Emergence and development of critical voice in postgraduate assignment genresCONFIRMATION PRESENTATION

ERIC CHEUNG 13901602R

2:30 – 3:30, 9 JANUARY 2015 (FRIDAY)

“

”

‘Critical thinking’ as involving the expression of forms of knowledge… is largely obscured.

SZENES, TILAKARATNA AND MATON (2014)

“

”

Successful writers understand academic discourse conventions which are inherently hierarchical.

SHAUGHNESSY (1977)

“

”

Struggling for power through discourse to become like-minded peers in a society

FAIRCLOUGH AND WODAK, 1997;

IVANIČ, 1998

“

”

Developing democratic pedagogies to aim for equality in genre access

MARTIN AND ROSE (2007);

COFFIN AND DONOHUE (2012)

Research objectives

Identify the lexicogrammatical and discourse patterns defining the voice of the postgraduate written genres

Model the effective dialogic structure for postgraduate writing

Capture voice development and its corresponding evaluation across phases of the texts and genres

Suggest future research to enhance understanding of voice variation in postgraduate academic written discourse

Discourse, identities and voice

Academic discourse as situated discourse (e.g. Trappes-Lomax, 2008) Achieve social goals: share knowledge, signal affiliations,

secure community membership and establish identities

Identity and self (Clark and Ivanič, 1998)

Academic literacies (Lea and Street, 2006)

SFL perspective on genre and register

APPRAISAL (Martin and White, 2005) as global potential for evaluation

Stance and voice as registerial key (Coffin, 2002; Hood, 2012; Hunston, 2010; Hyland, 2005; White, 1998)

Analytical framework: APPRAISAL

APPRAISAL framework (Martin and White, 2005)

ATTITUDE: explicit evaluative resources for displaying emotive responses (AFFECT), and valuating people (JUDGEMENT) and things/phenomena (APPRECIATION)

ENGAGEMENT: sourcing of voice – either expands or contracts dialogic space EXPANSION: ENTERTAIN (modality) or ATTRIBUTE other voices

CONTRACTION: rejects (DISCLAIM) or limits (PROCLAIM) the scope of voices

GRADUATION: upscaling or downscaling the evaluative values through FORCE or FOCUS

APPRAISAL (Martin and White, 2005)

APPRAISAL

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDE

GRADUATION

MONOGLOSSIC

HETEROGLOSSIC

APPRECIATION

JUDGEMENT

FORCE

FOCUS

AFFECT

ENGAGEMENT up-close:lexicogrammatical realisation

ENGAGEMENT

monoglossic

heteroglossic

expand

contract

disclaim

proclaim

entertain

attribute

acknowledge

distance

deny

counter

concur

pronounce

endorse

Sentence fragments and run-on sentences break the structural rule of forming a correct sentence.

Fitzpatrick and Ruscica (2000) once pointed out that

However; although; but

It is clear that

Syntactic variety can hardly be achieved

This evaluation is, of course, based on individual teaching context

They might misunderstand sentence variety

This research indicates the strong relationship

Analytical framework: periodicity

Layers of Themes and News in discourse (Martin and Rose, 2007, p.199)

Methodology

APPRAISAL analysis (micro)

Longitudinal observation (macro)Pilot case study

ENGAGEMENT strategies(meso)

Research Site and participants

Purposive sampling

From 167 students in the 2013-4 cohort

Recruitment from entry questionnaire survey

29 interested students, 2 left during the course of study

27 full-time postgraduate students from the 4 ENGL MA programmes

All Chinese (20 Mainland Chinese, 5 local Chinese, 1 Canadian, 1 Singaporean)

Constant increase of Mainland Chinese students in 5 years

Few overseas admittees

25 female, 2 male

10 male every 34 female students in the cohort

Pilot case study: Flo

From Guangdong, China – Non-native English speaker Had teaching experience – TOEFL private tutoring in

China Enrolled in MA English Language Teaching Active participant among the volunteers Did not opt for dissertation but performed constantly

outstanding in all the assignments throughout the academic year Exception: a lower grade (C) in research proposal

Data preparation and analysis

APPRAISAL analysis with UAM CorpusTool

(O’Donnell, 2008)

Examining other texts (Assignment

requirements, feedback from

instructors, etc.)

