Knock-on effects of mode change on academic discourse

Knock-on effects of mode change onacademic discourse

Sheena Gardner*

CELTE, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

Abstract

Factors such as increases in student numbers and technological developments are threa-tening the luxury of one-on-one tutorials and bringing changes in modes of academic dis-

course. This small scale exploratory study identifies characteristics of taped oral, compared towritten, feedback that are attributable to its spoken nature (longer, less dense); to the shiftaway from multiple audiences (more engaged, more personal); to its more formative purpose(greater range of feedback strategies, focus on product and process); and to the commu-

nicative context (opening moves that involve the audience more; summary moves thatrephrase and focus). Salient linguistic features of the taped oral feedback genre are described,and it is argued that the shift from written to taped oral feedback naturally brings with it

more extensive feedback that engages more with the writer, has a more formative purpose,and is more explicit. Implications for EAP and all those providing feedback on student workare suggested.

# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Formative assessment; Taped-oral feedback; Mode

When participants move back and forth between talk and text, using each modeto contextualize the other, and both modes as tools to make sense of the activityin which they are engaged . . . students are best able to undertake . . . semioticapprenticeship into the various ways of knowing (Wells, 1994: 28).

1. Introduction

Increasing student numbers, developments in technology, and policy shifts towardsgreater accountability and standardisation across universities have contributed to

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

3 (2004) 23–38

www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

1475-1585/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00052-3

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-24-7652-8439; fax: +44-24-7652-4318.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Gardner).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

mode change away from small group academic speech events, such as tutorials orseminars, in higher education. Linguistic analyses of face-to-face seminars in con-trast to the computer-based tutorials that are replacing them highlight, for instance,the increasing standardisation of pedagogic discourse, curriculum, evaluation, andof the texts themselves (Wickens, 2000: 280–293). Such research on the effects ofmode change on academic events contributes not only to our understanding of aca-demic events per se, but also to our pedagogical practice in EAP and mainstreamacademic contexts.Here I examine feedback on academic term papers by comparing taped oral

comments given by two tutors with written comments given by the same tutors onsimilar assignments. The data were collected as part of a project to examine theeffectiveness of taped-oral feedback in an applied linguistics MA course for teachersof English internationally. Similar studies have investigated the use of taped-oralfeedback with first and second language writers; with students of different profi-ciency levels; for a range of different purposes from reader-response to teacherassessment; in different classes from ESL and EAP to content areas; and in differentcontexts: small classes, large classes, groups of classes and distance courses (Alex-ander, 1999; Allan, 1991; Boswood & Dwyer, 1995; Hunt, 1989; Hyland, 1990;Kirschner, 1991; McAlpine, 1989; Patrie, 1989). In general the technique has beenfound to be efficient and worthwhile, to be valued by students and tutors, and to beparticularly effective for feedback in some areas of writing—discourse, readerresponse, sense of audience, social context—rather than others such as correction ofsyntax or punctuation. Much has also been learned about effective implementation(e.g., Boswood & Dwyer, 1995). My concern here however is not the effectiveness ofthe technique or the practicalities of implementation, but rather the impact of modechange on the academic discourse.

1.1. Initial comparisons between taped-oral and written feedback

An initial comparison of the written and spoken feedback revealed that there werechanges associated with the mode; moreover, these were related to changes in audi-ence and purpose. Thus where comments were written to the student as primaryaudience, they were also written for the second marker, external examiner andteaching quality inspector. In contrast, the taped-oral feedback was construed asmore private discourse, less likely to be listened to by further examiners, and thusmore personally addressed to the student. This in turn means that the taped feed-back was more obviously formative in nature, while the written feedback was moreexplicitly justified by external criteria and for secondary audiences. This paperexplores the features which realise these changes in mode, audience and purpose.

1.2. Data

The analysis focuses on four examples of taped-oral feedback which have beenchosen as examples of feedback by two tutors (here called Jay and Kay) on differentA and C papers, each of which was on a similar topic (methodology). These were

24 S. Gardner / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 23–38

selected with the help of the two tutors who identified the papers (not the feedback)as typical A and C papers. Future studies might include analysis of more tapes frommore tutors. The four taped-oral examples are compared with each other, and withwritten feedback selected as appropriate to the analysis: thus they are comparedwith all written feedback on A and C papers from a similar module by the sametutor for length comparisons (Section 2.1); and with feedback with the most com-ments on a particular aspect (e.g. referencing conventions) for comparisons of feed-back strategies used (Section 2.3.8). The option of comparing written and spokencomments by the same tutors on the same assignments was ruled out as artificial inthat the second set of comments would be rehearsed and have a research rather thanan authentic purpose. Although differences can be observed between the two tutors,and the variable of tutor style is important—Ivanic, Clark, and Rimmershaw (1994:5) identify nine different styles in their data—the analysis here focuses on differencesacross modes.

