Teaching Grammatical Metaphor: Designing Pedagogical Interventions 1443877492, 9781443877497

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List Of Tables
Preface
Chapter One
Background to Research
Previous Research
Research Design
Key Terms used in this Project
Outline of Following Chapters
Chapter Two
Grammatical Metaphor
Grammatical Metaphor Based on Stratal Tension
Grammatical Metaphor Based on Semantic Junction
Grammatical Metaphor in Language Development and Language Education
Genre-Based Pedagogies
Three Genre Traditions
Genre Teaching and Language Education
Theoretical Foundations of The Sydney School’s Genre Pedagogy
Feedback in SLA, SLW, Sct and The Sydney School
Definition and Types of Feedback
Feedback from The Perspective of SLA And SLW
Feedback from The Perspective of Sociocultural Theory
Feedback from The Perspective of The Sydney School
Chapter Summary
Chapter Three
Context of Larger Project
Theoretical Framework
Analytical Framework
Phase I
Context
Participants
Action Taken
Data Analysis
Phase 2
Context
Participants
Action Taken
Data Analysis
Phase 3
Context
Participants
Action Taken
Data Analysis
Summary
Chapter Four
Context
Task
Data Analysis Procedure
Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use
Experiential Metaphor Use
Logical Metaphor Use
Tutors’ Feedback on Grammatical Metaphor
Feedback on Experiential Metaphor
Feedback on Logical Metaphor
Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use Across Drafts
Reflecting on Results
Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use
Tutors’ Grammatical Metaphor Feedback
Development of Students’ GM Use Across Drafts
Planning The Next Phase
Chapter Five
Planning
Frontloading Students
Training Tutors
Taking Action
Analysing Results
Students Grammatical Metaphor Use
Tutors Feedback on Grammatical Metaphor and Students’ Response
Feedback on Experiential Metaphor
Combined Experiential and Logical Metaphor Feedback
Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention
Reflecting On Results
Reflecting on Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use
Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Feedback
Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention
Planning The Last Phase
Chapter Six
Planning
Designing Assignment
Frontloading Students
Training Tutors
Determining Achievement Groups
Taking Action
Analysing Results
Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use
Tutors’ Feedback on Grammatical Metaphorand Students’ Response
Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention
Similarities of and Differences Between High and Low Proficiency Groups
Reflecting on Results
Reflecting on Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use
Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Feedback and Students’ Response
Reflecting on The Development of Grammatical Metaphor
Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Use and Language Proficiency
Chapter Seven
Language Proficiency And GM Use
Feedback Across Phases
Explicitness, Rationale, Metalanguage
Feedback Topology
Carrying
Hand Holding
Bridging
Free Climbing
Feedback and GM Use
Feedback Example Targeting Second Sentence of a Draft
Feedback Targeting an Evaluative Sentence in a Body Paragraph
Feedback and Zpd
Chapter Eight
Research Context
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Limitations
Pedagogical Implications
Future Directions
References
Appendices
Appendix A
The Role of Grammatical Metaphor
Experiential Metaphor
Logical Metaphor
References
Appendix B
Experiential Metaphor
Logical Metaphor
References
Appendix C
What is Grammatical Metaphor?
The Role of Grammatical Metaphor
Experiential Metaphor
Logical Metaphor
References
Activities

Citation preview

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor: Designing Pedagogical Interventions By

Devo Yilmaz Devrim

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor: Designing Pedagogical Interventions By Devo Yilmaz Devrim This book first published 2015 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2015 by Devo Yilmaz Devrim All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7749-2 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7749-7

For my family

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures............................................................................................. xi List Of Tables ............................................................................................ xii Preface. ..................................................................................................... xiv Chapter One: Previewing the Research................................................... 1 Background to Research .............................................................................. 5 Previous Research ....................................................................................... 6 Research Design .......................................................................................... 7 Key Terms used in this Project .................................................................. 12 Outline of Following Chapters .................................................................. 13 Chapter Two: Establishing Foundations ............................................... 15 Grammatical Metaphor .............................................................................. 15 Grammatical Metaphor Based on Stratal Tension ............................... 16 Grammatical Metaphor Based on Semantic Junction .......................... 19 Grammatical Metaphor in Language Development and Language Education...................................................................... 21 Genre-Based Pedagogies ........................................................................... 25 Three Genre Traditions ........................................................................ 26 Genre Teaching and Language Education ........................................... 27 Theoretical Foundations of The Sydney School’s Genre Pedagogy ................................................ 29 Feedback in SLA, SLW, Sct and The Sydney School ............................... 34 Definition and Types of Feedback ....................................................... 34 Feedback from The Perspective of SLA And SLW ............................. 36 Feedback from The Perspective of Sociocultural Theory .................... 39 Feedback from The Perspective of The Sydney School....................... 40 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................... 42 Chapter Three: Designing Research Phases ......................................... 43 Context of Larger Project: SLATE ............................................................ 43 Theoretical Framework.............................................................................. 46 Analytical Framework ............................................................................... 49

viii

Table of Contents

Phase I: August – December, 2008............................................................ 51 Context ................................................................................................. 51 Participants .......................................................................................... 52 Action Taken........................................................................................ 52 Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 53 Phase 2: January – April, 2009 .................................................................. 54 Context ................................................................................................. 55 Participants .......................................................................................... 55 Action Taken........................................................................................ 56 Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 57 Phase 3: January – April 2010 ................................................................... 57 Context ................................................................................................. 57 Participants .......................................................................................... 58 Action Taken........................................................................................ 58 Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 59 Summary ................................................................................................... 60 Chapter Four: Phase 1: Observing Students’ GM Use and Tutors’ GM Feedback...................................................................... 61 Context ...................................................................................................... 62 Task...................................................................................................... 62 Data Analysis Procedure ...................................................................... 63 Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use....................................................... 64 Experiential Metaphor Use .................................................................. 65 Logical Metaphor Use.......................................................................... 70 Tutors’ Feedback on Grammatical Metaphor ............................................ 73 Feedback on Experiential Metaphor .................................................... 74 Feedback on Logical Metaphor............................................................ 77 Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use Across Drafts ..................... 78 Reflecting on Results ................................................................................. 79 Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use ................................................. 80 Tutors’ Grammatical Metaphor Feedback ........................................... 84 Development of Students’ GM Use Across Drafts .............................. 85 Planning The Next Phase ..................................................................... 86

 Chapter Five: Phase 2: Supporting GM Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage ......................................................... 87 Planning ..................................................................................................... 89 Frontloading Students .......................................................................... 90 Training Tutors .................................................................................... 91 Taking Action ............................................................................................ 92

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

ix

Analysing Results ...................................................................................... 93 Students Grammatical Metaphor Use .................................................. 93 Tutors Feedback on Grammatical Metaphor and Students’ Response ....................................................................... 97 Feedback on Experiential Metaphor .......................................................... 99 Combined Experiential and Logical Metaphor Feedback ....................... 102 Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention .. 104 Reflecting On Results .............................................................................. 106 Reflecting on Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use ........................ 106 Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Feedback ............................... 108 Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention .. 109 Planning The Last Phase.......................................................................... 111 Chapter Six: Phase 2: Supporting GM Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage ............................................................ 114 Planning ................................................................................................... 116 Designing Assignment ....................................................................... 117 Frontloading Students ........................................................................ 118 Training Tutors .................................................................................. 119 Determining Achievement Groups .................................................... 119 Taking Action .......................................................................................... 120 Analysing Results .................................................................................... 120 Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use ............................................... 121 Tutors’ Feedback on Grammatical Metaphor and Students’ Response ..................................................................... 125 Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention ..................................................................... 133 Similarities of and Differences Between High and Low Proficiency Groups ............................................................. 137 Reflecting on Results ............................................................................... 142 Reflecting on Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use ........................ 142 Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Feedback and Students’ Response ..................................................................... 143 Reflecting on The Development of Grammatical Metaphor .............. 145 Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Use and Language Proficiency.................................................................. 147 Chapter Seven: Bringing It All Together ............................................ 149 Language Proficiency And GM Use........................................................ 149 Feedback Across Phases .......................................................................... 152 Explicitness, Rationale, Metalanguage .............................................. 153

x

Table of Contents

Feedback Topology ................................................................................. 158 Carrying: Explicit Feedback without Any Rationale ......................... 160 Hand Holding: Explicit Feedback with Rationale Provided .............. 161 Bridging: Low Explicitness Feedback with Rationale Provided........ 163 Free Climbing: Low Explicitness Feedback without Any Rationale ...... 164 Feedback and GM Use ............................................................................ 165 Feedback Example Targeting Second Sentence of a Draft ................ 166 Feedback Targeting an Evaluative Sentence in a Body Paragraph .... 167 Feedback and Zpd.................................................................................... 169 Chapter Eight: Summarizing The Research, Implications, Limitations and Future Directions ........................................................................... 176 Research Context ............................................................................... 176 Phase 1 ............................................................................................... 177 Phase 2 ............................................................................................... 178 Phase 3 ............................................................................................... 180 Limitations............................................................................................... 181 Pedagogical Implications ......................................................................... 186 Future Directions ..................................................................................... 187 References ............................................................................................... 189 Appendices .............................................................................................. 197 Appendix A: How to Use Grammatical Metaphor .................................. 197 The Role of Grammatical Metaphor .................................................. 197 Experiential Metaphor ....................................................................... 198 Logical Metaphor ............................................................................... 200 References.......................................................................................... 202 Appendix B: The Role of Grammatical Metaphor in Academic Writing ..... 202 Experiential Metaphor ....................................................................... 202 Logical Metaphor ............................................................................... 203 References.......................................................................................... 204 Appendix C: What is Grammatical Metaphor in Academic Genres? ...... 205 What is Grammatical Metaphor? ....................................................... 205 The Role of Grammatical Metaphor .................................................. 205 Experiential Metaphor ....................................................................... 206 Logical Metaphor ............................................................................... 207 References.......................................................................................... 209 Activities............................................................................................ 210

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Teaching Learning Cycle (Adapted from Rothery, 1994) ........ 32 Figure 3.1 Teaching Learning Cycle (Adapted from Rothery, 1994) ........ 46 Figure 3.2 Metaphorical Realizations Based on an Integrated Model ....... 47 Figure 3.3 Congruent Realizations Based on an Integrated Model ........... 48 Figure 3.2 Action Research Cycle ............................................................. 50 Figure 4.1 Frequency of GM and Technical Terms Types in The Data Set (N= 4,330 Words) ................................................................................ 80 Figure 4.2 Frequency of Occurrence of GMs and Technical Terms in The Data Set (N= 4,330 Words) .................................................................. 81 Figure 4.3 Frequency of Experiential Metaphor Types in The Data Set (N= 4,330 Words) ................................................................................ 82 Figure 4.4 Frequency of Experiential Metaphor Instances in The Data Set (N= 4,330 Words) ................................................................................ 82 Figure 4.5 Frequency of Logical Metaphor Types in The Data Set (N= 4,330 Words) ................................................................................ 83 Figure 4.6 Frequency of Logical Metaphor Instances in The Data Set (N= 4,330 Words) ................................................................................ 84 Figure 7.1 Topology of Feedback within Metalanguage (Devrim, 2014, P. 6) .......................................................................... 159 Figure 7.2 Periodicity at Whole Text Level (Based on Martin & Rose, 2003) ....................................................... 166 Figure 7.3 Distribution of Amy’s Feedback Based on Type ................... 171 Figure 7.4 Distribution of Amy’s Feedback Based on Text Section ....... 172

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Overview of Research Phases...................................................... 8 Table 4.1 Frequency of GM Use in Draft 1 ............................................... 65 Table 4.2 Frequency of Experiential Metaphor In 16 Texts (N=4,330 Words) ................................................................................. 66 Table 4.3 Technical Terms Identified in 16 Texts (N=4,330 Words) ........ 69 Table 4.4 Logical Metaphor Identified in 16 Texts (N=4,330 Words) ...... 70 Table 4.5 Comparison of GM Use in Draft 1 And Final Submission (N=4330 Words) .................................................................................. 79 Table 5.1 Frequency of GM Use in Draft 1 (N=3491 Words) ................... 94 Table 5.2 Frequency of Experiential Metaphors in 11 Texts (N=3,491 Words) ................................................................................. 95 Table 5.3 Frequency of Technical Terms in 11 Texts (N=3,491 Words) ................................................................................. 96 Table 5.4 Frequency of Logical Metaphors in 11 Texts (N=3,491 Words) ................................................................................. 96 Table 5.5 Comparison of GM Use in Draft One And Final Submission (N=3491 Words) ................................................................................ 105 Table 5.6 Comparison of GM Use in Phase 1 And Phase 2 (N=1000 Words) ................................................................................ 107 Table 5.7 Comparison of Development of GM During Phase 1 and Phase 2 (N=1000 Words) ................................................................................ 110 Table 6.1 Frequency of GM Use in 8 Texts (N=4,016 Words) ............... 121 Table 6.2 Frequency of Experiential Metaphors in 8 Texts (N=4,016 Words) ............................................................................... 122 Table 6.3 Frequency of Technical Terms in 8 Texts (N=4,016 Words) ............................................................................... 123 Table 6.4 Frequency of Logical Metaphors in 8 Texts (N=4,016 Words) ............................................................................... 124 Table 6.5 Comparison of GM Use in Draft One and Final Submission (N=1,000 Words) ............................................................................... 134 Table 6.6 Two Groups Use of Experiential Metaphor Based on Type and Instance (N=39) ........................................................................... 138 Table 6.7 Students’ Use of Logical Metaphor Based on Type and Instance (N=39) ........................................................................... 140 Table 6.8 Comparison of GM Use in Phase 2 and Phase 3 (N=1,000 Words) ............................................................................... 142

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

xiii

Table 6.9 GM Feedback and Students’ Response to Feedback ............... 143 Table 6.10 Comparison of Development of GM Both Phases (N=1,000 Words) ............................................................................... 146 Table 7.1 Frequency of Technical Terms and GM across Research Phases (N=1,000 Words) ............................................................................... 150 Table 7.2 Tutors Feedback on GM and Students’ Response ................... 153 Table 7.3 Explicit Feedback without any Rationale (+E, -R) .................. 161 Table 7.4 Explicit Feedback with Rationale Provided (+E, +R) ............. 162 Table 7.5 Less Explicit Feedback with Rationale Provided (-E, +R) ...... 163 Table 7.6 Less Explicit Feedback without any Rationale (-E, -R)........... 164 Table 7.7 An Overview of Amy’s GM Feedback .................................... 170 Table 1a: Experiential Metaphor – Process as Noun ............................... 202 Table 1b: Experiential Metaphor – Quality as Noun ............................... 203 Table 2: Logical Metaphor ...................................................................... 204 Table 1.A: Actions/Processes as Things .................................................. 206 Table 1.B: Qualities as Things ................................................................ 207 Table 2: Logical Metaphor ...................................................................... 208 Table 1. Nominalizations from Text B with their Equivalent Spoken Examples from Text A ....................................................................... 212 Table 1. Nominalizations from Text B with their Equivalent Spoken Examples from Text A ....................................................................... 214

PREFACE

This book is based on my PhD dissertation. It recounts a story regarding designing and implementing pedagogical interventions to teach grammatical metaphor (GM). The motivation for converting my PhD dissertation mainly resulted from the need to provide a discussion of the evolution of GM theory. GM has been theorized based on two notions in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) theory: stratal tension and semantic junction. While the stratal tension notion helped researchers develop a framework theorizing GM based on interstratal tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar; the notion of semantic junction was helpful in theorizing GM based on intra-stratal junction between elemental semantic categories. Although these two notions possess fundamental differences, they are also closely related. The theorization of GM drawing on the notion of semantic junction might be regarded as a transference/transcategorization of GM instances suggested by the model that draws on the notion of stratal tension. In order to clarify the theoretical orientations to GM research, this book provides a detailed recount of the evolution of GM theory. The other motivation for the book, which is closely related to the first motivation, is to show that it is also possible to retheorize GM drawing on both stratal tension and semantic junction notions. This theorization of GM includes more pedagogical reasons rather than theoretical. By theorizing GM based on these two notions, I aimed to come up with an “appliable” GM model, which is referred to as an integrated model throughout the book. The remodelling of GM is appliable to the teaching of GM to users of English as an additional language (EAL). Firstly, it provides a more appropriate framework for EAL contexts, and secondly, it identifies instances of GM with an objective to teach them. The other equally important motivation for the book was to present how GM can be taught using action research (AR) as the methodology. During the three years of the research, AR was adopted as the methodology to teach GM to EAL users by providing field knowledge to the students who participated in the research, and by training tutors who provided online language support to those students. The research was conducted in three phases and each phase followed an AR cycle. The first phase was

