Table 3 makes visible a slight difference between the two knowledge domains of
the object of acquisition, with respect to their accompanying forms of pedagogic
interaction: where M is the primary object, at least for the duration of this IP, there
was a wider range of types of pedagogic interaction used (six types out of eight
possible types) than where T was the primary object (four out of eight). We note
further that during the sub-events where M was the major object, a high proportion
(83 %) contained lecturer questioning (where the lecturer interacts with students on an
individual or small group or whole group basis, asking questions, not to elicit
answers, but to get them to consider possibilities/evaluate their own thinking and
promote discussion). At the same time, the lecturer did not use lecturer controlled
questioning and answer sessions at all across the whole IP (where the lecturer elicits
answers to specific questions in order to evaluate specific texts), nor was any
nontrivial student questioning identified. This was also the general pedagogic style
where T was the main object of acquisition. What this similarity masks is the
substantive difference in how the two knowledge domains were regulated in the IP,
and it is only when the third level of analysis is applied that this difference is
illuminated.