“Trytosaythingsstraight,withoutbeingoffensive,obviously”:thepragmaticsofonlinepeerreview

Fiona Dalziel

ExploringandAssessingPragmaticAspectsofL1andL2Communication:FromNeedsAnalysisthroughMonitoringtoFeedback

UniversitàdegliStudidiPadova,25-27July 2018

Overview

• Thevalueof(online)peerfeedback• Contextandtaskdescription• Analysisofpeerfeedbackmessages

– termsofaddress– Praiseandcriticism- “sugaringthepill”– instancesofpositiveandnegativepoliteness– hedgingdevices+personalattribution

• Studentperceptionsandpreferences• Somepedagogicalreflections

Peerfeedback

AdvantagesEncouragesactive,autonomousapproachtolearningFostersskillsofcriticalthinkingProvidesanaudienceforthelearner’sworkOnlinepeerfeedbackfostersinteractionwhilstensuringpermanence

wehadtheopportunitynotonlytowriteanessaybutalsotoreadandcommentthoseofourpeers.Asaconsequence,byreadingandcommentingthetextsofmypeers,Icouldindirectlyreflectonmyownelaboration (student comment)

ChallengesLearners’lackofconfidenceintheirabilitytoassesstheirpeersLearners’fearofoffendingtheirpeers- reviewsinvolveface-threateningacts(FTAs- BrownandLevinson1987)

HowcanIasateacherencouragereflectionandcriticalthinkingwithoutmakinglearnersfeeluncomfortable?

Bridgingthegapbetween(pragmatics)researchandlanguageteachingpractice(seeforexampleCohen2017)

The context

3rd-yearEnglishLanguagecourseforEnglishmajorsattheUniversityofPadova– levelB2+/C1

Academicwritingontopicsrelatedtolanguage,languagelearning,societyandculturee.g.languagelearningstrategies,languageandidentitystandardandnon-standardlanguages

2014-2015+2017-2018academicyears

BlendedcoursewithonlineplatformMoodleformaterialsandactivities(Glossarytoolforpeerfeedback)

Useoftechnologytoencouragecollaborationandmetacognitivereflectiononlearning

Criteriaforpeerreviewcreatedcollaborativelywiththestudents

The task

The feedback messages

170peerfeedbackmessages138from201532from201749,500words(tokens)Averagelengthofmessage– 190words

Second person - 131 (77%)Third person - 39 (23%)

Hi + name No salutation

Terms of address

Term Number

Hi + name 95 – 72.5%

No salutation 19 – 14.5%

Hello + name 8 – 6%

Dear + name 3 – 3%

Hi 2 – 1.5%

Hello 2 – 1.5%

Hey 1 – 0.5%

Hi mate 1 – 0.5%

Praise and criticism

Johnson(1992:54)talksaboutthe“globalFTA”ofpeerreview:

“Theentirepeerreviewisapotentiallyface-threateningactbecauseitcallsforcriticismorsuggestionsforrevision”

Confirmationfromtheclosingstatementsofthepeerreviewsanalysed:

That'sall,sorryinadvanceifIexpressedmyopiniontoohard.Haveaniceday:)Sogoodjob,havefunanddon’thateme!Ihopeyoudon’tgetupsetwithmycritics,causeyoudidafinejob.Haveaniceday:)

Theuseofpraisecanbeconsideredasapositivepolitenessstrategy

Asexpected,themajorityofstudentincludedbothpraiseandcriticismintheirreviews

Praise and criticism Only praise Only critism

154 (91%) 14 (8%) 2 (1%)

Some examples

Praise and criticism

Hi Michela, I think your essay covers the argument in an exhaustive wayand provides your ideas quite clearly. However, there are a few thingsthat I would change in order to improve your text. Firstly, I would linktogether the first and the second sentence to create a proper introductiveparagraph, so that it is not made of one single sentence [...] Last but notleast, one more minor detail: it seems that you have forgotten to writeyour last access in the website you have chosen as a reference. Anyway, Ithink you have written a very good text. Good luck for your final version!

Some examples

Praise

Hi Marco, I think you did a remarkable job. The topic has beenexhaustively developed and the text has been produced in a discursive,almost reader-friendly, manner. Even quotes or examples has beenused coherently to your arguments in a way that kept me interested tillthe end. I consider the register appropriate and sentences have beenlogically, fluently and coherently connected. You used an appropriateand wide range of vocabulary, which allowed you to express your ideasclearly and always demonstrating a very good level of grammaraccuracy. I do not feel myself in the position of correcting nor addinganything to your paper, for I consider it almost perfect and better thanmine for sure.

Some examples

Criticism

Thepreambledoesnotgivethemainideaoftheessay.Thethesisstatementthatfollowsisquitemisleading anddoesnotgiveaverycleardescriptionofthestructureoftheessay[…]Abruptshiftsfromoneideatoanotherwithoutprovidingalogicalsequence [...]Linkingadverbialswerenotusedappropriately,sothattheoverallessaystructureappearsasanunassembledjigsawpuzzle,touseametaphor.Importantterminologies,whichshouldconveykeypoints,wereomitted. Sometimesargumentswerenotsupportedbyexamples.

Opening strategiesSalutation (seeslide7)

OptionalintroductoryremarkI'mDavide andIwillbeyourpeer"proofreader"forthisessay.Iwastaskedtoreviewyouressay,Ihopemythoughtsaboutitcanhelpyouimprove.Allowmetosaysomethingaboutyouressay

Initialpraiseor“opening-complimentstrategy”(Johnson1992:66)Youressaywasgood,ithadcapturedmyattention,youdevelopedinterestingtopics.InitialcriticismStartingfromthebadnews,Iwouldsaythatthisessayneedsacheckforspelling ...InitialpraiseandcriticismIlikedyourpointofviewaboutthegiventopicandIgottheoverallmeaningoftheessaybuttherearesomethingsIcannotcompletelyunderstand.

