“… And finally ”:

Lessons from Conversation Analysis to

enhance the lecture closing experience

Dr Rachel D. Bromnick, Dr Ava D. Horowitz & Ms Megan Kemp

School of Psychology

Problematic Packing Away Behaviour

• Defined as the growing restlessness and

chatter, that can occur towards the end of

a lecture, when students begin to pack

away before the lecturer has finished

talking

Overview of the Workshop

Overview of the Workshop

• When packing away becomes a problem

• Staff & students

• Your experience: Discussion

• Packing away as a research problem

• PPAB in research context

• Our pilot study

• Some shared tips for good practice

• Conclusion

Packing away as a problem

The pedagogic literature on

lectures

delivery

The pedagogic literature on

lectures

• Very little on ending lectures

• Other than to advise having a summary

• But we don’t think PPAB is a trivial

issue….

PPAB

• Can lead to frustration and animosity

• Lecturer with the students

• Students with the lecturer

• Students with other students

• Lecturers with other lecturers

• Allegations of rudeness

PPAB

• Can lead to anxiety

• For the highly engaged student

• For hearing impaired students and those

audio-taping the lecture

Consequences of PPAB

• Becomes an issue that needs managing

Your experience: Discussion

Problematic Packing Away

1. Have you ever experienced it?

2. What do you think causes it?

3. Who is being rude?

Packing Away as a Research

Problem

PPAB in Research Context

• We would like to offer a way into PPAB

that comes from …

• Conversation Analysis (CA)

Conversation Analysis (CA)

• An in-depth, empirical, qualitative analysis

of actual conversation & other types of talk

• Look at what really happens

• (Rather than thinking we know!)

Active Production of Orderliness

CA says …

• Orderliness of conversation = an active accomplishment by interactants

• The current ‘project’ gets jointly produced by all present

• E.g.

• Informal chat

• Work meeting

• University lecture

• Conference workshop (!)

University Lectures

From a CA perspective

• Institutionalised interaction

• Varying in routine ways from normal,

informal conversation

• Accomplished as such by the people

taking part in them

Conversation: Getting a long turn

• May not realise, but …

• The only way to get a long turn is …

• By others not coming in

Classic Example:

Rhetorical Questions

Have any of you heard of Daniel Kahneman?

CA … Signal Displays

• People are constantly displaying signals to

each other

• About what they are doing in conversation

• And, reciprocally, looking for/interpreting

signals from others

Our Interest Today

• The institutional encounter of the

university lecture

• Specifically …

• What happens at the end of lectures

“Closings”

• Let’s start with some encounters that are

NOT the university lecture

• Useful lessons from these

• You should be able to spot many of the areas

of overlap …

Normal Conversational Closings

Dilemma … How do you get

out of it?

I speak You speak

So … “Closings”

• Have to be actively accomplished

Closings Get Flagged Up

• People flag up that an ending is coming

• This gets everyone on board

• Ending gets jointly accomplished

Basic Format (Real Example)

B: Alrighty. Well I’ll give you a

call before we decide to

come down. O.K.?

C: O.K.

B: Alrighty

C: O.K.

B: Well see you then

C: O.K.

B: Bye bye

C: Bye (Adapted from Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 91)

Closing

implicative topic

Pre-closings:

Passing turns

Closings:

Terminal elements

Institutional Closings Example 1

• Doctor-patient encounters

• Robinson (2001)

• Key thing to note …

• In the medical encounter

• Tend to be activities like

• Filling out prescriptions

• Making arrangements for the future

• E.g. “I’ll see you again in a couple of months”

• Like normal pre-closings

• Signal patient of upcoming closing

• Gets patient ready to collaborate in next step

of closing

“Closing-relevant Environments”

Institutional Closings Example 2

• Departmental Business Meetings

• Nielsen (2013)

• Some useful things to note …

Chairperson

• We are all familiar with the fact that …

• Meetings regularly have an official

“Chairperson” who is (amongst other things)

• Formal, authorised “meeting closer”

Meetings Have Set Duration

• Another familiar detail

• However

• Can end early

• May overrun (more relevant to us)

Two Upshots

• Time-relevant actions

• Non-chair activity

Time-relevant Actions

• Common Chairperson Pre-Closing activity

• Make a concluding remark

• Same comment at a different time …

• (i.e. outside of a closing-relevant

environment)

• … is NOT (treated as) a pre-closing signal

• But in a closing-relevant environment

• It becomes a concluding remark

Non-Chair Activity:

Eagerness to Leave

• Non-chair participants NOT just passive

• Key closing activity by non-chair

participants = display eagerness to leave

• E.g.

