ‘lead’ pairs.

Unsuccessful ‘lead’ pairs used ‘declarations of lack of understanding’ (for example, “Wat talkin u”), which their counterparts in the successful teams did not at all.

As for the ‘follow’ pairs in the successful teams, they used the following discourse types more frequently than their counterparts in the unsuccessful teams:
•    Statements reporting attainment (for example, “Reach le”, “Hav le. Found p” and “We r at hse no.26. ,jln rumia rd” – these were used once every 5.6 minutes by successful ‘follow’ pairs, compared to once every 6.9 minutes by unsuccessful ‘follow’ pairs; t = 0.850, p = 0.420).
•    Procedural questions (for example, “Then hw” and “Wat is nex” – used once every 8.1 minutes, compared to once every 11.4 minutes; t = 0.850, p = 0.420).
•    Demands for information (for example, “Gif us as much info as possible” and “Send something” – used once every 18.6 minutes, compared to once every 43.1 minutes; t = 1.505, p = 0.171).
Successful ‘follow’ pairs also used the ‘helicopter’ imperative (for example, “Do not give inch by inch detail”), which their counterparts in the unsuccessful teams did not at all.

As described in Table 3, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed on the various discourse types used by the ‘follow’ pairs, and this resulted in three major categories of discourse, namely ‘task frames’ (questions seeking elaboration, procedural questions, and statements or questions seeking to either verify or report attainment), ‘follow-ups’ (demands for information and ‘helicopter’ imperatives) and ‘clarifications’. 

Performing a discriminant analysis (Table 7) showed that successful ‘follow’ pairs expressed signficantly more ‘follow-ups’, and fewer ‘clarifications’ than their counterpart members in the unsuccessful ‘follow’ pairs.

To conclude, this chapter has elaborated upon the research methodology adopted, as well as how the present intervention was implemented in four schools in Singapore.  The derivation of a proprietary classifcation scheme of the various discourse modes produced during the orienteering portion of the field-based activity has also been presented.  In the following chapter, the quantitative data obtained from the pre- and post-tests, as well as from the field-based intervention, will be presented and discussed.

<- 3.4.5 Clarifications          -> 4 Results and Discussion of Main Study