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

xv

observational, but the following two phases were interventionist in nature. In other words, Phase 2 and Phase 3 aimed to develop an approach to teaching GM. Although there are other ways of teaching GM to EAL users, this book follows AR as the methodology. The third motivation for the book was to share the possibility of providing online language support in the form of written comments/feedback in relation to the proficiency level of EAL students. The research on written feedback is mostly related to corrective feedback, however, this book theorizes written feedback in relation to the notion of zone of proximal development (ZPD) and situates it within the genre pedagogy that originated from the Department of Linguistics at the University of Sydney. The chapters that report on the three phases of the research study present the ways in which the EAL students were supported by their tutors, who were based in Sydney, and categorize feedback in relation to its nature. To put it simply, the book also provides a framework for its readership regarding how written feedback might be cast according to the proficiency level of students, grounded in the quality of their writing, and structured in a more supportive way rather than being only corrective in nature. Based on the light of the motivations outlined above, this book is a valuable resource for linguists, educational linguists, lecturers, and researchers as it provides a recount of the evolution of GM theory, and summarizes the research studies that explored the development of GM in language learning and language education contexts. Furthermore, the book is also a helpful resource for language programmers, unit/course designers, teacher educators, language teachers and higher degree research students. I would like to express my gratitude to my mentors, colleagues, students, friends and family for supporting me throughout the process of preparing a book manuscript based on my PhD research. My initial thanks go to Jim Martin as he has planted the seed for me to think about the possibility of a book based on my research. Secondly, I would like to thank to my colleagues who have supported me in the Scaffolding Literacy in Adult and Tertiary Environments (SLATE) project, which provided the nest for my research on GM and written feedback. My special thanks go to Shoshana Dreyfus, Sally Humphrey, Lucy Macnaught, Ahmar Mahboob, Eszter Szenes and Trish Weekes. Without their support and friendship, this book would not be possible. Also, I would like to thank to my colleagues at the University of New England (UNE) for preparing the best working environment for me. The supportive working environment at UNE provided me with the mental space to work on the book. My thanks go to

xvi

Preface

Steve Tobias, Bob Boughton, Mary Macken-Horarik, Eveline Chan, Andrew Simpson and Thu Ngo. I would also like to thank to my past and present undergraduate and postgraduate students who helped me shape my ideas. Furthermore, my friends in Armidale always supported me throughout the process. I would like to express my respects to my friends Benny Deeks, Gav Kelly, Daniel Norton and Josh St Ledger. And finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family. Thank you a million times for your never ending support and love. You are still managing it from thousands of kilometers away. Of course, I cannot end the acknowledgements without paying special thanks to my fluffy ginger companion, Rosa. Thank you Rosa for reminding me there is more to life than work and everybody needs to take a moment to sit back and enjoy what life brings to them. Dr Devo Devrim Armidale June 24, 2015

CHAPTER ONE PREVIEWING THE RESEARCH

This book reports on an action research project that spanned a period of more than three years. The aims of this project were twofold; firstly, the project aimed to establish an approach to teaching grammatical metaphor (GM hereafter), which is one of the fundamental characteristics of academic registers as suggested by Halliday (1985a). Secondly, it aims to explore the role of online feedback in helping students improve their GM use. The project applied the theoretical foundations of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL hereafter) to second language writing development. Therefore, the project is considered to be within the domain of “appliable linguistics”, a term coined by Halliday (2006b). Halliday prefers to use the term “appliable linguistics” in an attempt to abolish the dichotomy between theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics. According to Halliday, applied linguistics functions in opposition to linguistics, implying theoretical or pure linguistics is superior to applied linguistics. He believes that there needs to be a single category of linguistics that is based on both theory and application, as application without theory or theory without application can be seen as inconsequential. This action research project was part of a larger project titled the SLATE Project (Scaffolding Literacy in Adult and Tertiary Environments), which was a joint project between the University of Sydney (USYD hereafter) and City University of Hong Kong (CityU hereafter). The SLATE project was conducted within a genre-based pedagogy developed in the Department of Linguistics at USYD in the 1980s, an approach at times referred to as the Sydney School. The Sydney School integrates SFL genre theory (Martin & Rose 2008), sociology of education (Bernstein, 1975) and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). The Sydney School’s genre based-pedagogy aims to empower individuals from all socio-economic and cultural backgrounds through explicit teaching of genres, to help them succeed in social life (Rose & Martin, 2012).

2

Chapter One

Following the principles of the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy, the SLATE project provided online literacy support to various student cohorts from biology, electronic engineering, applied physics, sociology and linguistics through training tutors who supported students at CityU. The support provided is based on a Teaching and Learning Cycle (TLC hereafter) suggested by Rothery (1994), where the students are scaffolded through deconstruction, joint construction and independent construction of genres. However, this framework of the TLC needed to be adapted to the nature of the online learning/teaching context, as well as the needs of students who were supported by the SLATE project. The initial stage of the cycle did not differ. The students who were supported by the SLATE project were provided with background knowledge on the purposes and staging of genres in which they were required to compose their assignments. This stage corresponds to the deconstruction stage of the TLC. The deconstruction stage was followed by an independent construction stage where the students were supported by online tutor feedback. Due to the nature of this online learning and teaching environment, the joint construction stage of the TLC was incorporated into the independent construction stage and strengthened by tutors’ feedback. The tutors supported their students on content, genre, register, discourse semantics, lexicogrammar, graphology, punctuation and GM. In conjunction with the SLATE project, the action research project reported in here specifically focused on how students develop their GM use with the help of tutors’ feedback and aims at developing an approach to teaching GM. GM is one of the fundamental characteristics of adult language and it is widely used in bureaucratic, scientific and academic discourses that allow meaning making in more non-congruent and abstract ways (Halliday, 1985a). Throughout the academic genesis of individuals, GM becomes more important as individuals are required to make meaning in more abstract and technical ways. According to Halliday (1993), the language development of individuals follows a trajectory from common sense to uncommon sense, starting with generalization, continuing with abstraction and followed by GM. Hence, GM is a crucial linguistic aspect in first language development and research on the role of GM in first language development confirms its importance (Derewianka, 2003a; Painter, 2003; Torr & Simpson, 2003). Along similar lines, GM is also a crucial aspect in second language development (Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2004; Colombi 2006; Byrnes 2009; Ryshina–Pankova 2010; Wang, 2010). The mastery of effective use of this linguistic aspect can lead to success in academic and educational environments for second language users.

Previewing the Research

3

Therefore, developing an approach to teaching GM to second language users is essential. The action research project reported in this book built on this understanding of GM and integrated it into the SLATE project, which will be described in more detail below. Developing an approach to teaching GM to second language users is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, second language users need to identify GM to make meaning in their field of study. Students who are apprenticed in their community of practice are required to read within particular fields. The ability to read various texts within a field requires mastery of a technicalized shared language through which knowledge is shared. To put it simply, this requires the ability to read various texts. As Halliday (1985a) argues, GM is an essential component of bureaucratic, scientific and academic discourses. Students, who use English as a second language need to acquire some knowledge about GM. This will empower second language users, as they will be able to make meaning from their textbooks, journal articles, book chapters and books during their degrees. Therefore, identification of GM is quite empowering for second language users, as this will help them read various texts in their fields. Secondly, second language writers need to master GM formation, so that they are able to use GM effectively to compose texts similar to the ones that they were introduced to during their degree. Hence, GM needs to be taught to second language users so that they continue to develop their academic literacy skills, as they will be able to use GM in explanation, report, discussion and argumentation, which are the academic genre families required at undergraduate level. Thus an approach to teach GM to undergraduate level second language users is crucial. Accordingly, this book aims to fill a gap in GM research by developing an appliable method that results in effective GM use within the domain of an online learning and teaching environment. To achieve the research aims, the project consisted of three phases. Phase 1 aimed to establish foundations to develop an approach to teaching GM by observing how students employed GM, and whether tutors supported students’ GM use through open comments. That is, Phase 1 was explanatory and observational. It did not adopt an interventionist approach to train tutors or provide students with information regarding GM. The research questions that guided Phase 1 were as follows: 1. 2. 3.

What types of GM do students use in their work? What feedback do tutors provide on students’ use of the GM? Do students’ develop their GM use across drafts?

4

Chapter One

Phase 2 and Phase 3, on the other hand, sought answers to the research questions through training tutors and providing students with background knowledge on types of GM and how to use them effectively, which was referred to as frontloading students in the SLATE project. In other words, Phase 2 and Phase 3 adopted an interventionist approach building on Phase 1. These two research phases were designed based on GM identification, GM formation and GM use. While Phase 2 focused on training tutors and frontloading students on GM identification and GM formation, Phase 3 focused on GM use in addition to GM identification and GM formation. In order to train tutors, “periodicity” was used (Martin & Rose, 2003). Periodicity is regarding the information flow in macro-Theme, macroNew, hyper-Theme and hyper-New. Macro-Theme previews the context of the texts, and then each point listed in macro-Theme is further previewed in hyper-Theme and summarized in hyper-New. Macro-New summarizes the points discussed in the conclusion. The research questions investigated during Phase 2 were as follows: 1. What are the effects of frontloading on students’ GM use? 2. What are the effects of tutor training on tutors’ feedback? 3. What are the effects of GM feedback on students’ GM use? The intervention in Phase 3 was built on Phase 2. Therefore, the research questions explored were: 1. What are the effects of frontloading based on periodicity on students’ GM use? 2. What are the effects of tutor training on tutors’ feedback? 3. What are the effects of GM feedback on students’ GM use? 4. What role does language proficiency play in students’ GM use? Chapters 4, 5 and 6 will address these research questions by providing a detailed account of the specific research methods employed, of sampling and of data analysis procedures during Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. The GM model adopted to explore the research questions of this action research project was an integrated model based on Halliday (1985a, 1988/1993, 1998), Martin (1992a, 1993b), Halliday and Martin (1993), and Halliday and Matthiessen (1999). Halliday and Martin theorize and exemplify GM based on stratal tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. The concept of stratal tension suggests that the resetting of the relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar leads to the formation of GM instances. On the other hand, Halliday and

Previewing the Research

5

Matthiessen (1999) theorize and exemplify GM based on semantic junction between semantic categories. Although there are theoretical differences between the two models, there are also similarities. Those similarities were used to retheorize GM using an integrated model. Theorization of GM based on stratal tension and semantic junction will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

Background to Research The action research project reported in this book aimed to establish a method for teaching GM to undergraduate students who use English as a second language. As GM is one of the fundamental notions of SFL theory and is widely used in bureaucratic, scientific and academic contexts, this sub-section firstly provides an explication of the theorization of GM, and then summarizes key research studies in first, second language development, as well as the studies conducted in the Hong Kong context. The section concludes with the role of GM in educational contexts. The notion of GM requires an understanding of two key concepts suggested by Halliday (1985a): lexical metaphor and congruency. Halliday (1985a) commences his discussion of GM by contrasting it with lexical metaphor, which involves expressing a variation in meaning through the use of meaning transfer. Lexical metaphor seems to be realized with different uses of words. However, his discussion of GM requires an understanding of unmarkedness or incongruency, referring to atypical ways of saying things. Therefore, GM involves, as opposed to congruent expressions, atypical expressions caused by change in grammatical structures. Although GM includes change in lexemes, alteration in meaning is not simply due to lexical variation but to a change in grammar as well. One of the fundamental notions of Hallidayan linguistics is that language has three separate, but interrelated metafunctions, namely ideational, interpersonal and textual (Halliday, 1985a) The ideational metafunction refers to the field of text, the interpersonal metafunction refers to the social relationships between language users, and finally the textual metafunction refers to how text, written or spoken is organized. Meaning making through language use requires the interaction of these three metafunctions. The second crucial notion of SFL is stratification. Stratification suggests that language consists of interconnected strata: phonology/graphology, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics. The

6

Chapter One

relationship between these strata is based on how meanings in one stratum are realized by the neighbouring stratum. Specifically, the meanings in the semantic stratum are realized in the form of sentences, clauses, groups, phrases and words by the lexicogrammar stratum. Similarly, the meanings in lexicogrammar are realized by the phonology/graphology stratum in the form of sounds or graphic symbols. Based on the fundamental notions of SFL, Halliday (1985a) suggests two kinds of GM: ideational and interpersonal. Ideational metaphor is considered non-congruent ways of meaning making which depend on how the world is experienced and how worldly events are logically perceived. Interpersonal metaphor, on the other hand, negotiates relationships between language users. It involves non-congruent ways to convey possibility and expresses speech functions such as requesting, ordering, suggesting and asserting. Furthermore, Martin (1992a) suggests experiential and logical metaphor as two major types of GM. GM has been widely investigated in terms of its development and evolution in science, bureaucracy, language development and education. In terms of scientific discourses, Halliday (1988/1993) explores how GM has evolved in science registers spanning more than a period of six hundred years. Similarly, Martin (1992a) probes the use of GM in bureaucratic contexts in Australia. In terms of language development, studies might be categorized depending on their context, i.e. whether they investigate first or second language development. A review of the literature in the field will be presented in Chapter 2; here, I will introduce some of the key research in terms of how it relates to the current project.

Previous Research This section contextualizes the research project within GM studies conducted in language development. Research on GM can be divided into two categories. The first category consists of studies with a focus on first language development (Derewianka, 2003a; Painter, 2003; Torr & Simpson, 2003). The second category includes research conducted in second language development contexts (Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2004; Colombi, 2006; Byrnes, 2009; Ryshina–Pankova, 2010; Wang, 2010). The first category of language development studies on GM investigates and documents how native English-speaking children and adolescents use GM and how it becomes more advanced with language development. The studies conducted within the second language

Previewing the Research

7

development contexts focus on the written language development of tertiary students. Drawing on GM progression in second language development studies, the action research project reported here explores how tertiary level students use and develop their use of GM in their writing. GM studies conducted within second language development contexts (Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2004; Colombi, 2006; Byrnes, 2009; Ryshina–Pankova, 2010; Wang, 2010) have analysed how second language users employ GM in their writing. These studies focus on the importance of GM in second language writing in English, Spanish and German, and suggest that GM should be taught to second language users. Drawing on the findings from these research studies, this book focuses on establishing an approach to teaching GM to second language writers. In other words, not only does this study analyse how students deploy GM in their written work, but it also has a pedagogical agenda to develop a method to teach GM within the SLATE project.