• Shift around in seat

• Check watch

• Collect up pens & papers

• Can also actually leave!

University Lectures

• No CA so far

• But Cheng’s (2012) rhetorical analysis

useful …

Pre-Closing Activities

• Cheng reported especially

• Raising issues for discussion

• Summarising/reviewing lecture’s key points

• Explaining course-related issues,

• E.g. homework or exams

• Particularly not …

• Offering any new lecture content

Closing Activities

• E.g.

• Informing of future plans

• E.g. What is coming up in next lecture

• Dismissing the class

• Explicitly declaring end of lecture

Activity Rates • In sample of 56 lectures

• ≈ 90% included Closing activities

• But only 39% included Pre-Closing activities

• Thus, most often

• Lecturer talks until end of class & ends with briefest of closing activity

• Cheng highlights … this is

• Despite teaching guidance advising lectures to end with

• Summary &

• Time for student questions

Out Pilot Study

• Looking for

• Lecturers’ closing signals &

• ‘Problematic packing away behaviour’

(PPAB)

Method: Sample

• Ethical approval

• Observations

• Small sample of psychology lectures

• Different staff members

• Mostly big lectures (200+ students)

• N = 8

Method: Data

• Audio-recordings (whole lecture)

• PowerPoint slides (whole lecture)

• Ethnographic notes (mostly late in lecture)

• Student activity - especially PPAB

• E.g.

• Timing of talking level rising

• Timing of shuffling & other movements

• Lecturer physical movements

• Including timings

Findings

• Most common

• Abrupt closing without pre-closing activity

• Mostly = lecture content up to a sudden ‘thank

you” or declaration of lecture end

• Where these were within time

• Little PPAB with such closings

• Just overlapped the ending words

• Here’s an example …

Abrupt Closing Example 1. L: I I know it’s a bit strange

2. but this stuff comes from

3. they- its quite er

4. interesting

5. OKAY erm

6. S: [((small noise increase))

7. L: [(thank you for your

8. attention)

9. S: [((packing & chatting noises))

10. L: [(I will go through the

11. few last slides next week)

12. okay?

Findings

• In contrast

• Pre-closing activities brought PPAB

• Here’s an example …

Pre-closing & PPAB Example

1. L: Okay (.) summary

2. S: [((general chatting &

packing away noise))

3. L: [so, glutamate is

4. the main excitatory

5. neurotransmitter in

6. the brain …

• 47 minutes into 50 minute lecture …

Lessons

• What can we learn from

• Our pilot

• Relevant CA?

Expect PPAB!

• Lecturer pre-closing activity, e.g.

• Summarising/reviewing lecture coverage

• Raising issues for discussion

• Course-related announcements

… produces …

• Student pre-closing activity, i.e.

• PPAB!

• Can even be an explicit ‘hint’!

PPAB Avoidance…

• Experienced lecturers seemingly learn to

manage PPAB issue by …

• Avoiding pre-closing signals

• Which avoids pre-closing activity by students

• They instead jump straight to closing activity

• Which gets overlapped by PPAB but without

disruption

• Because it is not content but display

PPAB is Time-sensitive

• Like (most) departmental business meetings

• Lectures have designated duration

• Thus

• Expect late section of lecture to constitute a closing relevant environment

• N.B. Same activity earlier ≠ closing-implicative

Sharing Tips for Good Practice

Discussion

• What tips would we offer as a group to

lecturers and students about managing

PPAB?