Student and teacher interviews and transcription of

verbatim

Subject Genres Assignment type

Abbreviation of assignment

Grade/ Score

SEMESTER 1

ENGL582 Second Language Teaching

Procedural recount

Research report

Flo_582_RR B+/A

ENGL582 Second Language Teaching

Review Literature review

Flo_582_LR B+

ENGL587 Research Design and Methods

Procedures Research proposal

Flo_599_RP C

ENGL523 Second Language Learning

Exposition Argumentative essay

Flo_523_AE 25/30

SEMESTER 2ENGL585 Syllabus Planning and Materials Design

Procedural recount

Research article*

Flo_585_RA_CA B+

ENGL585 Syllabus Planning and Materials Design

Review Literature Review

Flo_585_LR A

ENGL5011 Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers Research Paper

Compositional report

Analysis report Flo_5011_AR B+

ENGL545 Multi-media in English Language Learning

Procedural recounts

Research report

Flo_545_RR 56/60

ENGL526 Testing and Assessment

Critical response

Critique essay Flo_526_CE 54/60

SEMESTER 3ENGL599 Functional Grammar for English Language Teachers

Descriptive report

Description of analysis

Flo_599_DA B+

Macro-level analysis

FLO_5

82_R

R

FLO_5

82_L

R

Flo_5

99_R

P

FLO_5

23_A

E

Flo_5

85_L

R

Flo_5

011_

AR

Flo_5

45_R

R

Flo_5

26_C

E

Flo_5

99_D

A0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

60.4

27.6

57.746

21

44.3 48.938 40.1

39.6

72.4

42.354

79

55.7 51.162.1 59.9

Monoglossic Heteroglossic

Two selected assignments: 1st: Research-based paper (FLO_582_RR) – Solutions to

avoid sentence fragments and run-ons 2nd: Literature review (FLO_582_LR) – Using listening

comprehension to teach oral English

Both from “Second Language Teaching” Close relevance of the topics (Petric and Harwood, 2013)

Outstanding grades (B+ or above) Requirement: Summary, Synthesis, Evaluation

Linking theories to practice

Meso-level analysis

ENGAGEMENT in Research Paper (FLO_582_RR)

ENGAGEMENT

monoglossic (N=119; 60.4%)

heteroglossic

expand

contract

disclaim

proclaim

entertain

attribute

acknowledge

distance (N=0; 0%)

deny (n=1; 12.5%)

counter (n=7; 87.5%)

concur (n=0; 0%)

pronounce (n=1; 20%)

endorse (n=7; 80%)

Sentence fragments and run-on sentences break the structural rule of forming a correct sentence.

Fitzpatrick and Ruscica (2000) once pointed out that

However; although; but

It is clear that

Syntactic variety can hardly be achieved

This evaluation is, of course, based on individual teaching context

(N=78; 39.6%)

(N=13; 16.7%)

(N=65; 83.3%)

(N=8; 61.5%)

(N=5; 38.5%)

(N=42; 64.6%)

(N=23; 35.4%)

(N=23; 100%)They might misunderstand sentence variety

This research indicates the strong relationship

ENGAGEMENT in Literature Review (FLO_582_LR)

ENGAGEMENT

monoglossic (N=37; 27.6%)

heteroglossic

expand

contract

disclaim

proclaim

entertain

attributeacknowledge

distance (N=0; 0%)

deny (n=5; 45.5%)

counter (n=6; 54.5%)

concur (n=3; 33.3%)

pronounce (n=3; 33.3%)

endorse (n=3; 33.3%)

Spoken language is increasingly demanded by learners in EFL classroom…

Tavil (2010) points out…

It seems feasible…

However; although; but

Flowerdew and Miller show…

I found…

Teaching speaking is not just the matter of teaching how to speak fluently and accurately.