Research Design The method used in this project is action research. Action research can be understood as learning by doing. In action research, researchers identify a problem, plan action, take action and evaluate findings (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Freebody, 2003; Burns, 2010). In the context of this action research project, my focus was to develop an approach to teaching GM (experiential and logical types) to English as a second language users. To manage this, three action research cycles were carried out. Each cycle consisted of the following phases: planning to consider alternative paths of action, taking action to select a path of action, analysing results to observe the impacts of action, and reflecting on results to study the consequences of an action. Action research cycle will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The study was conducted over a period of three years within three phases. Phase 1, which took place between July and December 2008, concentrated on discussion sections of laboratory reports written by undergraduate students enrolled in Applied Physics. Students’ reports and tutors’ feedback from the first two assignments were analysed qualitatively. The analytical framework for the identification of GM was based on agnation. Agnation refers to the process of creating more congruent variants of original sentences. Based on agnation, instances of GM were identified. Phase 2, which took place between January and April 2009,

Chapter One

8

focused on the compositional reports written by Electronic Engineering students enrolled in the Analogue Laboratory unit. Similar to the first phase, students’ use of GM was analysed using agnation. The third and last phase, conducted between January and April 2010, explored the assignments of undergraduate linguistics students enrolled in the unit Introduction to Linguistics. Phase 3 was different from the first two phases in the sense that it involved using a model to identify and analyse GM. Table 1.1 provides an overview of the action research phases. Context Field Genre Participants

Number of drafts

Goals

Phase Applied Physics procedural recount 48 students and 4 tutors 128 drafts for GM analysis 352 for GM feedback analysis To explore how students used GM To explore whether tutors provided GM feedback

Phase 2 Electronic Engineering compositional reports 108 students and 12 tutors

Phase 3

consequential explanation 39 students and 5 tutors

44 drafts for GM analysis 432 for GM feedback analysis

78 drafts for GM analysis 46 drafts for GM feedback analysis

To explore students’ GM use To train tutors on GM To analyse tutors’ GM feedback

To investigate students’ GM use To train tutors on GM To analyse tutors’ GM feedback

Linguistics

Table 1.1 Overview of research phases Phase 1 focused on lab reports written by students enrolled in the Department of Applied Physics. The analysis of 126 drafts from 16 students, who have completed the TLC for each assignment, shows that the students used experiential and logical metaphors in their assignments. Experiential metaphor was the largest category with two sub-types: process as noun and quality as noun. Experiential metaphor refers to information packaging into nominal groups through the nominalization of verbs and adjectives, e.g. “introduction”, “accuracy”. The students also used technical terms in the form of nominalization. Logical metaphor was also employed by the participating students. Logical metaphor refers to non-congruent ways of construing causality within a clause rather than between clauses. In-clause causality is managed through the employment of verb, preposition, noun and adjective that creates stratal tension

Previewing the Research

9

between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. There were three subtypes of logical metaphor identified in the data set: use of material processes such as “cause”, which was referred to as cause as verb; prepositions such as “due to” and “by”, which was named cause as preposition; and adjectives such as “useful”, which was referred to as cause as adjective. Of the 16 students’ final drafts for assignment four were compared to their first drafts of the first assignment, and it was observed that students used experiential and logical metaphors more frequently in their very final drafts than in their first drafts. However, the frequency of students’ technical term use decreased in their final drafts. As for the tutors’ feedback on GM, there were a total of five instances of GM feedback. Three of these targeted students’ experiential metaphor use, and two focused on students’ logical metaphor use. The number of drafts analysed in Phase 1 was 352. When the number of GM feedback instances is divided by the number of drafts, I find the ratio of feedback per draft, which was .014. In terms of support provision, the tutors provided support on different types of GM within the texts. Furthermore, four out of five instances of GM feedback resulted in students’ GM use. Although the tutors were not trained to identify and provide GM feedback, these were instances of GM feedback that helped students improve their written work. Therefore, I decided to continue the action research cycle with Phase 2, which focused on providing students with background knowledge on GM and on tutor training on GM identification and formation. The findings from Phase 1 will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The second phase of the research was conducted between January and April 2009. The students who took part in the second phase were from the Department of Electronic Engineering at CityU, enrolled in a unit called Analogue Laboratory. As part of the project, the students were to prepare four compositional reports to explain parts of an electronic gadget such as a power adaptor. Their lecturer provided the students with a model text where a compositional report explained the components of a power adaptor. The second phase of the research was designed to provide students with background knowledge and to train teachers. Providing students with necessary information was referred to as “frontloading”. A document was prepared to provide students with information about GM, which was posted on CityU’s online learning medium. Secondly, the tutors

10

Chapter One

were trained on GM. Firstly, they were provided with a presentation on GM using examples from Phase 1’s findings. This was followed by a workshop on identifying and forming GM with a focus on clause level. The findings from Phase 2 suggest that there was a significantly higher frequency of experiential metaphor than of any of the other types. The students enrolled in the Electronics Laboratory unit predominantly employed experiential metaphor in the form of process as noun and quality as noun. Technical terms were also observed in the data set. Regarding logical metaphor, the students employed four sub-types of logical metaphor to construe in-clause causality. The first sub-type was cause as verb, which involved the use of material process such as “lead to”, and the second sub-type was cause as preposition, which required the use of prepositions such as “by” and “through”. The final sub-type was cause as noun, which necessitated the use of a noun to realize causality within a clause, such as “reason”. There were only two instances of interpersonal metaphor used by the students. Similar to the process undertaken during Phase 1, students’ final submissions for the third assignment were analysed to explore whether the effects of the intervention increased the frequency of GM use. It was observed that the students used experiential and logical metaphors more frequently. Furthermore, the frequency of technical terms also increased, though only slightly. However, the rate of increase during Phase 2 was not significantly different from that during Phase 1. The tutors who worked with this cohort supported their students’ GM use. They did it by providing feedback at the beginning and end of student’s drafts. This feedback type was referred to as off-text feedback where the focus was on the learning process and the students were encouraged and praised and directed to support materials. There were a total of 13 instances of off-text feedback. The tutors also provided open comments in-situ. This type of feedback was considered in-text feedback and there were 13 instances of in-text feedback in the data set. When the total number of feedback moves (26) is divided by the number of drafts (432), the ratio of GM feedback per draft is calculated as .06, which was more than four times higher than the ratio in Phase 1. The training of the tutors and frontloading of the writing task were designed to be implemented based on GM identification and GM formation. That is, the tutors and students were provided with instances of GM at clause level. However, as GM involves both the discourse

Previewing the Research

11

semantics and the lexicogrammar strata, taking the text as the unit of analysis would mean to take Phase 2 one-step further. Therefore, Phase 3 was planned based on the concept of periodicity to target GM use as well. The findings from Phase 2 will be discussed in Chapter 5. The third and last phase of the project was carried out between January and April 2010. The cohort in this phase consisted of students from the Department of Linguistics. The students were taking a unit called Introduction to Linguistics. The text type they were to write in their assignments was consequential explanation, where the students were to write about the effects of a linguistic process called nominalization. The students were provided with information about nominalization and the effects of nominalization on language. They were also provided with two texts describing the differences between spoken and written language. The students were required to use examples from the sample texts to explain the effects of nominalization on text. Different from the previous two phases, the students were to prepare only one assignment. Apart from frontloading the task, the tutors who worked with this cohort were trained in identifying GM and providing support on GM. There were 39 students who completed their first, second and third drafts and eight tutors who worked with this cohort. Five of these tutors attended the training workshops. The last phase of the research will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6. The findings from Phase 3 suggest that the students used various subtypes of experiential and logical metaphors. Experiential metaphor was the most frequently used type with two sub-types: process as noun and quality as noun. Within process as noun, nominalization such as “introduction”, and “removal”, ING-nominalization like “introducing”, “removing” and demonstratives such as “this” and “these” were observed. INGnominalization was the most frequently used experiential metaphor subtype. Regarding students’ logical metaphor use, they employed cause as verb, cause as preposition, cause as adjective and cause as noun as four sub-types of logical metaphor. When students’ GM use in their first drafts of the first assignment and final drafts of the final assignment were compared, it was noticed that the increase in the frequency of GM use was much higher than in the previous phases. This was mainly related to the intervention that was planned and implemented in relation to GM use based on periodicity.

12

Chapter One

The tutors supported their students’ GM use based on the notion of periodicity at the whole text level. There were two types of feedback regarding experiential and logical metaphors. There were two types of GM feedback identified, off-text and in-text. The tutors who worked with this cohort placed open comments at the beginning and end of drafts to praise, encourage, listing strong points, points for further development and directing students to support materials. There were 36 instances of off-text feedback, and 60 instances of in-text feedback. When the number of feedback instances (96) is divided by the number of drafts that received GM feedback (46), then the resulting ratio was 2.1. This figure was much higher than the ratio observed during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Finally, the question of how the students responded to GM feedback was considered. There were two major response types based on responsiveness to feedback, namely, uptake and avoidance. There were a total of 54 instances of uptake that resulted in revision through the use of GM. On the other hand, there were six instances of response where the students ignored the feedback without revising their text sections. These findings will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6.

Key Terms Used in this Project The key terms used in this book are as follows: stratification, realization, metafunctions, transitivity, GM, transcategorization, agnation, periodicity, rank scale and genre. Each term will be defined below. Stratification: Organization of language into different strata. These strata are phonology/graphology, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics. The strata of language interact within each other based on realization. Realization: Expression of meanings in an upper stratum by meanings in a lower stratum. For example, the meanings in the discourse semantics stratum are realized by the meanings in lexicogrammar in the form of wordings. Metafunctions: Various functions of language, namely, ideational, interpersonal and textual, which interact with each other in the creation of various meanings. Grammatical metaphor: Remapping of discourse semantics onto lexicogrammar. Meaning extension due to change in lexicogrammatical structures rather than simply a change in lexeme. For example, the word

Previewing the Research

13

“money” in “time is money” is a lexical metaphor. On the other hand, “introduction” in “the introduction of new policies” is an instance of GM. Transitivity: Lexicogrammatical structures within the ideational domain in lexicogrammar. Based on transitivity structures, clauses consist of grammatical constituents: actor, process, goal and circumstance. These constituents are given different names depending on process type. Transcategorization: Changing of word classes with or without derivational morphology, e.g. introduce (verb) … introduction (noun); change (verb)… change (noun). Agnation: The relation between more congruent and/or metaphorical versions of clauses. To illustrate, a congruent agnate for “our introduction of results” is “we introduced the results”. Periodicity: Organization of information structure of text as bigger and smaller waves in macro-Theme, macro-New, hyper-Theme and hyperNew. Macro-New is also known as thesis statement; hyper-New is also known as topic sentence. Rank scale: Splitting any meaningful unit of one rank or level into smaller units at the rank below. The lexicogrammatical rank scale consists of clause, groups and phrases. The semantic rank scale, on the other hand, includes sequence, figure and elements. Genre: Various text types. Genre has been characterized as involving a “staged, goal-oriented, social process” (Martin, Christie, & Rothery, 1987, p. 59).

Outline of Following Chapters This chapter provided background information about this research study, study aims/objectives, previous research, methodology and principal findings. These were situated in relation to the larger study, the SLATE project, which was carried out between 2008 and 2010. Chapter 2 provides a theoretical and empirical framework for the current study by reviewing literature on the development of GM in first and second language development contexts. Theoretical insights and development of Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy will also be presented following New Rhetoric (NR hereafter) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP hereafter).

14

Chapter One

The chapter concludes with a review of the literature on written feedback in Second Language Acquisition (SLA hereafter), Second Language Writing (SLW hereafter), and Sociocultural Theory (SCT hereafter). Chapter 3 explains the methods that have been used to conduct the research and the analysis of the data used in this study. Using the action research cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Freebody, 2003; Burns, 2010), it describes the research context, participants, the procedures used for the larger project and for this study, the instruments for data collection, the selection of data for analysis, and the analytical framework for analysing the data in relation to action research phases. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 present the results of each action research cycle by planning action, taking action, studying the consequences of action, and reflecting on findings. Chapter 4 reports the results from the text analysis of student assignments and tutors’ online written feedback on GM between July and December 2008. Chapter 5 reports the results of the text analysis of student assignments and tutors’ feedback between January and April 2009. The chapter also reports the impacts of student frontloading and tutor training on GM. Chapter 6 reports the results from the last phase of the action research, conducted between January and April 2010. The chapter discusses and documents the ways in which the students were provided with background knowledge and the tutors were trained. It analyses tutors’ feedback on GM and students’ response to feedback. Chapter 7 summarizes the research findings, draws conclusions from those findings and indicates some pedagogical implications of the findings. First, the chapter discusses the advantages of using an integrated model to categorize and teach GM by presenting examples from the three phases of the project. The next section presents ways to categorize tutors’ feedback on GM and students’ response to GM feedback. The chapter then provides a broader picture of the relationship between the action research phases and the TLC, and concludes with a discussion of how GM and periodicity relate to each other within the context of this action research project. Finally, Chapter 8 summarizes the previous chapters, discusses the limitations experienced during the progression of this action research project and provides suggestions for further research in the context of second language development.

CHAPTER TWO ESTABLISHING FOUNDATIONS

This chapter positions this study in relation to three key domains of knowledge and research, specifically GM, genre-based pedagogies and feedback. The first section discusses GM in SFL theory to provide foundations for the research. SFL theory is central to this study, as GM is one of the fundamental linguistic aspects within the theory. In this section, I also explore how GM was investigated in language development and language education to relate previous research to the current research. The second section investigates three traditions of modelling genre, namely New Rhetoric (NR), English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy and discusses the ways in which these traditions relate to the research. This section provides a rationale for situating the current research within the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy. The last section deals with the notion of feedback and how it is conceived in relation to three fields: SLA, Second Language Writing (SLW) and Sociocultural Theory (SCT). I illustrate how these approaches relate to the understanding of feedback within the context of this action research.

Grammatical Metaphor This section aims to explore GM from a theoretical and practical perspective, discussing the theorization of GM and its application in language development and language education. In SFL theory, two models that theorize GM have been suggested: the stratal model (Halliday, 1985a, 1988, 1998; Martin, 1992a, 1993b; Halliday & Martin, 1993) and the semantic model (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999). The definition and types of GM vary according to each model, as the notions of stratal tension and semantic junction draw on different linguistic configurations that lead to the GM. These models will be discussed in relation to how they define and categorize GM, as well as how they relate to the research project reported in this book.

16

Chapter Two

This research project aims to develop an approach to teaching GM. This requires drawing on a model that theorizes GM. The model developed here is an integrated model drawing on the stratal and semantic models. I have decided to develop an integrated model for three main reasons. Firstly, the categorization of ideational metaphor by the stratal model is simpler, thus it is more appliable to the teaching of GM. The stratal model categorizes ideational metaphor into experiential and logical metaphors. The ideational metaphor types suggested by the semantic model create difficulties for developing an approach to teaching GM due to its delicacy and complexity consisting of 13 types. Secondly, the stratal model provides an explanation for technical terms and dead metaphors and they can only be accounted for due to the loss of stratal tension. In other words, metaphorical forms become technicalized or fade away when they become congruent. Therefore, a model that theorizes GM should also comprise technical terms and dead metaphors. The last reason for an integrated approach is due to the theorization of logical metaphor by the semantic model, which includes four types: cause as noun, cause as verb, cause as preposition and cause as adjective. Including all types of logical metaphor in grammatical metaphor teaching provides students and teachers with a range of options (see Chapter 3). The theoretical part regarding the theorization of GM will be followed by studies conducted in language development (Painter, 2003; Torr & Simpson, 2003; Derewianka, 2003a) and language education (Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2004; Colombi, 2006; Byrnes, 2009; Ryshina–Pankova, 2010; Wang, 2010). This section will conclude with a sub-section that indicates space for a new exploration of GM in relation to pedagogy.

Grammatical Metaphor based on stratal tension The stratal model theorizes GM in relation to the stratal tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar (Halliday, 1985a, 1988, 1998; Martin, 1992a, 1993b; Halliday & Martin 1993). The definition of GM from the perspective of the stratal model might be “the resetting of the relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar creating a stratal tension”. According to Martin (1993b, p. 112), Grammatical metaphor can thus be seen to introduce a tension between grammar (a text’s wording) and semantics (a text’s meaning) so that the language has to be read on at least two levels (i.e. metaphorically), with

Establishing foundations

17

one level directly reflecting the grammar, and beyond that another symbolically related level of semantics.