2. Analysis and findings

The analysis attempts to capture the differences in mode by highlighting linguisticdifferences from a range of perspectives that characterise first spoken vs. writtendiscourse in general (Section 2.1); then tenor through audience construction (Section2.2); thirdly purpose through a comparison of the actual feedback strategies used(Section 2.3); and finally genre through typical move sequences attributable to thetaped-oral context (Section 2.4).

2.1. Spoken vs. written language

Differences between spoken and written language can be explained in terms ofcomplexity: ‘The complexity of the written language is static and dense. That of thespoken language is dynamic and intricate. Grammatical intricacy takes the place of

Table 1

Comparison of spoken and written feedback

Taped-oral feedback
Written feedback by
same tutor

1
You say that speaking and writing are both productive and yet there are
many differences but you don’t explain exactly what the differences are

(TO-C-K-17)

You need to explain

this further.

2
Now according to the conventions we have at [our university], you’re not
really supposed to put people in your bibliography if you haven’t referred

to them in the text (TO-C-J-15)

Provide a date and

page number, not title.

3
But I would have like a few specific examples of how these routines eh
kind of look like what these routines do just to show that you understand

what information interaction routines eh are and how knowledge of

routines could be helpful when eh speaking (TO-C-K-86)

Examples?

S. Gardner / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 23–38 25

lexical density.’ (Halliday, 1989: 87). Table 1 gives examples of the expanding, intricatedevelopment of clause complexes typical of the spoken feedback, and shows howfeedback with similar aims is expressed differently in spoken and written modes.The spoken language of the feedback has the intricate, flowing clause complexes

described by Halliday, where the written comments here are essentially unrelatedclause simplexes and minor clauses. There are longer written clause complexes (e.g.Section 2.3.8 below) but they seldom go beyond a three-clause complex. Table 2 pro-vides a simple measure of this length in words in comparable data sets, namely thelength in words of the taped feedback on the A and C papers, and, for comparison, theaverage length in words of written feedback on all the A and C papers by the sametutors from an equivalent module.Here the spoken feedback is typically around seven times longer than the written

feedback, with more feedback given on weaker papers in both cases.

2.2. Audience construction

In addition to differences in length, density and intricacy, it emerges that thetutors construct their audiences differently in the two modes. Feedback on referen-cing conventions on two C papers with similar problems is given in Table 3 toillustrate the differences. The feedback is addressed to two different students, but themessages are similar. In both cases the tutor is directing the student to follow thereferencing conventions (which had already been explained to the students in writingand in class, and practised by the students in a trial assignment). In the familiarwritten genre, the tutor asserts her authority through the use of must and bald infi-nitives. The audience is distanced by the formal, more precise approach, whichproduces feedback that would be instantly recognisable to additional markers. Incontrast, the less familiar taped-oral genre elicits a mixture of high, median and lowobligation (Halliday, 1994: 360), which is influenced by the specific piece of writingand student, but is also, I argue, a consequence of mode change. Taped-oral feed-back is more like a face-to-face encounter, where ‘must is almost always replaced bythe less confrontational should’ (Hyland, 2002: 228) and where disagreement tendsto be less forceful (Mulkay, 1985 cited in McCarthy & Carter, 1994: 123).In the spoken mode it is also natural to use more hedging (really) and personal

pronouns (I, you). A comparison of pronouns in Subject position of non-embedded

Table 2

Ratios of length of taped-oral to written feedback

Tutor J
Tutor J Tutor K Tutor K
Grade of paper
A C A C
Taped oral feedback
944 words (n=1) 2085 words(n=1) 1422 words (n=1) 2691 words (n=1)
Written feedback

(average)

