“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!