Due to the stratal tension between semantic categories and their realization in lexicogrammar, GM needs to be read metaphorically and congruently. The two main categories within the stratal model are interpersonal and ideational metaphors (Halliday. 1985a). Interpersonal metaphor consists of metaphors of mood and metaphors of modality. Ideational metaphor is categorized into two types, namely, experiential and logical metaphors (Martin, 1992a). Each GM type will be explicated below with examples. Interpersonal metaphor is categorized into metaphors of mood and modality, creating a stratal tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. Mood metaphors construe a speech function through another speech function in grammar. To illustrate, the speech function “command” might be realized as command, e.g. “get up”, using imperative mood. Alternatively, command might also be realized as a suggestion as in “why don’t you get up?”, using interrogative mood. Mood metaphors are one of the characteristics of adult language and are found more commonly in spoken language. However, the second type of interpersonal metaphor, metaphors of modality, is more likely to be found in written language. Metaphors of modality realize non-congruent ways of speech function (Halliday, 1985a). Modality refers to the area between positive and negative polarity, i.e. to the cline between yes and no. Modality is congruently realized by modal finite, e.g. can, may, could, should, and mood adjuncts, e.g. possibly, probably. These structures are implicit ways of realizing speech function in grammar and considered congruent, as they do not create stratal tension. Alternatively, speech function might be projected in a clause complex explicitly, creating stratal tension, e.g. I believe …, I think …, it is possible to argue that …, it is obvious that ….. The first two of these examples are referred to as explicit subjective, whereas the other two are considered explicit objective (Halliday, 1985a). The congruent realization of speech function takes place within the clause through modal verbs such as can, may, could and might (implicit modal) or through modal adjuncts, e.g. possibly or probably (implicit mood adjunct). Alternatively, speech function can be realized within the modality system through projecting clause complexes consisting of mental and idea clauses, e.g. “I think…”, “I believe” (explicit subjective) or objectively such as “It is possible to argue that…” (explicit objective). In line with the aims of this research, students’ use of explicit objective will

Chapter Two

18

be explored, as it brings authoritative voice into written texts (Schleppegrell, 2004). Ideational metaphor is theorized as consisting of two kinds, experiential and logical (Martin, 1992a). This separation is based on the stratified language model suggested by Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Halliday (1985a). Experiential metaphor is considered the metaphorical ways of meaning making where the process is realized by a noun, and quality is realized by an adjective in lexicogrammar. Logical metaphor is the metaphorical ways of realizing the consequential and temporal relations inside clauses (Martin, 1992a). According to Martin (1992a), logical and experiential metaphors cooperate when external conjunctive relations are realized metaphorically and “this interaction produces a high level of abstraction in text, making it inaccessible to large sections of the community” (Martin 1992a, p. 407). Consider the following example where a logical relation is realized inside clause. The instance of logical metaphor is in boldface and the instances of experiential metaphor are underlined. Example 2.1 The reason of the late submission of my assignment is the sickness of my children.

In Example 2.1, causal relations are realized inside clauses by noun. The use of logical metaphor necessitates the use of experiential metaphor, and experiential metaphor depends heavily on transitivity structures. The instances of experiential metaphor in the above example are “submission” and “sickness” that are realized by nominal groups. The logical metaphor “reason” realize causality inside clauses. In Example 2.1, there is not a congruent relationship between the discourse semantics stratum and the lexicogrammar stratum where processes and qualities are realized by nouns rather than verbs and adjectives. Alternately, the clause in Example 2.1 might be worded congruently by realizing process by verb, quality by adjective, and logical relation by conjunction. Consider the following example. Example 2.2 I submitted my assignment late, because my children were sick.

Establishing foundations

19

Example 2.2 shows how the discourse semantic categories process, quality and logical relations are realized congruently by verb, adjective and conjunction, respectively. The semantic units process, participant, quality and circumstance, and logical relations are congruently realized in grammar by verb, noun, adjective, preposition and adverbials, and conjunction respectively. Martin (1993b, p. 114) explains this situation as follows: Here, participants come out as participants (nouns), processes come out as processes (verb) and logical relations come out as logical relations (conjunctions). For the most part grammar and semantics harmonise; there is no tension between the two. The text only has to be read on one level to get its meaning across.

Due to the congruent mapping of semantics onto lexicogrammar, reading the text one time is sufficient to get its meaning. However, the GM needs to be considered twice due to the fact that discourse semantics and lexicogrammar strata are both involved in the process. How a GM is realized depends on what type of semantic categories can be found behind the scene. It would then be possible to comprehend the formation of a GM by reading the text twice.

Grammatical Metaphor based on semantic junction The second model that theorizes GM is known as the semantic model, which was suggested by Halliday and Matthiessen (1999). Halliday and Matthiessen (1999, p. 238) account for the congruent and metaphorical realization of semantic categories in grammar: When a sequence is realized as a clause complex, or a process as a verb, this is congruent: it is the clause complex, and the verb, in the function in which it evolved. When a sequence is realized as something other than a clause complex, or a process as something other than a verb, this is metaphorical. Some other grammatical unit is supplanting them in these functions.

The highest in rank order in semantics is sequence, followed by figure and elements of figures. The elements of figures are participant, process, circumstance and relator. The above explanation states that sequence is realized congruently by clause complex, and process (as a semantic category) is realized congruently by a verb in grammar. Thus, according to the semantic model, if a sequence is realized by a clause or if a noun realizes a process in grammar, then the linguistic structure is called a GM.

20

Chapter Two

Based on the congruent and metaphorical realization of semantic categories, Halliday and Matthiessen (1999, p. 244) refer to the notion of semantic junction. Consequently, Halliday and Matthiessen base their categorization of GM in relation to the joining of semantic categories. Halliday and Matthiessen (1999, p. 244) suggest that: It seems to be necessary to identify the types of grammatical metaphor and characterize them explicitly in relation to the semantics as a whole. We therefore introduce a general distinction between metaphoric (elements of features) and others. Metaphoric elements, as we said above, are junctional in that they embody a junction of two semantic categories… Junctional elements will always have two categories in their description, e.g. ‘process thing’, ‘circumstantial quality’, ‘relator process’.

Particularly the elements forming figures in discourse semantics might be assigned double roles such as process thing or relator process. Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) see two semantic meanings are coming together rather than stratal tension being created. This semantic junction lays the foundations for the metaphorical formation in the English language according to this model. GM might be defined as the grammatical structures that result from the semantic junction between elemental semantic categories within the semantic model. The semantic model suggests 13 types of ideational metaphor based on elemental semantic categories. Halliday and Matthiessen (1999, p. 245) theorize GM using the concept of semantic junction, which allows them to base their categorization of GM in relation to metaphorical shifts of elemental categories: quality, process, circumstance, relator, an empty category, thing and circumstance. Type 1 results from the joining of quality with thing, and is referred to as “quality thing”. Type 2 represents the joining of process and thing, and might be called process thing. Type 3 depends on the semantic junction of process and quality, thus it is refereed to as process-quality. Types 4, 5 and 6 present how circumstance joins with thing, quality and process creating semantic junction. Types 7, 8, 9 and 10 represent the semantic junction of relator and thing, process, quality, circumstance. Types 11 and 12 represent the semantic junction of an empty category and thing, and process (although Halliday and Matthiessen do not define an empty category as an element). Moreover, Type 13 is an extension of the environments of Type 1 and Type 2. In addition, Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) underscore that the relation between congruent and metaphorical ways of meaning making is similar to inter-stratal realization. However, the relation needs to be

Establishing foundations

21

considered as intra-stratal due to the fact that the relation is between different meanings in discourse semantics. This view is in opposition to the stratal model that claims GM results from the stratal tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. Halliday and Matthiessen (1999, p. 288) posit that: The metaphorical relation is thus similar to inter-stratal realization in that it construes a token-value type of relation. Here, however, the relation is intra-stratal: the identity holds between different meanings, not between meanings and wordings.

In the above elucidation, the realization of GM is due to the relationship between elements in semantics. According to the semantic model, GM does not result from the inter-stratal relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar, but rather through an intra-stratal relationship between semantic categories. In other words, Halliday and Matthiessen assign the meaning-making process entirely to the discourse semantic stratum.

Grammatical Metaphor in Language Development and Language Education The development of GM in language development and language education has been studied extensively. There are a number of studies that explored how children and adolescents develop their linguistic repertoire through GM (Painter, 2003; Torr & Simpson, 2003, Derewianka, 2003a). Furthermore, the progression of GM in language learning has also been investigated (Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2004; Colombi, 2006; Byrnes, 2009; Ryshina–Pankova, 2010, Wang, 2010). I will firstly discuss how language development studies relate to this particular research project and then move on to GM studies conducted in language education. The language development studies that have explored the progression of GM are related to the context of this research, as they underscore the importance of stratal tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar, and language proficiency. To begin with, GM develops depending on children’s ability to create new meanings playing with established congruent meanings (Painter, 2003). Similarly, playing with the interstratal relationship signposts the development of GM in older children (Derewianka, 2003a).

Chapter Two

22 Example 2.3

Mother: Where would you like to hang the fun? Child: This is a silly question, but it might be cool… get it? … cool ‘excellent’ and cool ‘like breeze’. (Derewianka 2003a, p. 87)

In Example 2.3, the child is aware that “cool” might refer to different concepts and this depends on the stratal tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. Torr and Simpson (2003) also highlight stratal tension as the mismatch between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar in relation to interpersonal metaphor. Consider when a child says, “it’s my toy”, which might construe a command as in “give me my toy and stop playing with it”. The metaphorical meanings in the above examples depend on the tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. The second important notion regarding the development of GM concerns language proficiency. First language development studies that explore the progression of GM show how children and adolescents develop metaphorical ways of meaning making due to their expanding linguistic repertoire. According to Torr and Simpson (2003), children around two years of age start developing their mood system, allowing them to produce metaphors of mood around the age of three, e.g. “I want another card (give me another card)”. Around four years of age, children start using dead metaphors such as “have a sleep”, “have medicine”. Then, they start dealing with abstract concepts using the verb “mean” to define things. Also, metaphors of mood and modality are frequently used. Children do not use genuine instances of ideational metaphors, but the use of transcategorization is quite frequent. Transcategorized words are sometimes modified by adjectives, i.e. “that’s a smart move”. Along similar lines, Derewianka (2003a) documents how children develop their linguistic repertoire in the path to mastery of GM, starting with puns, transcategorization, i.e. possession, embedded clauses, faded metaphors such as “have a bath”, and technical terms. Then, they start using instances of experiential metaphor such as “estimation”, logical metaphor, i.e. “lead to”, and interpersonal metaphor such as “it is possible that...”. Consequently, the GM studies confirm that the frequency and types of GM proliferate when language proficiency increases in line with Halliday’s (1993) trajectory of language development, which starts with generalization, continues with abstraction and moves on to GM.

Establishing foundations

23

The studies conducted in language education highlight the importance of the proficiency level in the mastery of GM, and the need to teach GMs to foreign/second language writers (Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2004; Colombi, 2006; Byrnes, 2009; Ryshina–Pankova, 2010, Wang, 2010). To begin with, the proficiency level of second language writers is a crucial factor in the mastery of GM. Schleppegrell (2004) analyses the lab reports of three ESL writers and a proficient writer. The findings from her study suggest that the ESL writers experience difficulty in using GM effectively as compared to the proficient writer. Along similar lines, Colombi (2006) argues that logical metaphor is more frequently used once the students master experiential metaphor in learning Spanish as a heritage language in the U.S. Also, Byrnes (2009) documents how GM use becomes more advanced in relation to the increase in proficiency level of German. Similarly, Ryshina-Pankova (2010) shows that GM use increases in relation to language development of German. The studies conducted in second language development contexts underscore the importance of language proficiency in the mastery of GM. The second important issue regarding the mastery of GM is the need to teach GM. Mohan and Beckett (2001) explore how content-based language learning (CBLL) is applied at tertiary level in Canada with a systemic functional linguistic perspective. Mohan and Beckett analyse the grammatical scaffolding of causal explanations, focusing on the lexicogrammar of causal meaning and the place of GMs in recasts. Mohan and Beckett refer to Long and Robinson’s (1998, as cited in Mohan and Beckett, 2001, p. 136) definition of “recast as provision of implicit negative feedback … contained in corrective reformulation of children’s utterances that preserve the child’s intended meaning …”. This definition of recast focuses on form, i.e. providing correct form to students. Consider the following example: Example 2.4 NNS: Uh yes… a woman drinking (and bottle) wine, uh bottle… NS: [CORRECTIVE RECAST] Yes and she’s drinking a glass or a bottle of wine? NNS: No, uh, she?... She’s drinking in (no) glass. (Long, 1996, p. 429, as cited in Mohan & Beckett, 2001, p. 136)

Chapter Two

24

In Example 2.4 a native speaker of English corrects a mistake made by a non-native speaker of English by providing the correct form. However, Mohan and Beckett adopt an SFL approach to recast by focusing on expanding students’ linguistics resources to make meaning. This requires focusing on teaching students how to mean rather than on correcting their mistakes. Example 2.5 S: To stop the brain’s aging, we can use our bodies and heads. T: [RECAST] So, we can prevent our brain from getting weak by being mentally and physically active? (Mohan & Beckett 2001, p. 37)

In Example 2.5 the teacher provides a recast to provide an alternative to what the student writes. There is no grammatical error corrected. The recast aims to enhance the student’s meaning potential through scaffolding, which Mohan and Beckett refer to as “improvement recasts”. These recasts provide the students with less congruent and more congruent alternatives to scaffold the learner’s causal statements. Furthermore, Mohan and Beckett underscore the importance of recasts in helping students develop their GM use. Similarly, Schleppegrell (2004) analyses how students employ GM in chemical engineering laboratory reports. Schleppegrell presents examples from a proficient writer and three ESL writers to show how these writers use each type of GM. The findings from her study suggest that the ESL writers experience difficulty in using GM effectively as compared to the proficient writer. The study also implies that GM is a rather crucial linguistic construct that helps writers improve their written work. This particular study is crucial, as it emphasizes the need to teach GM to second language writers. According to Ryshina–Pankova (2010), GM teaching is needed to raise awareness of GM and help students identify GMs using derivation. As such, using different genres on the same topic might be quite helpful to foreign language learners to reach mastery of GM. Finally, providing students with corrective feedback on GM might foster its effective use, following Mohan and Beckett (2001). Along similar lines, Wang (2010) investigates the ways in which GM is taught to 90 Chinese students majoring in English at a Chinese university. The study particularly investigates the effects of a short

Establishing foundations

25

program designed to inform students about GM. The paper concludes with pedagogical implications. The most important implication of the study emphasizes the role of GM at tertiary level and the importance of raising awareness of GM. This research project is closely related to the studies conducted on GM that focus on language development and language education. The studies discussed in the previous section also document how the notion of stratal tension is related to the progression in the development of GM (Painter, 2003; Torr & Simpson, 2003; Derewianka, 2003a). Secondly, the studies discussed in the previous section (Painter, 2003; Torr & Simpson, 2003; Derewianka, 2003a; Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2004; Colombi, 2006; Byrnes, 2009; Ryshina–Pankova, 2010, Wang, 2010) underscore and document how GM use advances through language development. Furthermore, the studies conducted by Mohan and Beckett (2001) and Wang (2010) offer ways to teach GM. Because there is no comprehensive study that develops an approach to teaching GM in the literature, this action research project aims to develop a method to teach GM to second language writers. The next section will discuss various genre traditions and the development of the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy.

Genre-based Pedagogies This section explores the context and development of SFL inspired genrebased pedagogy of the Sydney School in relation to the other genre traditions, i.e. NR and ESP, and aims to situate the research project within the context of the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy. The action research project draws on the Sydney School due to its strong pedagogical focus and GM being a central notion in SFL theory. The Sydney School’s approach has led to a large body of work in the context of embedded literacy support in primary and secondary education, as well as adult literacy programs. However, the research project particularly focuses on the application of Sydney School’s genre pedagogy in online/distancebased education within the context of adult second language development. The following sections will discuss the three genre traditions, and then explore the theoretical foundations of the Sydney School, as well situate the research project within this pedagogy.