153 words (n=3)
178 words (n=3) 208 words (n=3) 341 words (n=4)
Taped-oral to

written ratio

944/153=6.2 to 1
2085/178=11.7 to 1 1422/208=6.8 to 1 2691/341=7.9 to 1

clauses showed 50% 2nd person subjects in the spoken feedback compared with20% in the written, with 10% 1st person subjects in each case, leaving 40% of 3rd per-son subjects in spoken mode, compared to 70% in written mode. The use of personalpronouns and hedging are features that have been identified as promoting increasedengagement with the audience in academic writing (e.g., Hyland, 2002: 15). In a similarway they function here to reduce the level of formality and create greater personalinvolvement with the student. This change positions the audience of taped-oral feedbacknot simply as someone who is being formally instructed, but in more complex ways.Table 3 illustrates how the taped-oral feedback engages the student by giving

general advice on the process (3, 5), and by explaining the professional tricks of thetrade (4, 9), with various face-saving strategies such as objective marking of obliga-tion (according to the conventions at [our university]), hedging (it may be that youcould . . .), and framing the comments in a developmental context (8). Through thetaped-oral feedback, the students get the impression that the tutor cares, under-stands, and has read the paper carefully in a way that enables her to point the wayforward in process and product terms. This constructs the student more as anapprentice (cf Wells, 1994) and—not withstanding arguments elsewhere (Rea-Dick-ins & Gardner, 2000) that the distinctions between formative and summativeassessment are not as straightforward as sometimes portrayed—this constructs thetutor as engaged in assessment and evaluation of a more formative nature.

Table 3

Comparison of obligation in advice on referencing

Advice
Taped-oral feedback Written feedback
Obligation

high

1. Now whenever you mention a reference it must be there in your

bibliography

1. Remember that every

author you refer to in

2. If you’ve read about that writer in another source you need to

say quoted in

your text must be

included in your

3. But you do need to be careful about em particulars or the

details of referencing

bibliography

2. Provide a date and

4. Em and the secret is if you want to show the range of your

reading to make sure that you do mention all the references that

you’ve looked at in your text

page number, not title

5. So do be careful about them

Obligation

median

6. Now according to the conventions we have at (our university),

you’re not really supposed to put people in your bibliography if

you haven’t referred to them in the text

7. And Richards’ book J.C. Richards should be there

8. This is a piece of work from the first term but by the second

term and certainly by the time you get to your dissertation these

shouldn’t any longer be problems

Obligation

low

9. It may be that you could quote a sentence or that you could use

an activity or that you could mention an example which comes

from one of these sources and then you can put the source and

the date in the body of the text


Further linguistic evidence to suggest that the tutor is more personally involved inthe interaction in the taped-oral feedback is found in the more extensive use of theappraisal resources in general, and judgement in particular. Following Martin (2000:145–146), judgement construes moral evaluations of behaviour, whereas appre-

ciation construes the aesthetic quality of the semiotic text and affect construesemotional response. Judgements on the writer’s behaviour included social sanction(I agree with you; you’re right) as well as social esteem (that’s sensible; you do thatwell/wisely/better; you need to make clearer/easier/be more careful). Examples ofappreciation, also from the spoken data, include comments on the quality (good,fine), value (important, useful), balance of composition (wide range, too brief) andcomplexity of composition (clear, detailed, too general, vague). Affect includes whatthe tutors liked, what they were impressed by or appreciated, and once where theyfound the ideas fun.As Table 4 suggests, the main function of the feedback continues to be evaluation

of the text [140 (57%) of the total 245 appraisals]. The spoken data is marked by ahigher incidence (41: 21) of judgement on the A vs. C papers (you have read widely);whereas the written data is marked by more (20: 14) appreciation on C vs. A papers(some references do not appear in your bibliography). Interestingly, Hyland andHyland define praise as ‘an act which attributes credit to another for some char-acteristic, attribute, skill, etc. which is positively valued. . .’ and criticism as ‘anexpression of dissatisfaction or negative comment’ on a text (Hyland, 2000: 44)’(2001: 186, italics added), reinforcing a tendency to praise the person and criticisethe text. This distances the writer from his or her poor quality work, but by judgingthe writer of the better work, the tutors set up a stronger interpersonal bond withthe writers of A papers, particularly in the spoken feedback.

2.3. Types of feedback strategy

This section of the analysis begins with a focus on the strategies used to giveexplicit advice or suggestions. In the four tapes extensive explicit advice and/orsuggestion is given in the following area shown in Table 5.In itself this is interesting. The nature of the themes suggests that explicit advice is

more likely to be given on the technical aspects of writing. Praise and criticism of the

Table 4

Appraisal instances in taped-oral and written feedback

Appreciation
Affect Judgement Total
Taped oral
2 A grade 52 6 41 99 (40%)
2 C grade
54 4 21 79 (32%)
Written
2 A grade 14 4 13 31 (13%)
2 C grade
20 3 13 36 (15%)
Total
140 (57%) 17 (7%) 88 (36%) 245 (100%)
Numbers reflect sum of appraisals in feedback on two papers in each case (e.g. taped oral feedback on 2 A

grade papers, taped oral feedback on 2 C grade papers).


ideas in the papers were plenty, but the particular ideas were not generally the focusof explicit advice or suggestion. Where such suggestions did occur, however, theytended to point the way forward in a more mentoring than teacher-like manner:

At another time you might like to delve more deeply into the use of reflectivewriting in children’s portfolio work as I think you would find this very inter-esting and useful (W-A-J).