Managing timings during a

lecture

Belbin’s team role preference

Thinking

People Action

Implementer

Shaper

Completer Finisher Team-worker

Co-ordinator

Resource

Investigator

Plant

Monitor Evaluator

Specialist

Coordinator CO

Characteristics: Mature, confident, good chairperson, clarifies goals; promotes decision making; delegates well; recognises where team's strengths and weaknesses lie and ensures best use is made of each member’s potential.

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Can be seen as manipulative; offload personal work.

Suggested Task Allocation

Should be best person to co-ordinate group effort; ensures that everyone has a useful role and team works towards common and agreed goal.

Shaper SH

Characteristics: Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure; drive and encourage to overcome obstacles; shapes way in which team effort is applied, directing attention generally to objectives and priorities’ seeks to impose some shape or pattern on group discussion and on outcome of group activities

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Prone to provocation; offends people’s feelings.

Suggested Task Allocation

Should be person best suited to overcome obstacles and opposition; create a sense of urgency and ensures that talk is turned into worthwhile action.

Plant SH

Characteristics: Creative, imaginative, unorthodox, solves difficult problems; redefines problems; advances new ideas and strategies with special attention to major issues and possible breaks in approach to group problem.

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Ignores incidentals; too preoccupied to communicate effectively

Suggested Task Allocation

Should do most problem solving or be responsible for generating new strategies or ideas and proposing solutions to rest of team.

Monitor

Evaluator ME

Characteristics: Sober, strategic, discerning; sees all options; judges accurately; analyses problems; evaluates ideas and suggestions so team is better placed to take balanced decision.

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Lacks drive and ability to inspire others

Suggested Task Allocation

Should be responsible for ensuring all worthwhile options are considered; needs a key role in planning; an arbiter in event of controversy.

Resource Investigator

RI

Characteristics: Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative; explores opportunities, develops contracts; explores reports on ideas, developments and resources outside groups; creates external contracts that may be useful to team; conduct negotiations.

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Over-optimistic; loses enthusiasm once initial enthusiasm has passed

Suggested Task Allocation

Should be responsible for developing outside contacts and exploring new opportunities; needs a chance to conduct negotiations but must report back to group.

Team

Worker TW

Characteristics: Support members in their strengths; e.g. Building on suggestions, underpinning members in their shortcomings, improving communications between members and fostering team spirit generally.

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Indecisive in crunch situations

Suggested Task Allocation

Should play a floating role, using versatile qualities to help with features of work that thers cannot manage. Should use diplomatic skills to overcome conflict.

Implementer

IMP

Characteristics: Turns concepts and ideas into practical working procedures; carries out agreed plans systematically and efficiently.

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Somewhat inflexible: show to respond to new possibilities.

Suggested Task Allocation

Should be appointed organiser, responsible for procedures and practical steps to be taken once team reaches significant decisions.

Completer

Finisher CF

Characteristics: Ensures team is protected as far as possible from mistakes of both commission and omission; actively searches for aspects of work that need a more than usual degree of attention; maintains sense of urgency within team.

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Inclined to worry unduly. Slow to respond to new possibilities.

Suggested Task Allocation

Should ensure team’s work meets necessary deadlines and conforms to highest standards. Responsible for ensuring no inaccuracies or errors.

Specialist

SP

Characteristics: Feeds technical information into group; translate from general into technical terms. Contributes professional viewpoint on subject under discussion

Tolerable Weaknesses:

Contributes on only a narrow front; dwells on technicalities

Suggested Task Allocation

Should provide focus on technical issues confronting team; should provide knowledge and techniques in short supply.

Conclusion

References Cheng, S.W. (2012). ‘‘That’s it for today’’: Academic lecture closings and

the impact of class size. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 234–248.

DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.004.

Kahu, E.R. (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education,

Studies in Higher Education, 38:5, 758–773. DOI:

10.1080/03075079.2011.598.

Nielsen, M.F. (2013). “Stepping Stones” in Opening and Closing

Department Meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 50:1, 34–

67. DOI: 10.1177/0021943612465182.

Robinson, J.D. (2001). Closing medical encounters: two physician

practices and their implications for the expression of patients’ unstated

concerns. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 639–656. DOI:

10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00366-X.

Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8,

289–327. DOI: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.