26

Chapter Two

Three Genre Traditions During the last four decades or so the concept of genre has attracted a considerable amount of attention from scholars working in various linguistic frameworks and theories. The notion of genre might be elucidated within three different orientations to genre, namely NR, ESP and Sydney School (Hyon, 1996; Johns, 2002). NR draws on the notion of rhetoric to focus on first language composition (i.e. Adam & Artemava, 2002; Bazerman, 2002), defining genre ‘‘as the motivated, functional relationship between text type and rhetorical situation’’ (Coe 2002, p. 195). The NR tradition does not have a linguistically oriented perspective, but aims to help tertiary students become successful in reading and writing in academic and workplaces. However, second/foreign language education is not part of the interests of the researchers that work within the NR tradition. On the other hand, the ESP approach aims to analyse spoken and written language using structural move analysis and focuses on communicative purposes of genres (Swales, 2000; Hyland, 2003). Genres are defined as communicative events, which are characterized by communicative purposes that provide a robust framework for second/foreign language education, especially at tertiary level. Regarding tertiary level, English for Academic purposes (EAP), which originates from the ESP approach, is relevant to the current research. According to Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002, p. 3), EAP addresses the teaching of English in the academy at all age and prociency levels, and it draws on a range of interdisciplinary inuences for its research methods, theories and practices. It seeks to provide insights into the structures and meanings of academic texts, into the demands placed by academic contexts on communicative behaviours, and into the pedagogic practices by which these behaviours can be developed.

In terms of the structures and meanings of academic texts within the ESP approach, there are number research studies that investigate the textual structuring of academic genres (e.g. Swales, 1990; Dudley-Evans, 1994; Paltridge, 1997; Hyland, 2002a). The Sydney School’s approach is inspired by Hallidayan linguistics (Christie & Martin, 1997; Martin, 2000, 2007c; Martin & Rose 2008). According to this tradition, genre is defined as “a staged, goal-oriented,

Establishing foundations

27

purposeful activity” (Martin 1984b, p. 25). In more recent work, Martin, Christie and Rothery (1987, p. 59) provide a further explanation: Genres are referred to as social processes because members of a culture interact with each other to achieve them; as goal oriented because they have evolved to get things done; and as staged because it usually takes more than one step for participants to achieve their goals.

In addition, the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy provides a rich theoretical framework for second/foreign language education, as well as versatile tools for practitioners. EAP has also been investigated by the researchers who work within the Sydney School’s approach (e.g. Drury, 1991; Schleppegrell, 2004; Coffin, Painter & Hewings, 2005; Hewings & Coffin, 2006; Hood, 2009). Hyland (2002a) follows the above categorization of genre traditions to discuss the ways in which each tradition accounts for the relationship between text and context, and how they treat this relationship. According to Hyland (2002a, p. 126), The New Rhetoricians’ emphasis on situated learning theories … and their reservations about the value of explicit genre teaching have largely restricted their pedagogic contribution to providing a ‘facilitative environment’ for engaging with academic or workplace writing. In ESP and SFL pedagogic contexts, however, teachers cannot take learners’ motivation for granted, nor rely on them having the appropriate cultural, and social and linguistic background to effectively ‘engage’ with genres. Instead, pedagogies begin with the assumption that students’ current norms and literacy abilities are widely different from those that they need, and that clear, research-grounded, genre descriptions are required to bridge this gap.

In other words, the NR tradition does not emphasize an explicit pedagogy for genre teaching. However, the ESP and Sydney School traditions underscore the importance of explicit genre teaching, as students’ academic literacy needs are quite different. Furthermore, these two traditions provide a rich framework for second/foreign language education due to their focus on genre teaching.

Genre Teaching and Language Education Genre teaching is useful for a number of reasons in the literacy development of first and second language learners (Firkins, Forey & Sengupta, 2007). Hyland (2004, p. 10-16, 2007, p. 150) suggests seven crucial factors in explaining the advantages of a genre-based writing

28

Chapter Two

instruction, i.e. being explicit, systematic, based on learners’ needs, supportive, empowering, critical and consciousness-raising. These advantages will be discussed below. Firstly, genre teaching is explicit due to the fact that it offers a clear definition of genres. It places emphasis on structure as well as the reasons why genres are constructed in particular ways. Also, being explicit in nature results in genre teaching being systematic that covers all the necessary genres in a sequenced way. Next, genre teaching is based on learner needs. The genres that are used in learners’ educational or professional environments need to be thoroughly evaluated and selected in relation to learner needs. Another important advantage of genre-based writing instruction is that it is supportive. Providing support to learners remains to be the key component of such pedagogies, as the aim is to scaffold students. Furthermore, genre teaching empowers learners, as it provides them with knowledge about various genres used in educational or professional contexts. Moreover, genre-based instruction is also critical due to the fact that it provides learners with resources to challenge existing values. Finally, another advantage of genre-based writing instruction is that it is consciousness-raising, as it improves awareness of language choices made throughout the process of language development. All things considered, genre-based pedagogy remains an extremely rich source for learners who are developing their second/foreign language in general and more specifically their writing skills in a second language. Moreover, genre-based instruction provides explicit and visible tools for teaching, uniting language use and content of genres with sociocultural contexts (Christie & Martin 1997). The ESP and Sydney School traditions are particularly beneficial to second language writers for the reasons given above. Of the two traditions with an explicit genre teaching approach, the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy provides a richer framework (Martin & Rose 2008). This is mainly because it had the advantage of drawing on SFL theory (Halliday, 1985a). Therefore, the Sydney School approach was adopted in this project. According to Hyland (2003, p. 22): ESP genre approaches have perhaps had the most influence on L2 writing instruction worldwide, grounding teaching in a solid research base and drawing strength from an eclectic set of pedagogies and linguistic theories. SFL, however, perhaps offers the most theoretically sophisticated and pedagogically developed approach of the three, underpinned by a highly

Establishing foundations

29

evolved and insightful theory of language and motivated by a commitment to language and literacy education.

As the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy is inspired by a developed functional theory of language with an explicit genre teaching agenda, the current action research project adopts Sydney School’s genre pedagogy as its theoretical and methodological framework. Therefore, the following sub-section discusses the emergence and genesis of this pedagogy upon which the research study is based.

Theoretical Foundations of The Sydney School’s Genre Pedagogy The term the “Sydney School” was coined by Green and Lee (1994) to refer to the SFL inspired genre-based pedagogy that originated in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Sydney during the early 80s. Although the work that began in Sydney has reached beyond Australia, i.e. Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas, this genre-based pedagogy is still known as the “Sydney School” worldwide (Derewianka, 2003b). The Sydney School’s genre pedagogy has undergone three phases of development, embodied in the Disadvantaged Schools Program in Inner Sydney in the 80s, the Right it Write Project in the 90s, and the Reading to Learn program from the late 90s onwards (Martin, 2009; Rose & Martin, 2012). Furthermore, the SLATE (Scaffolding Literacy in Adult and Tertiary Environments) project, in which the current project is embedded and which applies the insights of the Sydney School to a distance/online teaching/learning context, represents the third phase of the pedagogy (Rose & Martin, 2012). The inspiration for the pedagogy derives from Halliday and Painter’s work (see below) on ontogenesis that is grounded in the notion of scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978) in the quest for a visible empowering pedagogy, which was outlined by Bernstein (1975). Ontogenesis of individuals The theoretical insights of the Sydney School draw on Halliday’s (1975, 1978) and Painter’s (1984, 1986) work on ontogenesis, discussing how children learn their first language in interaction with the environment and parents. Halliday’s (1975) three crucial claims, i.e. children learn language, children learn through language, and children learn about language, underscore the relationship between language and context. Halliday (1978, p. 9) states that:

Chapter Two

30

In the development of the child as a social being, language has the central role. Language is the main channel through which the patterns of living are transmitted to him, through which he learns to act as a member of a ‘society’ – in and through the various social groups, the family, the neighbourhood, and so on – and to adopt its ‘culture’, its modes of thought and action, its beliefs and values.

That is, language is not realized in a vacuum; rather it is always intertwined with the social realities of a particular community in which a child learns to become its member. Similarly, Painter (1986, p. 65) posits that, … it is important to understand that learning to talk (and indeed to write) cannot take place without simultaneously learning to become a member of the social group. This fact is readily enough seen when an adult characterizes something to a child as pretty or naughty or says: don’t be such a baby, and so on. What may not be so obvious is that it is not simply in control-type situations that the child is learning the ways of the culture through language in interaction [emphasis Painter’s].

The relationship between context and language shapes the way in which children learn how to talk and write. In other words, while children are learning language they also learn what their cultures have to offer. This includes the conventions in which spoken and written language are used. The work on how children learn language, and how they learn through language, had direct effects on the development of the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy. The pedagogy explores how children learn about language, which is the third claim made by Halliday (1975). Learning about language is regarding learning various language systems within a sociocultural context. Therefore, the Sydney School aims to teach how the structure of a language is learnt within a given culture through explicit genre teaching (Martin, Christie & Rothery, 1987; Rothery, 1989, 1996). The pedagogy applies the notion of scaffolding, which is one of Vygotsky’s (1978) important notions, to the teaching of genres in primary and secondary schools, as well as in adult literacy programs. Scaffolding and ZPD Scaffolding and ZPD, which are two important notions of Vygotsky’s (1978), developed in parallel directions with the TLC (Rothery, 1994). According to Vygotsky (1978), the capacities an individual possesses since birth are modified and reformulated to reach higher mental capacities. In essence, learning is mediated. The mediation of meaning,

Establishing foundations

31

according to Vygotsky (1978), can be realized through social interaction with which reaching higher mental capacities becomes possible. In terms of language learning, learners need language itself and use it as an instrument to mediate learning within their social environment. Moreover, in order to mediate learning socially, support by individuals above the level of learners’ potential capacity is of utmost importance. This concept is referred to as scaffolding. In a classroom situation, this individual can be a teacher; in a neighbourhood this can be a peer. A person whose capacities are above the level of the learner’s is the essential part of learning mediation. This mainly results from the fact that a learner’s independent performance can be increased if mediation is realized within the learners Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), a term introduced by Vygotsky. He defines the term as, The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (1978, p. 86).

In other words, there is a difference between what a learner knows, e.g. their actual capacities, and what a learner can do, e.g. their potential capacities through scaffolding. This difference is referred to as ZPD. In addition, Vygotsky (1978, p. 90) suggests the importance of ZPD in learning as follows: … an essential feature of learning is that it creates the zone of proximal development; that is, learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers.

The notions of scaffolding and ZPD were also observed in the development of the TLC (Rothery, 1994) of the Sydney School, although the TLC developed independently. Figure 2.4 illustrates the TLC.

32

Chapter Two

Figure 2.1 Teaching Learning Cycle (adapted from Rothery, 1994)

The TLC consists of three stages: deconstruction, joint construction and independent construction. During the deconstruction stage, teachers provide students with knowledge and model texts to build field. The following stage, joint construction, focuses on jointly constructing a text that is similar to a model text. During the independent construction stage, students are encouraged to create another text by themselves. The TLC provides teachers with versatile tools to scaffold students within their ZPD. This empowers the disadvantaged, as it provides explicit and visible instruction. Visible Pedagogy Visible pedagogy, Basil Bernstein’s (1975) fundamental notion, was also influential in the development of the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy. The pedagogical implications of Bernstein’s outlining of visible and invisible pedagogies also inspired the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy. Martin (2012) adapts Bernstein’s pedagogy topology: Bernstein places pedagogies according to their visibility, that is, as to how they view teaching. Progressivist/constructivist pedagogies and critical pedagogic theories do not have an explicit teaching agenda, so they are regarded as invisible pedagogies. On the other hand, traditional pedagogies and socialpsychological pedagogies are regarded as visible, as they favour explicit teaching. These pedagogies are also positioned as to whether they aim to

Establishing foundations

33

change individuals or societies. While progressive and traditional pedagogies focus on changing individuals, critical and socio-psychological pedagogies aim to change societies. The Sydney School’s genre pedagogy is considered a visible pedagogy, because it focuses on explicit genre teaching with an aim to change societies though empowering the disadvantaged. Bernstein (1975) argues that children of middle and working class parents have different language codes. While the language code spoken in middle class families represents the dominant culture, and in turn, is valued in mainstream education systems, the code used by working class families is not valued in mainstream educational contexts. The pedagogical implications of this very idea were used to develop the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy, which was considered a visible pedagogy that aims to transform societies. The Disadvantaged Schools Program in the 80s, the Right it Write Project in the 90s, and the Reading to Learn program from the late 90s onwards have the agenda of empowering the disadvantaged, drawing implications from Bernstein’s ideas, as does the SLATE project, in which the research project was conducted. The SLATE Project: The Sydney School goes online The SLATE project is considered the third era of development of the Sydney School. The SLATE project was a joint project between the University of Sydney (USYD) and the City University of Hong Kong (CityU) that aimed to provide online literacy support to undergraduate students. The project was called Language Companion Course (LCC) in Hong Kong, and the title given to the project at the USYD end was the SLATE project (Humphrey, Martin, Dreyfus & Mahboob, 2010; Mahboob, Dreyfus, Humphrey & Martin, 2010) In the SLATE project, the feedback protocol was based on the feedback cycle. The protocol aimed to provide the students with annotated models and notes regarding the purpose and staging of their assignment. Once done, they submitted their first draft on which they received feedback from the tutors who were trained in providing corrective and supportive feedback to the students. The students revised their assignments and posted it on CityU’s e-learning website to receive feedback for the second time. The students revised their assignments based on the feedback and submitted their assignments for assessment. The feedback protocol consisted of three required and three optional stages (Mahboob et al., 2010). The required stages were orientation, consisting of the purr, statement of strengths and preview of feedback

34

Chapter Two

phases; feedback, involving the statement of problem, why it is a problem, suggestions for how to remediate it; and the encouragement stages where the tutors praised and wished them well. The optional stages consisted of recap to summarize focus of feedback; recommendations; and expanded explanations along with examples. Therefore, the feedback protocol adopted in this research situates feedback within the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy to scaffold students in an online teaching/learning environment. The SLATE project aimed to support students’ academic literacy skills at the whole text, paragraph and clause levels in opposition to LCC’s strong focus on clause level feedback. However, GM was not a focus of the project. Therefore, not only is the research project that aims to develop an approach to teaching GM complementary to the SLATE project, but it is also filling a gap in the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy by offering a method to teaching GM.

Feedback in SLA, SLW, SCT and the Sydney School This section aims to discuss how feedback is theorized and explored in three different areas of interest, namely, Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Second Language Writing (SLW) and Sociocultural Theory (SCT). As the current action research project aims to develop an approach to teaching GM using online feedback, the theorization and application of feedback to second language writing remain extremely relevant. Following a discussion of these three approaches, the section moves to discuss how these perspectives relate to the research project.

Definition and Types of Feedback SLA and SLW research has led to an extensive body of work in relation to the role of feedback. Feedback in SLA research and SLW is defined as “corrective feedback” and can be either implicit or explicit. Kregar (2011, p. 3) summarizes corrective feedback and its types: Corrective feedback is any type of oral or written comment, information or question provided to learners that indicates that there is an error in their usage of the L2. This information can be explicit or implicit in nature and can come from any source. Explicit feedback can be overt error corrections, the provision of a grammatical explanation (metalinguistic information) or a combination of the two.

Establishing foundations

35

The written comments that help students correct mistakes might be worded explicitly to correct errors, or might provide explanation as to why there is error. Alternatively, feedback might be framed implicitly. Kregar (2011, p. 4) provides the following explanation for implicit feedback: Unlike explicit feedback, implicit feedback signals incomprehensible language or a misformulation without interrupting the flow of the interaction. In addition, rather that serving solely as a correction effort, its primary function is often an attempt to clarify meaning and prevent a breakdown in communication. Thus, implicit feedback includes negotiation strategies such as confirmation checks, clarification requests and comprehension checks. Confirmation requests are an attempt to confirm that an utterance has been heard correctly, whereas clarification request elicit explanation or elaboration of the interlocutor’s utterance.