This raises issues for discussion: do we give more explicit advice on areas that areeasy to advise on and easy to fix? The literature suggests two very different per-spectives on this. On the one hand, we see the positive view of this put forward asreceived wisdom:

. . .writing is both free and constrained—both highly creative in that the nextsentence is always a surprise and also highly conventional in that all writerswork within a limited, describable syntactic repertoire and a set of culturallydetermined, widely recognized genres; that the conventions act as constraints butalso as heuristics, making the possible certain kinds of creative work at both thesentence and text levels, especially for developing writers. (Cooper & Odell,1999: 2, italics added).

The social-constructivist theory that supports this view is clearly outlined in Can-dlin and Hyland (1999: 15). From this point of view the tutors are providing thescaffolding needed to assist apprentice writers in mastering academic discourse.From a more critical perspective we see Chouliaraki arguing that where proce-

dural types of knowledge are privileged over principled ones, we ‘produce pedagogicsubjects who are oriented towards executing secretarial tasks, rather than developingautonomy and creativity in their learning’ (Chouliaraki, 1998: 5). I am not suggest-ing that procedural types of knowledge are privileged by the tutors in the presentstudy, nor that non-native speakers are unable to interpret the suggestions andadvice implicit in praise and critique moves (although there will be cases where thismay happen—as documented in Hyland & Hyland, 2001). Nevertheless, mostexplicit advice given relates to referencing and organisation, and these have there-fore been chosen as topic foci for this section. Of these, referencing could certainlybe labelled a secretarial task—which is not to imply that it is unimportant.

Table 5

Themes of explicit advice and suggestion in taped feedback

Tutor Jay
Tutor Kay
A grade
� Include a conclusion, even if it takes you
over the word limit

� Use your own words, don’t just quote others

C grade
� Balance explanation and examples � Organisation and signposting
� Relate what you write to the question

� Use referencing conventions


Analysis of all the feedback related to referencing and organisation (not onlyexplicit advice and suggestion) revealed eight different strategies. Examples are givenof each type and this is followed by a summary table that shows strategy use acrosstutors, modes, grades and topics.

2.3.1. Strategy A: giving explicit detailed suggestions or adviceThe analysis of moves and of advice (Gardner, 1999a, 2001) distinguishes between

suggestions, which are specific to the paper being written, and advice, which couldbe more generally applied. An example of advice on referencing is:

now whenever you mention a reference it must be there in your bibliography(TO-C-J-75).

An example of a suggestion on organisation is:

em so I think that it would have been better right after the quote from Nunan em ifyou had included a couple of sentences on the structure of the essay and theninserted another section perhaps em speech versus writing and then discussed theeh differences (TO-C-K-9).

This strategy of giving explicit, detailed suggestions or advice was found equally inspoken and written feedback, although as we have seen above (Sections 2.1 and 2.2)the linguistic realisations vary significantly with the mode. The spoken discourselends itself more easily to the unpacking of nominalisations and technical feeedbackterms in the marking criteria, such as ‘follow recommended referencing conventions’,‘demonstrate understanding’ or ‘critical discussion of the issues.’ Such unpacking isfound in praise and critique moves, and also in the detailed suggestions that relate tothe student’s work (e.g. Table 1, point 3). Indeed, Young and Nguyen (2002: 368) intheir comparison of textbook and teacher explanations in high school science suggestthat it is the unpacking of nominalisations and technical terms that is the most sig-nificant linguistic feature in making the message in the spoken mode more accessible.

2.3.2. Strategy B: pointing out omissionsIn the spoken feedback, omissions are usually preceded by some kind of alerter:

and Richards book—J.C. Richards — should be there (TO-C-J-83) em in Robertsyou cite their specific examples on how to open conversations but you don’t givethe page number (TO-A-K-36).

In contrast, in the written feedback, omissions are often bald statements, ques-tions or queries:

Statements:
You haven’t commented on table 2 and you haven’t introduced table 3 yet.The first aspect of your analysis lacks cohesion. Tables are presented withoutintroduction and many of your findings are discussed briefly or not at all.