NB – Numbers refer to those who used both praise and criticism in their reviews (154)

Initial praise Initial criticism Initial praise and criticism

119 (77.3%) 13 (8.4%) 22 (14.2%)

Politeness strategies

AswellastheglobalFTA ofpeerreview,therearealsospecificFTAs(Johnson1992),inotherwords,instancesofcriticism

ThesecanbemitigatedbymeansofPositiveandNegativePolitenessStrategies(BrownandLevinson1987)Icodedallinstancesofcriticisminthecorpusofpeerreviewsasfollows:

1.PositivepolitenessPairingcriticismwithpraiseExpressingsolidaritywiththepeer2.NegativepolitenessHedgingPersonalattribution“Specifyingoneselfasthesourceofanopinioncanqualifyitsforcebyacknoledging thatothersmayholdanalternative,andequallyvalid,view”(Hyland&Hyland2001:198)3.Nomitigation

Politeness strategies1.PositivepolitenessPairingcriticismwithpraiseThegrammarisquiteaccurate,butIthinkyouhavetocheckprepositionsinsomeparts.ExpressingsolidaritywiththepeerPersonallyIfoundsomemistakesscatteredhereandthere,nothingtobeworriedabout,justslipsthatalmostallstudentsdo.2.NegativepolitenessHedging(abouthedging!)maybeyoucouldusehedgingPersonalattributionInmyhumbleopinion,youshouldtrytorephrasethethirdparagraphinordertobetterhighlightyourgoodideas.3.Nomitigationthemainbodyiscomposedsimplybygeneralinformationaboutstandardandnon-standardEnglish,whichdonotsupporttheopinionstatedinthefirstparagraphN.B. THE BIBLIOGRAPHY !!

Positivepoliteness(instances) Negativepoliteness(instances) Nomitigation(instances)

101 143 64

Hedging and personal attribution

Hedging device FrequencyI think 108

I would 106

maybe 54

could 39

only 24

In my opinion 24

personally 20

I suggest 16

perhaps 10

might 8

The follow-up task

Prompt:Lookattheexamplesaboveandwriteashortdescriptionofthequalitiesofgoodpeerreview.

Groupforumactivity– 54comments

Firstofall,inordertobeeffective,peerfeedbackshouldbewrittenpolitelyandclearly.Youhavetorespectotherpeople'sopinionseventhoughyoudonotsharethem.Ifontheonehandhedgingisfundamentaltoconveyrespect,ontheotherhanditdoesn'thavetobetakentotheextreme,sinceyouwantyourcritiquetobeconstructive

Provideconstructivecriticism(24)

Don’tbetoocritical(2)

Don’tbeafraidofcriticising(3)

Reportpositiveandnegativefeatures(6)

Statepositivethingsfirst(3)

Concludewithacompliment(1)

Writepolitely,berespectful(20)

Beobjective/impartial(16)

Don’tbetooindirect(10)

Some pedagogical reflections

In my opinion you could also cut one or two quotations out of the five ones you have used,but it is just an idea; maybe I would add one or two sentences with your ideas and reasoninginstead of a quotation.

Notallstudentsseethepeerreviewprocessasadialogue(perhapsmorespecificguidelinesarerequirede.g.usethesecondperson,includegreetingsetc.)

Evenwithoutexplicitinstructions,thestudentsadoptarangeofpolitenessstrategies(perhapsbecause“obliged”tocriticise”)

Thereappearstobeasensitivitytohedging(perhapsduetoinstructioninrelationwithacademicwriting)

TheactivitycouldleadtodiscussionofL1pragmaticstrategies(howfararethesetransferredwhenwritingthepeerreviews)

Thepeerreviewmessagesprovidematerialformetapragmaticreflectiononpragmatics(posttaskforaninductiveapproach)

Suchreflectioncouldpavethewaytogoingbeyond“academiccriticism”(Cohen2017)

References

Bijami,Maryam;Kashef,Seyyed Hosein;Nejad,MaryamSharafi (2013):PeerfeedbackinlearningEnglishwriting:advantagesanddisadvantages.JournalStudiesinEducation 3/4,91-97.Brown,Penelope&Levinson,StephenC.1987.Politeness:SomeUniversalsinLanguageUse.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Cohen,A.D.2017. Teachingandlearningsecondlanguagepragmatics. InE.Hinkel(Ed.), Handbookofresearchinsecondlanguageteachingandlearning (pp.428-452),Vol.3.NY:Routledge.DiGiovanni,Elaine;Nagaswami,Girija (2001):Onlinepeerreview:Analternativetoface-to-face?In:ELTJournal 55/3,263–272.Halliday,M.,(1994),AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar,London:EdwardArnoldHyland,Fiona;Hyland,Ken(2001):Sugaringthepill.Praiseandcriticisminwrittenfeedback.In:JournalofSecondLanguageWriting10,185-212.Johnson,D.M.1992.Complimentsandpolitenessinpeerreviewtexts.AppliedLinguistics,13,52-71.Myers,Greg.1989.Thepragmaticsofpolitenessinscientificarticles.AppliedLinguistics10(1).1-35.Rollinson,Paul(2005):UsingpeerfeedbackintheESLwritingclass.ELTJournal 59/1,23-30.

Grazie!

fionaclare.dalziel@unipd.it