As opposed to explicit feedback, implicit feedback aims to elicit corrections from students. The research on the effectiveness of feedback confirms that corrective feedback improves students’ learning. Furthermore, written feedback is classified in relation to various criteria, i.e. being direct, indirect, metalinguistic, focused versus unfocused, electronic and reformulation (Ellis, 2009). The classification of written feedback has the purpose of analysing feedback. However, it was not appropriate for my research context for a number of reasons. Firstly, this classification is based on corrective written feedback targeting graphology and lexicogrammatical features; however, feedback, in my research, covers a larger area including content, genre, register, discourse semantics, lexicogrammar, graphology, punctuation and GM. Also, Ellis’s (2009) feedback categorisation does not deal with the supportive feedback that this action research aims to explore. Another limitation of the categorization is that, it is based on “nativespeaker” as the providers of feedback. According to Ellis (2009, p. 103), “… in order to identify an error, the analyst (and the teacher) needs to construct a native- speaker version of that part of the text containing an error”. That is, the teachers who provide corrective feedback need to be native speakers of English, as non-native teachers of English are not fully proficient to help students’ improve their writing skills according to this view. However, providing writing feedback cannot only be based on the “native-speaker” model, “non-native” speakers can also provide effective written feedback. In my research context, almost half of the tutors were non-native speakers of English and they provided effective corrective and supportive feedback to their students. This underscores expertise over language heritage, meaning being a native speaker. In order to reach a

36

Chapter Two

more appropriate categorization of feedback, this book investigates supportive feedback provided by native and non-native speakers of English rather than merely focusing on error correction at lexicogrammar, graphology levels. The following section will discuss how these traditions differ in terms of the role of corrective feedback in language development.

Feedback from the Perspective of SLA and SLW One way in which feedback can be seen from the perspective of SLA and SLW can be discussed in relation to two influential early publications, one in 1981 and the other in 1996, that minimized the role of feedback in L2 teaching, and then a gradual redemption of feedback and a steady growth of research that has shown that feedback matters. The two main publications that discredited the role of feedback were Krashen’s (1981) Principles and practices in second language acquisition and Truscott’s (1996) [The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes]. Each of these papers was influential in how feedback was viewed and thus will be discussed in greater depth below. Krashen believed that language acquisition did not require explicit teaching of language or grammar, or of drills, and that sufficient comprehensible input was enough to trigger language development. Krashen’s input hypothesis theorized language acquisition in relation to comprehensible input and dominated the area of SLA. According to Krashen (1981, p. 6-7), What theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not ‘on the defensive’... Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill. It does not occur overnight, however. Real language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect. The best methods are therefore those that supply ‘comprehensible input’ in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are ‘ready’, recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production.

As can be gleamed from the quote above, Krashen believed that error correction did not have a place in SLA. The reason for this was that he saw language acquisition as a natural process that takes time and where error

Establishing foundations

37

correction could hinder this natural process (Krashen, 1981, 1984; Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Thus, in the immediate aftermath of his work, researchers’ attention on the role of feedback was minimal. Krashen’s SLA theories drew on Chomsky’s theorization of first language acquisition (circ. 1957). According to Chomsky (1976, p. 29), the central issue regarding the understanding of language is universal grammar, which is defined as “the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human language… the essence of human language”. As humans are hardwired with the ability to use language, the input they receive from the environment is not effective in language development. The notion of universal grammar inspired Krashen to apply this notion to SLA. One of the consequences of Krashen’s theories of SLA was that SLA and SLW researchers were not interested in the role of feedback in language acquisition. Perhaps one of the strongest criticisms of feedback came from Truscott (1996) who called for an abolition of all corrective feedback. Truscott’s (1996, p. 328) article called for a categorical end to grammar correction. My thesis is that grammar correction has no place in writing courses and should be abandoned. The reasons are: (a) Research evidence shows that grammar correction is ineffective; (b) this lack of effectiveness is exactly what should be expected, given the nature of the correction process and the nature of language learning; (c) grammar correction has significant harmful effects; and (d) the various arguments offered for continuing it all lack merit.

However, contrary to this proclamation, Truscott’s paper resulted in a new wave of research (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, 2008; Sheen, 2007; also see Li, 2010; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Russell & Spada, 2006 for metaanalysis of feedback research) that started serious investigation into the role and efficacy of feedback in SLA. These studies show that corrective feedback is effective in the acquisition of grammatical structures, e.g. use of article and preposition. Some of these studies also posited (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2007) that direct feedback is more effective than indirect feedback. According to these researchers, direct feedback has positive effects on the acquisition of various grammatical structures. These researchers used research designs with control and experimental groups or pre and post-test designs to investigate the role of corrective feedback. Although the findings of these research studies are statistically significant, Ferris (2010)

38

Chapter Two

amongst others has argued that they do not really represent the realities of the classroom situation due to the controls exercised. The studies conducted within the SLW paradigm, as opposed to research based in SLA, also emphasize the need for corrective feedback (e.g. Ferris, 2004, 2006; Sachs & Polio 2007). However, they are different from the studies conducted within the SLA framework in the sense that they focus on indirect feedback rather than direct feedback. Moreover, the methodology is generally based on a process approach to writing where the feedback provided on various drafts is analysed to observe its effectiveness on texts. In other words, the SLW framework focuses on how students’ assignments improve due to indirect corrective feedback. The purpose of this body of research was to observe whether feedback improves the overall effectiveness of texts. The main argument advocated in the SLW research has been that indirect feedback is more effective than direct feedback. Therefore, the SLA research and the SLW research differ significantly regarding the emphasis they place on direct and indirect feedback, the methods they use, and the purposes upon which they conduct research. One of the studies conducted within the SLW framework stands out, which was conducted by Fiona Hyland (2001a). Fiona Hyland’s (2001a) study is quite important, as it focuses on a different categorization of feedback based on product and process in a distance learning/teaching context. Hyland does not base the study on the written feedback continuum between form and content, as suggested by Ziv (1984) and Zamel (1985). Ziv (1984) and Zamel (1985) argue the cline of written feedback stretches from form where the focus is on accuracy, to content where the nature of texts receives importance. In a distancelearning context, however, the form and content dichotomy is not sufficient, because synchronous face-to-face instruction is rather difficult to manage. Due to the difficulty of categorizing online feedback based on the form and content cline, Fiona Hyland (2001a, p. 237) categorizes online feedback with focus on the product (i.e. the strengths and weaknesses of the assignment itself) and the process. The product includes content, organization, language accuracy and presentation. On the other hand, the learning process consists of encouragement, reinforcement of learning materials, suggestions to improve students’ language leaning process. Hyland’s categorization is an important contribution to the field, as it involves the learning process along with the product itself, emphasizing

Establishing foundations

39

language development as well as the pedagogical practices that enhance learning. Although Fiona Hyland’s (2001a) approach is crucial, the approach adopted in the present study suggests a slightly different perspective in categorizing written feedback and supportive comments. One limitation of Hyland’s work, which is shared with most research on corrective feedback, is that each item of feedback is seen as a separate entity. For the SLATE project, which took a genre approach, feedback was also seen as something that operated at whole text level and there were ways in which feedback on various parts of a text connected to other feedback instances given in that text. The feedback protocol adopted in the SLATE project also highlights how the tutors were expected to provide open comments at the beginning of assignments, called orientation, in students’ assignment, called feedback, and at the end of students’ assignments, called encouragement. Some of the implications of this will become apparent as I look at research on feedback from the perspective of sociocultural theory.

Feedback from the Perspective of Sociocultural Theory Sociocultural Theory (SCT) draws on Vygotskian theory (1978) in relation to concepts of scaffolding and ZPD. The feedback in SCT is regarded as a dialogic process between teachers and students (Lantolf, 2006). In earlier work, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994, p. 480) posited that, Effective error correction and language learning depend crucially on mediation provided by other individuals, who in consort with the learner dialogically co-construct a zone of proximal development in which feedback as regulation becomes relevant and can therefore be appropriated by learners to modify their interlanguage systems. From this stance, learning is not something an individual does alone, but is a collaborative endeavour necessarily involving other individuals.

Due to the collaboration mentioned in the above quotation, students are not provided with indirect or direct feedback. The definition of feedback is not concerned with providing the correct form or bringing errors to students’ attention. Instead, the focus is on the ability to shunt between more implicit and explicit feedback depending on the ZPD of students. In their study, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994, p. 471) analyse the feedback based on a 12-point scale that shows how the feedback might be framed explicitly or implicitly. The notion of ZPD is adopted to frame the feedback according to the abilities of the students. The first six points in the scale are regarding how the teacher provides implicit feedback without

40

Chapter Two

identifying the error. However, the explicitness of the feedback gradually increases throughout the scale. This suggests that language teachers need to be sensitive to the proficiency level of their students when giving their feedback. Lantolf and Aljaafreh (1994, p. 468) state that, Determining a learner’s ZPD is an act of negotiated discovery that is realized through dialogic interaction between learner and expert. In other words, the learner and expert engage each other in an attempt to discover precisely what the learner is able to achieve without help, and what the learner can accomplish with assistance… Importantly, the help negotiated between the novice and expert is graduated and contingent in the sense that it moves from more explicit to more implicit, or strategic levels, and is offered only when needed and is withdrawn once the novice shows signs of self-control and ability to function independently.

The notion of ZPD is extremely important while providing students with effective feedback. The feedback provided to students should be provided according to students’ independent capabilities and collective capabilities. Drawing on the notions of scaffolding and ZPD, the SLATE project developed the feedback protocol and feedback cycle. The following subsection discusses how the notions of scaffolding and ZPD shaped the approach to feedback in the context of the research project.

Feedback from the Perspective of the Sydney School The approach to feedback in this book adopts the Sydney School’s genrebased pedagogy, which shows similarities with Vygotsky’s (1978) notions of scaffolding and ZPD. Feedback is a rather important tool in the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy, and its importance is emphasized by Ken Hyland (2007, p. 160): A key purpose of the cycle is to ensure repeated opportunities for students to engage in activities which require them to reflect on and critique their learning by developing understandings of texts, acting on these through writing or speaking, reviewing their performance, and using feedback to improve their work.

The notion of feedback helps students improve their understanding and spoken and written language production. Moreover, the TLC provides students with opportunities to reach their maximum capacities through scaffolding. The approach to feedback in Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy provides a richer framework and more opportunities for learning, as it is

Establishing foundations

41

different from the notion of feedback in the SLA and SLW approaches. The SLA and SLW approach focus feedback on the clause level and correction only (see Ellis, 2009; Ferris, 2010). However, the analysis of feedback needs to focus on various language levels, including genre, register, discourse semantics, lexicogrammar and graphology. Furthermore, the Sydney School focuses on corrective and supportive feedback, as the fundamental goal is to scaffold students (Devrim 2014). As this research project was conducted as part of the SLATE project that adapted the Sydney School’s TLC to a distance learning/teaching environment, the approach to feedback in this book is in line with the feedback cycle of the SLATE project. The SLATE approach to feedback was based on an understanding that feedback has to play a role within the TLC and that it has to scaffold and support students in order to achieve their ultimate potential. In the process of feedback, the tutors working on the project were asked to first read a student’s assignment, without providing any feedback or comments. The purpose of this initial reading was for the tutors to understand the meanings that the writer was trying to make, and get an overall idea about the ZPD of the student. Once the tutors had read a text carefully, they filled out an assessment rubric, which was based on a 3x3 matrix. The 3x3 Matrix is “a framework for describing key linguistic resources needed to construct texts across academic disciplines” (Humphrey et al., 2010, p. 186) and was initially designed as a tutor-training tool to help tutors look beyond lexicogrammar and focus also on the whole text, and on paragraph and clause level. The purpose of developing the 3x3 Matrix was to help tutors understand how ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings can be realized across three strata, namely, genre and register, discourse semantics and grammar and expression (Humphrey et al., 2010). This made it possible to help the tutors shift their gaze away from syntactic and other surface level issues, which are the focus of SLA and SLW, as discussed above. Within the context of the current action research project, the feedback that is analysed is based on GM. GM results from the resetting of the relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. While the SLATE project dealt with the whole text, and at paragraph and clause levels, the current research project focuses on the tension between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar, which generates GM. In other words, the research project aimed to add another dimension to the SLATE approach to feedback, exploring the relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar.

42

Chapter Two

Chapter Summary This chapter discussed the three notions that create the backbone of this research project, specifically GM, genre pedagogy and feedback. The GM section provided definitions of GM within the stratal tension model (Halliday, 1985a, 1988, 1998; Martin, 1992a, 1993b; Halliday & Martin, 1993) and the semantic model (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999), and situated the research within an integrated model as it provides a richer pedagogical framework. The theoretical section was followed by a discussion of how GM was explored in language development and language education to indicate a gap in the literature. The second notion that this chapter discussed was genre pedagogy. As this action research project was conducted within the SLATE project, which is regarded as the third era of the Sydney School, the NR and ESP traditions were also discussed. This section then moved to explore how the work of Halliday and Painter on language development inspired the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy, and how the founders of the pedagogy applied Vygotsky’s notions of scaffolding and ZPD, as well as how they drew on Bernstein’s categorization of pedagogies in developing a visible pedagogy. Finally, the section discussed how the insights of the Sydney School were adapted within the SLATE project. The final notion discussed in this chapter was written feedback. The research project was conducted within a distance learning/teaching medium, thus the ways in which feedback was theorized and applied by SLA and SLW researchers are of upmost importance. The research was situated within the Sydney School’s approach to feedback, which was inspired by Vygotsky’s (1978) notions of scaffolding and ZPD. The section also discussed how the SLATE project adapted the TLC to its research context, as well as the ways in which the research project opened up a new dimension within the SLATE project. The following chapter, Chapter 3, outlines the research design, which shaped the action research project that spanned a period of three years.

CHAPTER THREE DESIGNING RESEARCH PHASES

This chapter describes the theoretical framework and the methodological approach of the action research project reported in this book. The research problem was to develop an approach to teaching GM to adult second language users of English who were enrolled in undergraduate programs at CityU in Hong Kong. The GM model developed for the study was an integrated model using elements from the earlier models that theorized GM based on stratal tension and semantic junction. The analytical framework was action research (AR) that involved three AR cycles. The chapter firstly summarizes the context of the SLATE project of which the reported action research project was a part, and then moves on to the details of theoretical and analytical frameworks, and concludes by providing details regarding each research phase in relation to their research questions, contexts, participants, actions taken, and data analysis procedures.

Context of Larger Project: SLATE As the action research project reported in this book was conducted as part of the SLATE project, the context of the SLATE project needs to be summarized. The major aim of the project was to help the students develop their written language. The SLATE project applied the fundamental notions of Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy and part of the Language Companion Course (LCC) at CityU. The LCC was designed and developed by the Halliday Center and Educational Development Office at CityU. CityU contacted six universities around the world and asked them to participate in this project. Similar procedures and processes were undertaken by each participating university, such as tutor training and online literacy support provision. Each university supported different courses. The SLATE project supported various courses from the departments of Linguistics, Biology, Applied Physics, Online Publishing, Economics, and Sociology. While CityU was coordinating their LCC with a few other universities, the Department of Linguistics at USYD coordinated the SLATE project as one of the participating universities

44

Chapter Three

within LCC. The developments required for such an interventionist project were twofold: the first one was the development of a tool to assess student assignments and the second one the provision of tutor training. The SLATE research team developed a tool to assess students’ drafts, called the 3x3 Matrix. This was a mapping of a simplified version of strata, i.e. genre, discourse semantics, lexicogrammar and graphology/phonology, and ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions (Humphrey et al., 2010). The 3x3 Matrix was initially designed to train tutors, but then it was also used for other purposes such as analysing and assessing student assignments based on fundamental SFL notions. It was a general tool designed for the use of the tutors who supported various cohorts from various departments at CityU. The tutor cohorts that supported each course adapted the matrix to suit their own context and to serve the language requirements of each field. Alongside the development of the assessment tool, the 3x3 Matrix, the tutors who participated in the project were trained based on the Sydney School’s genre pedagogy. The training was based on the TLC (Rothery, 1994), which was also used during past projects which had adopted the Sydney School’s insights, such as Language and Social Power, Write it Right and Reading to Learn (Rose & Martin 2012). Figure 3.1 illustrates the TLC.