Questions: W
here do these quotes end? W here did you get this result? W here is (A) and (B)? W hy haven’t you commented on . . ..?
Queries: P
erhaps another section here? E xamples?
2.3.3. Strategy C: giving explicit detailed suggestions or advice on strategiesThe giving of advice on the writing process, and how to meet the conventions

required was particularly notable in the spoken data. Students very much appre-ciated these tricks of the trade, as they saw them, in that not only were they practicalsuggestions, but they also gave the students insights into how the tutors themselvesview the writing process. (An example on referencing Table 3, point 9.)

and I think here in order to demonstrate that you understand what is meant by thisyou need to give some examples it’s always a good idea to try and get a balancebetween explanation which you’ve tried to work on hard here and examples whichwill illustrate your explanation (TO-C-J-37-8).

em I think that more than a one sentence conclusion would have been possible—you might for example have related these ideas to your own teaching situation andsaid a little more about how you think methodology and materials might developthere—that would have been a good personal way to end drawing on your ownexperience—but do think more about how to conclude an essay (TO-A-J-48-52).

2.3.4. Strategy D: indicating reader’s reactionThis includes both comment on how the tutor ‘read’ the paper, and on how she

tried to figure out what the writer intended:

as I read through I checked each reference with the bibliography and you’ve gotrather a strange bibliography because some of the people you quote like ClaudiaKay and Ilona Leki are not actually in your bibliography (TO-C-J-74).em presumably this means that you have read these sources but you haven’tactually quoted them in the text? (TO-C-J-85).

em do you mean that you’re going to discuss these issues later on? (TO-C-K-42).

and the first thing that I’d like to say is that I think this is a very clear overallexplanation of the writing process eh I had no difficulty at all following it as areader (TO-C-J-68-9).

2.3.5. Strategy E: indicating the significanceThese comments put the feedback in a wider context.


so all of this about referencing is very important (TO-C-J-89).

or alternatively

it’s a very technical comment but just have it in mind next time (TO-A-K-15).

where the tutor’s intonation emphasises the relative unimportance of the commenton referencing that follows.

2.3.6. Strategy F: expressing expectations of improvementMany of the above strategies focus on feedback that points the way forward in

terms of what to do; strategy F in contrast sets expectations as future targets.

this is a piece of work from the first term but by the second term and certainly bythe time you get to your dissertation these shouldn’t any longer be problems(TO-C-J-90).

2.3.7. Strategy G: unqualified praiseExamples of unqualified praise on A papers are:

em I’ve just turned to your bibliography now em it seems to be very well writtenem you have included all the references and it’s very consistent and well set out. Italso shows your wide reading of the topic (TO-A-K-104-5).

I’ve just started reading your essay em I’ve put a one in the margin because I verymuch appreciate the way you’ve gone straight into the schema theory model Ithink you’re quite right that it was in the light of this theory that we have theconcepts of top down and bottom up processing because prior to that there hadbeen very much a focus on bottom up processing em especially in reading in asecond and foreign language where reading was very much seen as a languageproblem so I think that you’ve absolutely gone right to the core of the essay instarting this way (TO-A-J-1-4).

Such strings of praise were not uncommon in the A papers, and occurred only oncein the C papers. More common in the C papers was praise that functioned as asweetener or good news in anticipation of critique or bad news (this is good, but . . .).

2.3.8. Strategy H: praise as sweetenerA common strategy in both the oral and the written feedback was to use praise as

a sweetener in a Praise–Critique–Suggestion/Advice sequence, as in this writtenfeedback by tutor J:

Praise: Y
our introduction is useful in that you address the issues in the titleimmediately and that you signal the structure of your argument clearlyto your reader.

Critique: I
’m not sure why you start with purposes for reading as this is not takenup later in the essay
Suggestion: (
though you could have related purpose to the precise nature of inter-active reading and whether this varies across texts).
As Hyland’s discussion of opening praise moves in book reviews suggests, thisstrategy is similar to those described across a range of genres from phatic conversa-tion to written peer feedback and interpersonally ‘may operate to establish rapportwith the audience and mitigate the criticism to follow’ (Hyland, 2000: 53). Viewed asa situation-problem-solution type text, ‘the function of the ’good’ evaluation ele-ment within the Situation is to put the Problem . . . into the larger context of ‘good’aspects’ (Hoey, 1992: 37) In this vein, Hill’s (2001) analysis of what she calls thefeedback sandwich in written feedback suggests it has the structure: Good news–Badnews and how to overcome it–Note of encouragement. In their comparison ofsequences, Hyland and Hyland (2001: 194–196) find 20% of Criticism in Praise–Criticism pairs, 15% in Criticism–Suggestion pairs and 9% in Praise–Criticism–Suggestion triads.In my analysis I suggest that the praise as sweetener extends over the whole feed-

