Moves, Intentions and the Language of Feedback Commentaries in Education

Mirador, Josephine

doi:10.17509/ijal.v4i1.599

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nelson and Shunn (2009) argue that expressions which code criticism and praise in peer reviews are features of affective language (for example, hedges, personal attribution and questions). To identify these expressions, we draw from existing research on affective and cognitive discourse features (Mirador 2014).…”

Section: Search Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Nelson and Schunn (2009) demonstrate mitigating criticism has little effect on revision. Regardless of the combination of positive and negative feedback, Ferris (1997) and Mirador (2014) make a salient point that almost all peer reviews that lead to revision are negative: students tend to reflect and act on negative comments but disregard the positive peer comments (Hattie andTimperley 2007, Olsson Jers andWärnsby 2017). Moreover, positive feedback may cause the student to misunderstand the significance of negative comments and ignore the necessity to implement changes (Shute 2008).…”

Section: Figure 5 Distribution Of Cognitive Verbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Affective Language in Student Peer Reviews: Exploring Data from Three Institutional Contexts

Wärnsby

Kauppinen

Aull

et al. 2018

JoAW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although peer review is a common practice in writing classrooms, there are still few studies that analyze written patterns in students' peer reviews across multiple institutional contexts. Based on a sample of approximately 50,000 peer reviews written by students at the University of South Florida (USF), Malmö University (MAU), and the University of Tartu (UT), this study examines how students formulate criticism and praise, negotiate power relations, and express authority and expertise in reviewing their peers' writing. The study specifically focuses on features of affective language, including adjectives, expressions of suggestion, boosters and hedges, cognitive verbs, personal pronouns, and adversative transitions. The results show that across all three contexts, the peer reviews contain a blend of foci, including descriptions and evaluations of peer texts, directives or suggestions for revisions, responses to the writer or the text, and indications of reader interpretations. Across all three contexts, peer reviews also contain more positively glossed responses than negatively glossed responses. By contrast, certain features of affective language pattern idiosyncratically in different contexts; these distinctions can be explained variously according to writer experience, nativeness, and institutional context. The findings carry implications for continued research and for instructional guidance for student peer review.

show abstract

Section: Search Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 5 Distribution Of Cognitive Verbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affective Language in Student Peer Reviews: Exploring Data from Three Institutional Contexts

Wärnsby

Kauppinen

Aull

et al. 2018

JoAW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lecturers have stronger power than students (Agustina & Cahyono, 2016;Niño, 2014;Elmabruk & Etarhuni, 2021). The asymmetry of the relationship between lecturers and students allows lecturers to use impoliteness language in delivering feedback (Mirador, 2014;Culpeper & Tantucci, 2021). Providing feedback delivered aggressively with language that attacks the face will impact the feelings of students who feel embarrassed or humiliated so that the purose of the feedback is not achieved (Ralph, 2014;Skakunova, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teachers’ Impoliteness Strategies in Providing Feedback in a Microteaching Class

Erlinda

2022

lkw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study discusses the impoliteness strategies used by the lecturers when giving feedback to the student-teachers in Microteaching classes. This study adopted a qualitative approach with a documentary analysis design. Data were gathered through recorded classroom interaction from eight microteaching classes when the lecturers gave comments and feedback to the student-teachers. Data were analyzed by using the theory of linguistic impoliteness strategies proposed by Culpeper (2005, 2011). This study's findings show that the lecturers employed positive, negative, and off-record impoliteness strategies when they give comments and feedback on student-teachers’ teaching performances. The significant findings of this study show three types of impoliteness strategies employed by the lecturers. Firstly, a positive impoliteness strategy was manifested in three strategies: using inappropriate identity markers, seeking disagreement, and using a derogatory name to call the hearer’s name. Secondly, the negative impoliteness strategy was realized in three strategies, such as frightening-instill a belief that action detrimental to others will occur, condescending, scorn, or ridicule in three forms, by emphasizing power, using diminutive to hearer's position, and by belittling, and explicitly associating hearer with negative aspects. Lastly, off-record politeness was found in two different strategies: criticizing-dispraise hearer and hindering-deny turn. This study demonstrates that the lecturers need to consider their utterances in giving comments and feedback to student-teacher because they can impact unpleasant feelings on the lecturers personally and demotivate the students to gain teaching skills better.

show abstract

“…Written feedback in particular is typically seen as commentary that is 'delivered' in specific forms, so it is often categorised as a specific genre within academia containing a series of recurring themes or moves that can be identified and studied (e.g. Hyatt, 2005;Mirador, 2014;Nesbitt et al, 2014;Yelland, 2011). Much of this research has focused on the role of written comments on student learning under the premise that feedback is the most powerful single influence in student achievement (Hattie, 1987 in Gibbs andSimpson, 2004;Hattie and Timperley, 2007).…”

Section: Current Understandings Of How Students Develop Their Academimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The chapter explores current feedback practices in full-time Masters programmes and how international students may respond to different types of feedback as a preamble to the next chapter, where the attention will turn to the role of tutor feedback on academic literacy development. As discussed in 2.4.2, the definition of feedback initially adopted in this study corresponds to a widespread view of feedback as commentary or information 'delivered' to students that contrasts actual and desired outcomes (Poulos & Mahony, 2008) and as a specific written genre in academia (Hyatt, 2005;Mirador, 2014;Nesbitt et al, 2014;Yelland, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedback in Masters Courses and the Development of International Students’ Academic Literacy

Solano¹,

Bernado²

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite numerous studies on feedback and academic literacy, few have focused on the experience of international students on postgraduate taught courses, particularly in terms of how feedback contributes to the development of their literacy practices in UK universities. This study contributes to the discussion on what academic literacy is, and the role of tutor feedback in its development. The design includes surveys, semi-structured interviews, feedback samples and course documents, to explore the experiences of students and teaching staff in various disciplines in two British universities. The research reveals core elements of academic literacy and useful insights into their multiple interpretations, underlining how disciplinary variation, student and staff diversity can influence its conceptualisation and practice. Results point to the potential of dialogic feedback to develop academic literacy while also identifying other practices that contribute to its development. One key finding is that, besides the characteristics of feedback itself, personal and institutional factors such as length, structure and interdisciplinary nature of programmes can limit the role of feedback in academic literacy development. The research concludes that pedagogical practices such as assessment and feedback cannot be separated from either the individuals or the pedagogical spaces in which they occur, so their impact can be enhanced or constrained by such spaces and the people inhabiting them. Further research needs to explore the effect of specific personal and institutional factors on feedback practices and academic literacy development. Given the importance of feedback and evidence of student dissatisfaction revealed by the findings, institutions should implement systematic approaches to measure its effectiveness. A key recommendation is for institutions to encourage and maintain meaningful dialogue with students at different levels from programme design to course evaluation. There is also a need for tutors to adopt a more open and inclusive disposition to academic literacy, reducing their reliance on written assessment and being more accepting of international students' native literacy practices.

show abstract

Moves, Intentions and the Language of Feedback Commentaries in Education

Cited by 4 publications

References 20 publications

Affective Language in Student Peer Reviews: Exploring Data from Three Institutional Contexts

Affective Language in Student Peer Reviews: Exploring Data from Three Institutional Contexts

Teachers’ Impoliteness Strategies in Providing Feedback in a Microteaching Class

Feedback in Masters Courses and the Development of International Students’ Academic Literacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About