Figure 3.1 Teaching Learning Cycle (adapted from Rothery, 1994)

Designing Research Phases

45

Figure 3.1 presents the TLC as consisting of three interrelated stages. The first stage is deconstruction where the aim is to build the field and set the context. During this stage, students are introduced to model texts, which are then deconstructed into their ideational, interpersonal and textual components. The next stage is joint construction where the teacher and students construct a text collectively. Following the joint construction stage, students are ready to compose the text on their own in the independent construction stage. The deconstruction and joint construction stages are rather important in preparing students for independent construction. Because the cycle sets out clearly defined roles for teachers and students, it presents visible tools for teachers and students. The TLC has also inspired the SLATE project. However, the TLC needed to be adapted to the SLATE project due to the nature of the online medium. The students were frontloaded with knowledge about the purpose and the staging of the genres that they were expected to write. This stage corresponds to the deconstruction stage of the TLC. The second stage, joint construction, was incorporated into the independent construction stage due to the absence of face-to-face interaction. Therefore, the last stage in the TLC, independent construction, was supported through the feedback cycle. Prior to assignment submission, the students had the chance of receiving feedback on their first and second drafts to help them improve their written work. Based on the fundamental concepts of SFL, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning and Bernstein’s knowledge codes, the SLATE project investigated the ways in which the written communication skills of undergraduate students at CityU could be improved through online language support. The training of the tutors, which was based on the fundamental insights of the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy, was comprised of an 18hour training program where they were taught how to use the 3x3 Matrix as a tool based on the notions of strata and metafunctions. These notions provided the resources for tutors to focus, firstly, on the whole text level, then on paragraph, grammar and expression levels. This order of assessing written texts was beyond the traditional assessment methods or tools that generally focus on word and sentence levels (see Ellis, 2009 for categorization of feedback on grammar). As a result, the tutors had sufficient knowledge to go beyond the grammar and expression levels in terms of feedback provision and concentrate on the textual organization of student assignments in relation to beginnings, middles and ends. Furthermore, the tutors were also trained to support students in their textual organization at the paragraph level.

Chapter Three

46

Theoretical Framework The analytical framework adopted in this project was based on an integrated model that theorizes GM. The GM model that was adopted for the purposes of this action research project was based on Halliday (1985a, 1988/1993, 1998), Martin (1992a, 1993b), Halliday and Martin (1993) and Halliday and Matthiessen (1999). The following example illustrates experiential and logical metaphors. Example 3.1 The passing of a new bill caused anxiety among taxpayers. Anxiety among taxpayers is due to the passing of a new bill. The passing of a new bill is causal to anxiety among taxpayers. The cause of anxiety among taxpayers is the passing of a new bill.

In Example 3.1, causal relations are realized inside clauses by verb, preposition, noun and adjective (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999). The use of logical metaphor necessitates the use of experiential metaphor, and experiential metaphor depends heavily on transitivity structures. The instances of experiential metaphor in the above example are “passing” and “anxiety” that are realized by nominal groups. The instances of logical metaphor, “caused”, “due to”, “causal” and “cause”, realize causality inside clauses. In Example 3.1, there is not a congruent relationship between the discourse semantics stratum and the lexicogrammar stratum where processes and qualities are realized by nouns rather than verbs and adjectives. Alternatively, Figure 3.2 below illustrates the metaphorical relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. The relationship is not typical or regular; technically speaking it is not congruent.

Designing Research Phases

47

Figure 3.2 Metaphorical realizations based on an integrated model

Figure 3.2 shows how process, quality and logical relations create instances of GM through stratal tension. The semantic categories process and quality are realized by noun and verb; and logical relations are realized by noun, verb, adjective and preposition in grammar. Experiential metaphor, thus, is categorized as process as noun, e.g. “passing” and quality as noun, e.g. “anxiety”. Logical metaphor is categorized into four types; cause as verb, e.g. “cause”, “lead to”; cause as noun, e.g. “cause”, “impact”; cause as adjective, e.g. “causal”, “resultant”; and cause as preposition, e.g. “due to”, “through”. Alternately, the clauses in Example 3.1 might be worded congruently through realization of process by verb, quality by adjective, and logical relations by conjunctions. Consider the following example. Example 3.2 The taxpayers are anxious, because the government passed a new bill. The taxpayers are anxious because a new bill was passed.

Example 3.2 presents how the discourse semantic categories process, quality and logical relations are realized congruently by verb, adjective and conjunction, respectively. Figure 3.3 illustrates how discourse semantics is congruently mapped on to lexicogrammar.

48

Chapter Three

Figure 3.3 Congruent realizations based on an integrated model

As is shown in Figure 3.3, the semantic units process, participant, quality, circumstance, and logical relations are congruently realized in grammar by verb, noun, adjective, preposition and adverbials, and conjunction respectively. Martin (1993b, p. 114) explains this situation as follows: Here, participants come out as participants (nouns), processes come out as processes (verb) and logical relations come out as logical relations (conjunctions). For the most part grammar and semantics harmonise; there is no tension between the two. The text only has to be read on one level to get its meaning across.

Due to the congruent mapping of semantics onto lexicogrammar, reading the text one time is not sufficient to get its meaning. However, GM needs to be considered twice due to the fact that discourse semantics and lexicogrammar strata are both involved in the process. How an instance of GM is realized depends on what type of semantic categories can be found behind the scene. It would then be possible to comprehend meanings behind GM instances by reading the text twice.

Designing Research Phases

49

Analytical Framework The action research project, which spanned a three-year period, followed the action research cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Freebody, 2003; Burns, 2010). Action research (AR) involves two important concepts: change and collaboration. Action research can simply be defined as the research that evolves through the research process, and leads into accumulated learning through AR cycle. The researcher identifies a problematic area, and then develops a plan to tackle that problematic area. Burns (2010, p. 81) state that: Those engaged in AR experience self-reflection on their behaviour, actions and interactions with others; deliberate interventions to question and enhance current practices; adaptation of research processes and methods to address directly issues that emerge; unpredictability and openness to changes in research goals and questions as knowledge of the social situation expands and deepens.

In other words, the researchers change the way they approach the problematic area in time in order to reach a thorough understanding, so that they can analyse existing situations; and related to that, they plan and execute interventions that would result in changes to the areas identified as problematic. Although some researchers argue that AR lacks validity (see Jarvis, 1983; Brumfit & Mitchell, 1989; Winter, 1987), the accumulation of knowledge and change that AR brings to educational settings outweigh those quantitative methodological concerns (Burns, 2010). AR is qualitative in nature and its fundamental aim is to reach more appropriate pedagogical practices. According to Burns (2010), the main methodological concern of AR is trustworthiness. Trustworthiness refers to collection and analysis of data without bias using various qualitative data analysis techniques, and this, in turn, leads to credible accumulation of knowledge based on honest constitution of research findings. In other words, trustworthiness is the reconceptualization of validity and its appropriation to AR. As I aimed to develop an approach to teaching GM, through AR as the qualitative methodology, my ultimate aim was to reach trustworthiness rather than validity. I achieved this by using the AR cycle, which required adaptation to the intervention and the inclusion of different data analysis techniques, such as periodicity analysis, lexicogrammatical analysis, written feedback analysis using NVivo, UAM Corpus Tool, and Simple Concordance Program. AR is conducted in a cycle consisting of several phases. The AR cycle is comprised of seven phases (Freebody, 2003, p. 87):

Chapter Three

50

1) selecting the focus of the inquiry and studying the available literature; 2) collecting the data from a variety of sources, using forms of ethnographic and Case Study techniques; 3) analysing, documenting, and reviewing the immediate, cumulative, and longer-term effects of teachers’ and students’’ actions; 4) developing and implementing interpretive analytic categories; 5) organizing the data and its interpretations by grouping instances, events, and artefacts into systematic, interconnected displays; 6) taking action, on the basis of redeveloped short- and long-term plans; and 7) repeating the cycle.

These seven phases of the research cycle can also be grouped according to their major functions into four phases: planning, taking action, analysing results and reflecting on the results. Based on Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), Freebody (2003) and Burns (2010), I followed an AR cycle that consists of four phases. Figure 3.4 illustrates the AR cycle that was adopted in this research.

Figure 3.2 Action research cycle

As shown in figure 3.2, AR started with the planning stage. The planning stage involved pedagogical activities such as designing training program, preparing support and training materials. The second phase in the cycle was taking action. This phase required the execution of what was planned during the planning section, such as introducing a new teaching method, training teachers. The next phase was analysing results using a variety of data analysis techniques. The fourth and the last phase was reflecting on results, which built on data analysis. The last phase identified the strengths and weaknesses of the planning and taking action phases. This identification phase was the bridge to the next AR cycle, which aimed to

Designing Research Phases

51

plan and execute a pedagogically more robust cycle. Each action research cycle reported in this chapter will provide a detailed account of the specific research methods employed, sampling, and data analysis procedures. The following sections provide details regarding the context, participants, actions taken and data analysis procedures during each phase of the research.

Phase I: August – December, 2008 Phase 1 aimed to analyse students’ GM use and observe whether the tutors who worked with this cohort provided feedback on GM or not. In other words, the goal of this phase was to understand what the practices were before an intervention was implemented. Therefore, Phase 1 sets the scene for the intervention conducted during Phase 2 and Phase 3. The research questions that guided Phase 1 were as follows: 1. 2. 3.

What types of GM do students use in their work? What feedback do tutors provide on students’ use of the GM? Do students’ develop their GM use across drafts?

This section will summarize the context of Phase 1 by providing information about the course, students and tutors. The description of the research context will be followed by an account of the various actions taken during Phase 1, followed by an account of the data analysis carried out.

Context The first phase of the action research project focused on the ways in which students used GM and whether they received feedback on GM, as well as how they improved their GM use. There were 400 first and second year undergraduate students supported by the SLATE project, with 29 tutors working on the project. The SLATE project supported seven courses: Electronic Publishing, Life Sciences, Construction Management, Basic Sociology, Service Operations Management, Text Linguistics, and Physics Laboratory. However, Phase 1 concentrated on the Physics Laboratory unit. The Physics Laboratory unit aimed to provide thorough insights regarding physics principles by helping students develop techniques to use various instruments and analyse data. The students enrolled in this unit were expected to operate basic instruments in laboratory experiments, and present data from experiments in their laboratory reports. The students

Chapter Three

52

were assessed on laboratory exams, log books, and reports. The SLATE team supported students in writing the discussion sections of reports by providing them support on four experiments. Applied Physics students had four rounds of feedback on the same genre and therefore were good candidates for Phase 1 of this project. Forty-eight students were enrolled in the course, and they were provided with language support by four tutors. The students were supposed to complete ten laboratory reports as course requirement. The tutors working with this group provided support on the discussion section of four laboratory reports.

Participants The students who took part in Phase 1 were enrolled in the Applied Physics unit in the Department of Physics and Materials Science. There were 48 students enrolled in the unit, and all of them submitted their assignments. Of this number, 16 students who submitted all their drafts were chosen to be participants in Phase 1. These students were provided with language support by four tutors. Two of these tutors held a master’s degree in applied linguistics and were experienced ESL teachers. The other two tutors were working towards their master’s degree in applied linguistics in the Department of Linguistics at USYD and also were experienced ESL teachers.

Action Taken During Phase 1, the SLATE research team conducted a genre analysis of a laboratory report. Prior to feedback provision, the team explored how discussion sections of laboratory reports are organized. In relation to the analysis of the course content as well as following suggestions from the lecturer, the team approached the Learning Centre at the University of Sydney to gather more information on lab reports. The SLATE research team came up with the following stages for the discussion sections of lab reports: -

Relate your results to the aims of the experiment; Explain how your results compare to those of previous researchers; Explain why you got your results; and Identify problems in experimental technique and suggest improvements.

Designing Research Phases

53

The tutors adapted the staging of the discussion sections of laboratory reports to the context. Thus, the tutors supported drafts in relation to the genre structure. The staging of the discussions was as follows: introductory sentence that defines the experiment; stages in which the experiment was carried out; problems encountered while conducting the experiment; concluding sentence to summarize the aims and the findings of the experiment.

Data Analysis The data analysis procedure was twofold, with students’ GM use being first coded and then analysed. The notions of transcategorization and agnation were used for the coding and analysis of the data. Transcategorization refers to changing word classes with or without using derivational morphology. For example, the verb “demonstrate” can be transformed into a noun “demonstration” using derivational morphology. Similarly, the verb “increase” can be turned into the noun “increase”, but in this case, no derivational morphology is used. Agnation, on the other hand, refers to creating more congruent alternatives for metaphorical wordings. To illustrate, the phase “the removal of people” involves GM, while a more congruent agnate for this metaphorical wording would be “we removed the people”. To analyse students’ GM use, transcategorization was used to track GM. Creating congruent alternatives for the clauses in which metaphorical wordings took place, which is referred to as agnation, complemented the use of transcategorization. However, distinguishing technical terms from instances of experiential metaphor created a complication. Technical terms, in my research context, referred to nominalization of verbs and adjectives whose congruent alternatives are not in use in a given field. For example, “inflation” is a technical term used in economy and the verb “inflate” is not in use anymore. To distinguish technical terms from experiential metaphor, a small data set consisting of first drafts from each report was created. There were a total of four reports, thus eight drafts. The number of drafts in the data set was 128. The data set was uploaded into an application called Simple Concordance Program (Reed 1997-2010) to obtain word lists and word frequency counts. These lists and frequency counts were helpful in observing the congruent and metaphorical variants of the same word root. For example, to make sure the noun “measurement” is an instance of GM, word frequency counts were checked as to whether both the metaphorical form “measurement” and the congruent form “measure” occur in the data

54

Chapter Three

set. If only the metaphorical form is observed in the data set, then the conclusion was that “measurement” is being used as a technical term, because the congruent form is not in use. If both congruent and metaphorical forms were found in the data set, this proved that “measurement” was an instance of GM. Alongside the analysis of students’ GM use, tutors’ feedback on GM was identified in the drafts submitted by the participating students. The instances of GM feedback were further tracked in subsequent drafts to check where the students revised their text sections based on feedback. The feedback targeting GM was always in open comments. To be able to identify GM feedback, all the instances of open comments were identified, and checked whether they aimed to improve students’ GM use or they were related to organization (textual meanings), content (ideational meanings), lexicogrammar, registerial effectiveness (textual meanings), spelling, and punctuation. Any open comment that helped students improve their GM use was coded as GM feedback. Finally, another small data set was created, including 16 students’ final draft for the fourth assignment. The data set would serve the purpose of comparing the frequency of GM use across drafts to be able to answer the third research question, as introduced in Chapter 1.

Phase 2: January – April, 2009 Phase 2 adopted an interventionist approach and aimed at teaching GM to students through training tutors and providing students with background knowledge on GM. The research questions explored during Phase 2 were as follows: 1. What are the effects of frontloading on students’ GM use? 2. What are the effects of tutor training on tutors’ feedback? 3. What are the effects of GM feedback on students’ GM use? The context of Phase 2 is summarized in this section by providing information on participants, and the course that Phase 2 focused on. This will be followed by an account of the various actions taken, and of the data analysis procedures.

Designing Research Phases

55

Context The second phase of the pilot study took place between January and April 2009, which was semester B at CityU. The focus was on a particular undergraduate course of the Department of Electronic Engineering, titled Electronic Laboratory. The students were expected to write three compositional reports to describe the components of various electronic devices such as a power adapter. The students had a chance to receive language support twice between draft 1 and draft 2, and draft 2 and the final version of their assignments, similar to Phase 1. Following the second round of feedback, the students were to post their assignment on the elearning site of CityU to be assessed by the tutors based in Sydney. These three assignments accounted for 20 per cent of the final grade for the course, and this segment was under the responsibility of the tutors based in Sydney. The Electronics Laboratory unit aimed to provide a basic understanding of analogue and digital gadgets, and help students develop techniques to analyse data using these electronics. Throughout the duration of the unit, the students were assessed on their performance in the laboratory and on demonstration, logbook keeping, laboratory report writing, short quizzes and pre-laboratory exercises. The students were required to write three compositional reports on the functions and components of various electronics such as a four-stage expansion and compression energy cycle, a Zener voltage regulator with current amplification, and a voltage-variable power supply. The SLATE tutors provided support to writing these compositional reports.