back unit (which generally corresponds to chunks between pauses in the taping, butis identified by intonation as well as move patterns). In other words, the tutor wouldread a section of the paper, point the student to the section she had read (anOrienting move), Praise certain feature(s), then begin a series of three movesequences, each of which has a lower pitch onset, and which might be Orient^Criti-que^Suggest or Orient^Critique^Summary. In other words, the one Praise couldsweeten several critiques in one unit. Table 6 shows an example of this.As suggested by Table 6, there were more Critique than Praise moves overall

(Table 8 shows 67% more) and most of that praise functioned as sweetener. Thisanalysis cannot readily be compared with Hyland and Hyland (2001) which foundpraise to be more frequent than criticism or suggestion, as the latter analysed feed-back points (not moves) on written (not spoken) end of text (not all) comments in anESL (not content) class on drafts and final versions of papers.Praise used as sweetener was not usually High Praise (excellent, very clear). It

tended to be Mid Praise (good, clear, well), and occasionally was Low Praise (fine,okay, not bad). Mid praise includes instances where high praise terms are mitigated(e.g. generally very good). Where critique did follow high praise, it was generally ina High Praise–Mid Praise–Critique sequence, or on one occasion it was MidPraise–High Praise–Critique. This suggests that it is not simply the use of praisethat might alert the students that critique may follow, but specifically the use ofMid Praise.

2.3.9. The distribution of strategy typesOf the eight strategies identified (Sections 2.3.1 – 2.3.7), some are typical of taped

oral rather than written feedback. Table 7 shows a comparison of strategies used bytwo tutors to give feedback on two topics (organisation and referencing), inequivalent modules (on methodology), in the two modes, and across different


Table 6

Move analysis showing praise as sweetener

#

27.
OK Catherine Attend
28.
I’ve just read page two and part of page three Orient
29.
So I’ve read em your discussion of motor-perceptive and interaction skills Expand
30.
I think your discussion of motor-perceptive skills is very clear Praise
31.
And eh you seem to understand what motor-perceptive skills em actually
involve and interaction skills

Expand

32.
You you start this eh section well Summary
33.
But then you talk about processing conditions very briefly of course but
you talk about processing conditions and reciprocity conditions

Orient

34.
And you don’t make clear what the relationship is between these two
conditions and interaction skills

Critique

35.
I actually think that this em discussion on interaction and reciprocity
conditions should have come when you were discussing the differences eh

between speech and writing because these are some of the conditions that

affect speech and eh these conditions of course make speech quite different

from writing

Suggest

36.
So I don’t think this is actually the appropriate place to actually include
them or mention them

Summary

37.
Another comment Preface
38.
And this is eh at the end of the first paragraph on page three Orient
39.
You say that ‘‘Bygate discusses these two conditions on approaching the
production skills? first two processes on hence I shall discuss more than’’

Expand

40.
Em I don’t understand what you mean here ‘‘I shall discuss more than’’ Critique
41.
Em do you mean that you’re going to discuss these issues later on? Expand
42.
Anyway I I I eh don’t understand this here Catherine sorry Summary
#

Key: #=tape paused while tutor reads. Source: TO-C-K (taped oral feedback on C grade paper by tutorKay).

Table 7

Strategies used by two tutors in two modes on two topics

Mode
Taped-oral Written
Tutor
Jay Jay Kay Jay Jay Kay Kay
Feedback topic
REF ORG REF REF ORG REF ORG
Grade on paper
A C C B B C B
A: Explicit advice
X X X X X X X
B: Point out omissions
X X X X X X
C: Strategic advice
X X
D: Reader’s reaction
X X X
E: Significance of errors
X X X
F: Expectations for future
X X
G: Unqualified praise
X
H: Praise as sweetener
X X X X
Key: REF=Reference; ORG=Organisation.


grades. Where possible A and C papers were chosen, and where there were severalC, or B, papers, the one with most comment on the relevant topic was chosen.Although this analysis is small scale and exploratory in nature and is limited to the

comments on two topics of two tutors on seven papers, it suggests that the range ofstrategies used in taped-oral feedback is greater in comparison to written feedback.Moreover, it suggests that written feedback is qualitatively different in that it focusesmore on the textual product (B) as opposed to strategic advice (C), reader’s reaction(D), an explication of the significance of errors (E) and expectations for futureimprovement (F).