Contextural guesswork in top-down model is commonly used

(N=97; 72.4%)

(N=20; 16.7%)

(N=77; 83.3%)

(N=11; 55%)

(N=9; 45%)

(N=43; 55.8%)

(N=34; 44.2%)

(N=34; 100%)

Meso-level analysis

HETEROGLOSSIC voice More expansion than contraction (80% - 20%)

ENTERTAIN values occur more frequently

ACKNOWLEDGE features are common as attribution

MONOGLOSSIC voice (FLO_582_RR: 60%; FLO_582_LR: 30%)

1. Assert writer’s own experience and perspectives

2. Indicate the structure, the purposes and the methods of the paper

3. Demonstrate the assumed shared field knowledge

4. Share the responsibility of the argument with other sources

Examples: HETEROGLOSSIC contraction

Based on my experience of teaching the speaking part of TOEFL iBT test, I may not [deny] share the same point with Wilson. [FLO_582_LR]

This approach sounds adoptable, but [counter] in the practice of question 6 in TOEFL speaking… it is too difficult for students... [FLO_582_LR]

This evaluation is, of course, [concur] based on individual teaching context... more empirical studies have to be investigated. [FLO_582_LR]

It is clear that [pronounce] the emergence of both fragments and run-ons rapidly [was] cut down... [FLO_582_RR]

This research indicates [endorse] the strong relationship between writing and grammar, and the inner relationship of grammar. [FLO_582_RR]

Examples: HETEROGLOSSIC expansion

They might [entertain] misunderstand sentence variety as complicated sentences. [FLO_582_RR]

Fitzpatrick and Ruscica (2000) once pointed out [attribute]that by recognising… writers will be able to add variety to the writing and make sentences more effective. [FLO_582_RR]

Examples: MONOGLOSSIC voice

1. As the training proceeded, based on my own teaching experience, the first task… [FLO_582_RR]

2. In the first section, I shall discuss the listening activities… [FLO_582_LR]

3. Sentence fragments and run-on sentences break the structural rule of forming a correct sentence. [FLO_582_RR]

4. Along these years, there has been an emphasis on top-down processing which is regarded as an important part of the communicative approach (Wilson, 2003). [FLO_582_LR]

Shifting the balance of voice

  Research Paper

Literature Review

Feature N % N %

MONO-GLOSSIC

119 60.4 37 27.6

HETERO-GLOSSIC

78 39.6 97 72.4

Total 197 100.0 134 100.0

Increased teacher support

Change in reading tactics

Viz. The more Flo read, the more she could use the reviewed literature

Requirements for different rhetorical purposes

Research report (inform)

Literature review (evaluate)

Micro-level analysis

Literature Review (FLO_582_LR) selected

Summary of literature with varying degrees of critical evaluation (Nesi and Gardner, 2012)

Requirements are explicitly given to include critical insights (Appendix 8) instead of being an annotated bibliography

Tracing voice shifts in the text

Identifying the ENGAGEMENT and evaluation strategies

# Text and the APPRAISAL resources marked Remarks3.1.1 Teachers adopting the top-down model are

encouraged [+jud] to think about whether the teaching materials help learners to focus [+app] on top-down listening skills. [monoglossic]

HyperTheme: Semantically dense argument set up; explicit evaluation establishes the attitudinal prosody across the phase – awaiting elaboration (voice as academic writer)

3.1.2 In developing materials for top-down processing, it is important [+app] to teach students to use context and situation as prior knowledge of the topic to comprehend the upcoming listening task (Nunan, 2002) [attribute]

The writer’s voice and commentary is exemplified and justified through acknowledging other research studies (voice as academic reader)

3.1.3 One of the ideal [+app] patterns of making use of previous knowledge is to personalize the listening content. [monoglossic]

3.1.4 The learner-centered dimension has been promoted in the teaching of listening in recent years. [monoglossic]

3.1.5 Nunan (2002), for example, suggested that teachers can use students’ speech which includes their own background knowledge and personal experience as listening materials. [attribute]

3.1.6 He also mentioned that the activities which involve students’ listening to one’s speech and writing down their responses, may evoke speaking tasks of discussing about their different responses (p.240). [attribute]

# Text and the APPRAISAL resources marked

Remarks

3.1.7 It seems [entertain] feasible in classrooms where students’ level are relatively similar, supported by Wilson (2003) [+attribute] while choosing listening text.