2.4. Opening and closing

The taped-oral feedback is clearly a product of its communicative context and pur-pose in that typically the speaker’s opening moves include an orientation to the absentaddressee; followed by comment (praise and critique) on the text as the purpose isevaluation, recommendations (suggestions or advice) as this is a formative context;and a closing move (typically a summary) which indicates the feedback on that sectionor aspect of the text has finished. The overall proportions of these moves in the tapeddata is given in Table 8, which also includes characteristic linguistic realisations.The nature of the opening moves (Attend, Orient, Preface) means that in com-

parison with written feedback, the taped-oral feedback contains more vocatives, andthe tutors regularly tell students explicitly what they have read. These both con-tribute to the more involved interpersonal tone of the spoken discourse.In contrast, the frequent summary moves, which are also, I argue, a product of the

mode change, function to increase the explicitness of taped-oral over written feed-back. They force tutors to regularly repeat or rephrase the comment and highlightimportant features throughout the feedback, not simply at the end as is common in

Table 8

Totals of moves in taped-oral feedback on four papers

Moves
Some typical realisations Total Total
(%)

Attend
OK Catherine 11 2
Orient
I’ve just finished reading your conclusion 95 21
Preface
Em I have just a few comments; another little technical comment 22 5
Praise
And em I think you start well; and it’s consistent; everything is fine here;
I think your discussion of motor-perceptive skills is very clear

90
19
Critique
I think your discussion is too brief; I don’t understand what you mean here 150 32
Apology
I think I was a bit em eh I rushed to conclusions before 3 1
Suggestion
Perhaps this section could have come . . .; I think it would have been better
if . . .; I think you should have included activities that. . .;

15
3
Advice
It’s always a good idea to try and get a good balance between explanation
and examples

12
3
Summary
So I think you’ve pinpointed the important figures in the debate; in summary
then, I think . . .

64
14
462
100

the written feedback. Indeed, Young and Nguyen (2002) argue that teacher sum-maries contribute significantly to the greater accessibility of the spoken discourseover the written textbooks.

3. Conclusions and implications for practice

It has been suggested that in comparison with written feedback by the sametutors, taped-oral feedback is longer, more intricate, and less lexically dense allow-ing for more unpacking of technical terms; it uses more vocatives, a wider range ofobligation, more second person pronouns as Subjects, and more hedging; there ismore, and more judgmental appraisal; it includes more attending, orienting andsummarising moves; and it employs a wider range of feedback strategies. The com-parisons described in the paper provide further examples of the differences betweenspoken and written discourse; of different ways of construing audience; and of howvery different the feedback tends to be in different modes.It has also been argued that the mode change has a knock on effect on the lin-

guistic features and on the shift in audience away from external markers; these inturn have a knock on effect on the feedback strategies; all of which results in enga-ging the students more personally and producing feedback that is more formativefor the students. These trends are reinforced by the implications of the commu-nicative context on the generic structure where we see opening moves which increaseaudience engagement and summary moves which increase explicitness of feedback.Ivanic et al. (1994: 16) state that the ‘subject tutors must, in the last resort, use theircomments to justify their grades, whereas the EAP tutor has the more develop-mental aim of helping the student . . .’ write. What this study suggests is that with asimple mode change, subject and EAP tutors would naturally move towards greaterinvolvement with the student and more explicit and varied feedback that addressesnot only the justification of a grade, but also the developing writer.This study contributes to the literature on the changing nature of discourse in

higher education. Where reductions in individual tutorial time with students toge-ther with the push for standardisation and accountability may result in more con-cise, text-focused feedback, one way to counter this in EAP and mainstream coursesis through the use of taped-oral feedback.The study was part of a larger project to pilot the use of taped-oral feedback on an