The writer uses elaborate engagement strategies disalign readers from the previous evaluative position, drawing upon her own teaching experience. (voice as experienced teacher)

3.1.8 In my present TOEFL training course, however [counter], advanced-level [+jud] students may [entertain] find it so easy [-app] to respond speech from less-advanced [-jud] students.

3.1.9 Thus, the teaching and learning becomes inefficient [-app].

3.1.10

One possible [entertain] solution [+app] is that teachers can select speech from students of higher level, which may [entertain] benefit students of different levels.

HyperNew: distillation of information from literature and evaluation of her experience to become a solution to improve teaching (voice as teaching advisor)

Disalignment strategy

ENTERTAIN ^ [GRADUATION: FOCUS •COUNTER] ^ APPRECIATION

It seems [entertain] feasible… supported by Wilson (2002). In my

present TOEFL training course [graduation: focus], however

[counter], advanced-level students may find it so easy [-ve

appreciation] to respond speech from less-advanced students. Thus,

the teaching and learning becomes inefficient [-app].(3.1.7 – 3.1.9)

Usually [entertain], it is the teacher who plays a role in introducing

the background, but [counter] in the real test [graduation: focus],

such activity will not occur [-ve appreciation].

Alignment strategy

ATTITUDE ^ PRONOUNCE ^ ATTITUDE

With a clear [+appreciation] purpose, listeners know [+judgement]

what information is needed and what strategy should be used. I believe

[pronounce] this approach is of importance [+appreciation] in

teaching listening comprehension, and it is also an effective way

[+appreciation] to scaffold spoken language.

When students are aware of [+judgement] these characteristics, they

can predict [+judgement] what the whole listening is talking about. I

find [pronounce] the use of real-life dialogues helpful [+judgement] in

training the TOEFL speaking parts with conversational listening.

Attitudinal positioning of the teacher voice

Quality of the pedagogic approach; capabilities of the students

[The top-down model] seems feasible [+ve appreciation: quality]

where students’ level are relatively similar, supported by Wilson

(2002). In my present TOEFL training course, however,

advanced-level [+ve judgement: capability] students may find it

so easy [-ve appreciation: complexity] to respond speech from

less-advanced [-ve judgement: capability] students. Thus, the

teaching and learning becomes inefficient [-ve appreciation:

balance].

Summary of findings: Flo as an effective postgraduate writer

Macro-level (from above)

MONOGLOSSIC voice prevails in research-related assignments

heteroglossic expansion/contraction dominates in literature review texts

Meso-level (from within)

Shift of voice among assignments suggests sophistication of voice balance or subtle voice differences across genres

Display academic modesty and wide range of reading

Micro-level (from below)

Refined dialogic choice to (dis-)align with readership

Effective attitudinal positioning with the appropriate voice

Future Works

Elaborate macro-level analysis Incorporate identified patterns in discourse analysis to the student

assignment corpus

Compare features across genres and cases

Fully utilise interview data Annotation with respect to notions of authorial presence, identities

and “critical thinking”

Reiterate the significance of voice teaching (Matsuda and Tardy, 2009) Explicate practice of “critical thinking” in academic disciplines

(Szenes, Tilakaratna & Maton, 2014)

Theoretical explorations Better define and map “postgraduate assignment genres”

Modification of ENGAGEMENT system(?)

Major references

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.

Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Unpublished University of Technology, Sydney.

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as APPRAISAL: Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In K. Hyland, & C.S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 51-68). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. UK: Palgrave Macmillan

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. UK: Equinox.

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. London: Equinox.

Thank you very much!

Questions and comments are welcome!