MA programme. Other project findings include little difference in the time taken toproduce taped-oral vs written feedback (as confirmed by other studies such as Bos-wood & Dwyer, 1995: 23; Kirschner, 1991: 191), and the main concerns expressed bythe second and external examiners who could not easily ‘skim’ the tapes. A shortwritten summary of the comments was provided in addition to the tapes for suchmonitoring purposes—a useful practice for all tutors and students, irrespective ofthe role of further markers (e.g., Hyland, 1990). The students came from a widerange of different countries and cultures, and while there were a few comments fromsome that the taped feedback was ‘not necessary’, most found the additionaldimensions brought by the taped-oral feedback beneficial in affective terms (they felt


as if someone had really read what they had written and thought about it) and inpractical terms (they found the advice accessible). Such student commentsstrengthen the arguments based on textual analyses in this paper.One final implication for practice relates to the usefulness of talking about feed-

back with or among tutors to explore understandings (Gardner, 1999b). Forinstance, in our own centre the marking criteria for written work include a con-sideration of whether assignments have ‘demonstrated understanding’. In spokenfeedback tutors were found to make more specific suggestions about ways in whichstudents could meet this criterion (e.g. ‘give an example here to show you under-stand’). One of the most difficult tasks facing EAP tutors must be the unpacking ofassessment criteria from target departments. Perhaps the use of taped-oral feedbackmight constitute a means to achieve this objective and provide assessment with amore formative focus, without placing any greater demands on busy course tutors.

References

Alexander, O. (1999). Raising audience awareness in EAP writing. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Issues in EAP

writing research and instruction (pp. 121–134). The University of Reading: CALS.

Allan, D. (1991). Tape journals: bridging the gap between communication and correction. ELT Journal,

45, 61–66.

Boswood, T., & Dwyer, R. H. (1995). From marking to feedback: audiotaped responses to student

writing. TESOL Journal, 5, 20–23.

Candlin, C., & Hyland, K. (1999). Writing: texts, processes and practices. London: Longman.

Chouliaraki, L. (1998). Regulation in progressivist pedagogic discourse: individualized teacher-pupil talk.

Discourse and Society, 9(1), 5–32.

Cooper, C. R., & Odell, L. (Eds.). 1999. Evaluating writing: the role of teachers’ knowledge about text,

learning and culture. NCTE.

Gardner, S. 1999a. Speech functions in taped oral feedback. Paper presented at the International Associ-

ation for Dialogue Analysis meeting, University of Birmingham, April 1999.

Gardner, S. 1999b. Assessment criteria in taped oral feedback. Paper presented at Discourses and Learning

Meeting, University of Lancaster, July 1999.

Gardner, S. 2001. Formative feedback on academic term papers. Paper presented at Warwick University

Writing Programme International Conference: Teaching Writing in Higher Education, March 2001.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Hill, P. Feedback on feedback: an investigation into written feedback and student response. Paper presented

at the Warwick University Writing Programme International Conference: Teaching Writing in Higher

Education, March 2001.

Hoey, M. (1992). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen and Unwin.

Hunt, A. J. (1989). Taped comments and student writing. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 16,

269–273.

Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44, 279–285.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23,

215–239.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: praise and critique in written feedback. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.

Ivanic, R., Clark, R., & Rimmershaw, R. 1994. What am I supposed to make of this? The messages which

are conveyed to students by tutors’ written comments. Working paper series no. 22. University of

Lancaster: Centre for Research in Language Education.


Kirschner, P. A. (1991). Audiotape feedback for essays in distance education. Innovative Higher Educa-

tion, 15, 185–195.

Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: appraisal resources in english. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson

(Eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142–175). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

McAlpine, L. (1989). Teacher as reader: oral feedback on ESL student writing. TESL Canada Journal, 7,

62–67.

McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: perspectives for language teaching. London:

Longman.

Mulkay, M. (1985). Argument and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text, 5, 201–228.

Patrie, J. (1989). The use of the tape recorder in an ESL composition programme. TESL Canada Journal,

6, 87–89.

Rea-Dickins, P., & Gardner, S. (2000). Snares and silver bullets: disentangling the construct of formative

assessment. Language Testing, 17, 217–244.

Wells, G. (1994). Text, talk and inquiry. Schooling as semiotic apprenticeship. In N. Bird, P. Falvey,

A. B. M. Tsui, D. M. Allison, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Language and learning (pp. 18–51). Hong Kong:

Institute for Language in Learning, Department of Education.

Wickens, P. 2000. Computer based learning and changing pedagogic orders of discourse in UK higher

education. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Warwick.

Young, R., & Nguyen, H. T. (2002). Modes of meaning in high school science. Applied Linguistics, 23,

348–372.

Sheena Gardner lectures at Warwick University in applied English linguistics, specifically, TESP/TEAP,

educational linguistics and grammar pedagogy. She has EAP/ESP experience from Scotland, Sudan,

Ukraine and Canada; and her published research includes work in onomastics, classroom discourse and

assessment, most recently focusing on EAL contexts in England.


Documents

Knock-on effects of mode change on academic discourse