Participants The participants of Phase 2 were the 108 students enrolled in the course Electronics Laboratory. To explore the students’ GM use, the very first and the final drafts composed by 11 students, who submitted drafts for the three reports, were analysed. Furthermore, feedback provided by the 12 tutors who worked with this cohort was investigated to analyse how feedback on GM was framed. The tutors were experienced ESL teachers with a master’s degree in applied linguistics or working towards their applied linguistics master’s degree in the Department of Linguistics at USYD.

56

Chapter Three

Action Taken Phase 2 focused on preparing support materials to frontload students on the use of GM and training tutors regarding GM identification and formation. Regarding the frontloading of students, a set of support materials was prepared. The support material provided the students with background information on GM with congruent and metaphorical examples selected from draft 1 of assignment 1. The material consisted of a theoretical explanation of GM with respect to its types, namely, experiential, logical. Along with the examples, potential instances of text for GM use were identified and metaphorized with explanations provided. This support material was posted on CityU’s online teaching/learning platform, called “Blackboard”. Based on the material, online communication with a few students also took place due to their need for further clarification of theoretical foundations of GM; see Appendix A for the support material. Tutor training on GM took place following the general training the tutors received on the SLATE project. The training focused on GM identification and GM formation. To provide the tutors with information on GM, some of the findings from Phase 1 were presented and support material was prepared to provide explanations on various types of GM with examples of congruent and metaphorical wordings. The presentation focused on GM types, as well as on how tutors could support students’ GM use by providing open comments during Phase 1. The presentation was in conference format that introduced the theory of GM with its major types, then provided examples of students’ GM use, as well as the ways in which tutors supported students’ GM use. Following the presentation, the tutors were introduced to support material that provided congruent and metaphorical examples from the data set of Phase 1. The support material presented a definition of GM and was divided two sections. Each section provided examples of experiential and logical metaphors. For example, “the measurement of values” was presented as an example of an experiential metaphor in a table with its congruent counterpart “we measured the values”. Each section of the support material explained a particular GM type, followed by examples of congruent and metaphorical versions; see Appendix B for support material prepared for tutors.

Designing Research Phases

57

Data Analysis The data analysis procedures that follow the aims of Phase 2 consisted of exploring students’ GM use, tutors’ feedback on GM, students’ response to feedback, and the development of students’ GM use. Similar to Phase 1, agnation, transcategorization and word frequency counts were used to identify instances of GM. Thus, the first drafts of assignment 1 and the final submissions of the final assignments of 11 students were uploaded into Simple Concordance Program to obtain word frequency counts. The word frequency counts were used to distinguish between instances of experiential metaphor and technical terms.

Phase 3: January – April 2010 Phase 3 adopted an interventionist approach to teaching GM to undergraduate students who were enrolled in the Introduction to Linguistics unit. This section summarizes the context, methods and actions taken during the last phase of this action research project. The intervention in Phase 3 was built on Phase 2. Therefore, the research questions investigated were: 1. What are the effects of frontloading based on periodicity on students’ GM use? 2. What are the effects of tutor training on tutors’ feedback? 3. What are the effects of GM feedback on students’ GM use? 4. What role does language proficiency play in students’ grammatical metaphor use? The context of Phase 3 is summarized in this section with information on participants, and the course that Phase 3 focused on. This will be followed by an account of the various actions taken, and of the data analysis procedures.

Context Phase 3 of this project was conducted between January and April in 2010. The focus was on an undergraduate course of the Department of Linguistics titled Introduction to Linguistics. The students were expected to compose two assignments as course requirement, with the SLATE research team preparing the second assignment. The assignment designed by the SLATE research team counted towards the language component of the course, which was 10 per cent of the total grade. Similar to the training

58

Chapter Three

that took place in 2009, the SLATE team ran an 18-hour training session for the tutors where they were provided with the necessary information about strata and metafunctions, as well as how to use the tool, the 3x3 Matrix. The students used a textbook titled “Linguistics: introduction to language”, by Fromkin (2010). The textbook was divided into sections regarding phonology, morphology, syntax and pragmatics. The students were supposed to conduct linguistic analyses of phonology, e.g. working on speech sounds of a language; morphology, e.g. analysing suffixes of a language; and finally syntax, e.g. drawing tree diagrams. As the timing of assignment 2, which was designed by the SLATE research team, coincided with the unit on derivational morphology, the team designed the second assignment based on derivational morphology. The process of the assignment design and GM training provided to tutors are outlined below.

Participants A total of 44 students were enrolled in the Introduction to Linguistics unit, and 39 of these students completed the feedback cycle. Thus, the project concentrated on those 39 students only. Eight tutors worked with this cohort of students. Six of the tutors were postgraduate students in a related field, such as applied linguistics, linguistics or TESOL, and two were experienced ESL teachers. Of those eight tutors, five had attended the training on GM. Therefore, Phase 3 focused on the support provided by those five tutors.

Action Taken A number of actions were taken during Phase 3. First of all, the SLATE research team designed an assignment for this cohort. The assignment was designed as a consequential explanation based on Martin and Rose (2008). The students were asked to write an explanation about the effects of nominalization on language. To provide students with background knowledge on the issue, a support document was prepared. Not only did the document provide background knowledge regarding the effects of nominalization, but it also provided two texts describing the differences between spoken and written language. The students were expected to use examples from these two texts to explain the effects of nominalization on language, and they were also guided about what to include in the introduction, body and conclusion sections of their assignments.

Designing Research Phases

59

Alongside frontloading students on the effects of nominalization, the tutors were trained on GM by myself. The training of the tutors included a workshop and preparation of two documents for the tutors. During the workshop, the tutors were introduced to the support material on GM that summarized various types of GM, using examples from Phase 2. The material also included activities for the tutors. The first activity was designed at paragraph level where the tutors were asked to identify the instances of GMs. The second activity focused on the whole text level. The tutors were provided with an explanatory text without macro-Theme and hyper-Themes and they were asked to write macro-Theme and hyperThemes after they had read the whole text. The last two activities were regarding GM identification and providing GM feedback at whole text level; see Appendix C. The last action taken during Phase 3 was the determination of student groups based on their achievement levels using the Marking Academic Success at University (MASUS) assessment tool, which was developed by the Learning Centre at USYD (Bonanno & Jones, 2007). Although the students were required to possess an A Level Use of English on Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority (HKEAA), there were variations in their English proficiency (see Li & Casanave, 2012; Evans, 2008, 2009; Evans & Morrison, 2011a, 2011b; Poon, 2009). Therefore, first drafts were assessed using MASUS by an experienced MASUS marker. Furthermore, all these drafts were also marked by three members of the SLATE research team to manage inter-rater reliability. The scores were given out of 16, with the students who received 13 and above placed in the high achievers group, whereas the students who received below 13 were placed in the low achievers group.

Data Analysis The data analysis procedure involved the exploration of students’ GM use, tutors’ feedback on GM, development of GM use, and difference between proficient and less proficient writers regarding their GM use. The data were collected from Blackboard, the e-learning site of CityU. The Halliday Centre and the Education Development Office at CityU were responsible for the design and maintenance of the website. For data collection, both the Halliday Centre and the Education Development Office were contacted officially to get their consent on the use of student texts for research purposes only. Upon their permission, the Halliday Centre anonymized all the data including the information about students and tutors, and used ID

60

Chapter Three

numbers to help identify the participants. Pseudonyms were used to protect the identity of both the tutors and students. The data analysis for Phase 3 of the study was carried out using a qualitative data analysis application called NVivo. Firstly, the data were coded with respect to the two language proficiency groups, based on the MASUS assessment criteria. The first and second draft and the final version of each student’s assignment were coded under the following “nodes” (a feature of NVivo): GM, periodicity, support and response. The GM node was divided into experiential and logical. The periodicity node was divided into macro-Theme (a.k.a. thesis statement), hyper-Theme (a.k.a. topic sentence), hyper-New (a.k.a. concluding sentence), and macro-New (paraphrase of thesis statement). Instances of support provided by tutors were also organized according to the type and place of support. In this phase, the unit of analysis was the whole text. The assignment underwent a periodicity analysis in order to code macro-Theme (in the introduction section), macro-New (in the conclusion paragraph), hyperThemes (first sentences in each paragraph), and hyper-News (last sentences of each paragraph). Furthermore, instances of GM were identified at clause level.

Summary This chapter explored the research methodology in relation to theory and application. The first section of the chapter provided a recount of the theoretical framework applied in this research. The framework chosen was the Sydney School’s SFL inspired genre-based pedagogy. The first section of this current chapter summarized the theoretical underpinnings of the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy, SCT (Vygotsky, 1978), sociology of education (Bernstein, 1975), and language as social semiotic (Halliday, 1978). Following this theoretical and historical section, the chapter then moved on to recount the procedures undertaken during Phase 1, which took place between August and December 2008, and then Phase 2, which was conducted between January and April 2009. Then the chapter moved onto Phase 3, which was designed and implemented between January and April 2010, by providing information on the research setting, participants and data analysis procedures. Having outlined and provided detailed information regarding the research methodology, the following chapter will discuss the context of Phase 1 by revisiting the planning for Phase 1 and the action taken, presenting results and reflecting on the results to plan Phase 2.

CHAPTER FOUR PHASE 1: OBSERVING STUDENTS’ GM USE AND TUTORS’ GM FEEDBACK

This chapter explores the ways in which GM is used by students enrolled in the Physics Laboratory unit in the Department of Applied Physics. The data for this chapter come from the first phase of the research, conducted between August and December 2008. It needs to be noted that the purpose of this phase of the project was to examine what the students and tutors did before any focused training was provided to either of them regarding GM in academic writing. The main focus of this chapter is therefore to investigate and document students’ use of GM in their writing. The texts studied were laboratory reports that the students wrote based on experiments that they carried out as part of their regular course work. A second focus of the chapter was to examine if and how tutors provided feedback on students’ use of GM. Based on these aims, three questions that guided this phase of the project were: 1. What types of GM do students use in their work? 2. What feedback do tutors provide on students’ use of GM? 3. Do students’ develop their GM use across drafts? To present the exploration of the questions, the chapter is divided into four sections. The first section will focus on the context in which Phase 1 was completed. The second section will seek to answer the first research question where students’ GM use will be explored. The third section will investigate the second research question as to whether tutors provided feedback on GM. The third research question will be probed in the fourth section. The chapter will end with a reflection section where the results from Phase 1 will be discussed to show how the findings helped the designing of Phase 2.

Chapter Four

62

Context Phase 1 focused on the laboratory reports written by the undergraduate students enrolled in the Physics Laboratory unit in the Department of Applied Physics. The unit aimed to improve students’ skills in using various apparatus and develop data analysis skills that would help them reach an understanding of basic physics principles through practical experimentation. The number of the students enrolled in this unit was 48. Over the semester, they were required to complete ten laboratory reports as course requirement. The SLATE project helped students write the discussion sections of four of these reports, which were based on experiments conducted using an amplifier, data logger, magnetic force and Pb-Sn alloys as simple eutectic systems. These students were provided with feedback by four SLATE tutors, who were trained in the SLATE approach to providing feedback, but were not given any special training regarding identifying or providing feedback on GM. The following two sub-sections will provide a discussion of the task that the students were required to complete and the procedures followed in analysing the data.

Task The SLATE research team analysed discussion sections of laboratory reports to gain knowledge on how discussion in laboratory reports is staged. They based their analysis on the Physics Laboratory course content and suggestions from the lecturer of the unit as well as resources prepared by the Learning Centre at the University of Sydney. The stages of the discussion section of laboratory reports were as follows: -

Relate your results to the aims of the experiment; Explain how your results compare to those of previous researchers; Explain why you got your results; and Identify problems in experimental technique and suggest improvements.

Based on their analysis of this genre, the SLATE research team noted that discussion sections required an introductory sentence that defines the experiment. This needed to be followed by discussing the steps in which experiments were carried out. Following the discussion on how the experiments were carried out, the problems encountered while conducting experiments needed to be discussed. Finally a concluding sentence to summarize the aims and findings of the experiments was the last stage in the discussion section of laboratory reports. The phases of the discussion

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

63

sections of laboratory reports were used to support students in the writing of their reports. The staging of these discussion sections in this way corresponds to what Martin and Rose (2008, p, 201) consider “procedural recount with a goal to improve understanding of a phenomenon and thereby resolve or avert a problem”. Procedural recounts generally begin with an introduction to state a problem, the process of research in the methods stage, followed by reporting results, a discussion and a conclusion. The analysis conducted by the SLATE research team followed these stages suggested by Martin and Rose (2008). As such, the texts that the students were writing may be considered procedural recounts.

Data Analysis Procedure The data were analysed in relation to students’ GM use and tutors’ GM feedback. With regards to students’ GM use, 16 first drafts of students’ first assignment were chosen to explore their experiential and logical metaphor use. These texts were chosen, because those 16 students had completed the feedback cycles for the four reports by submitting all their drafts. The rest of the students did not submit one or two drafts, as only the final submissions were graded by the tutors. Firstly, the texts were read and instances of GM were identified. The criterion was whether the identified words/phrases created stratal tension. In order to make sure stratal tension existed, congruent alternatives were created. The second method used was developed because of the challenge posed by technical terms. Therefore, a method needed to be developed to identify technical terms from experiential metaphors. At this point, computational linguistics provided the necessary resources. The Simple Concordance Program (Reed, 1997-2010) was used to generate word counts to observe whether congruent and non-congruent forms existed in the data set. A small data set was created using these 16 texts and uploaded to the program. The criterion for identifying GM was whether congruent and non-congruent forms were found in the data set. If both forms existed, this proved that the stratal tension was present. Therefore, these words were identified as experiential metaphors. However, if there was no congruent form observed in the data, then it was concluded that these forms had become technical terms due to the loss of stratal tension. The analysis focused on the Theme-Rheme structure as well as the constituents of nominal groups. Theme-Rheme structure was explored for

64

Chapter Four

two reasons. Firstly, as GM involves both discourse semantics and lexicogrammatical strata exploring Theme-Rheme structure requires exploring the discourse semantics stratum as well as lexicogrammar. Secondly, GM affects the textual organization of texts, building information flow. To investigate how GM organizes text, Theme-Rheme structure was investigated as it unveils how texts unfold. Tutors’ GM feedback was tracked in all submitted assignments. There were 48 students enrolled in the unit, of whom only 16 submitted all their drafts. The other 32 students failed to submit one draft. The remaining 32 students did not submit one or two drafts. This might be due to one major reason, the grading process. Although the students were expected to submit all their drafts and graded by the SLATE tutors on each draft, their content/course lecturer gave marks only on the final draft. Therefore, the number of the submitted drafts was 352 for four assignments, which required two-draft submissions. GM feedback was identified and distinguished from other types of feedback that targeted content, organization, lexicogrammar, spelling and punctuation. Related to this process, students’ response to GM feedback was also identified in following drafts to consider whether the students had revised their work based on feedback or they had ignored it. If the students had made revisions, this was called uptake; if they had ignored feedback, then this situation was referred to as avoidance. The following sections will present the findings from Phase 1.

Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use This section aims to explore the first question by presenting which types of GM were used by the students. The students used experiential and logical metaphors in the discussion sections of laboratory reports. The GM types will be presented based on the frequency of words used to convey each subtype, as well as the frequency of instances. The section will also present students’ GM use in context with examples. A discussion section to recount the methods used to identify instances of GM will follow the examples. Before delving into a deeper exploration of GM instances, I would like to present a general picture of students’ GM use in their first draft of assignment 1. Table 4.1 illustrates the frequency of instances of GM and technical terms.

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

Frequency of GM

Assignment 1 draft 1: instances per 4,330 words Assignment 1 draft 1: instances per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

91

100

20

21

23

4.6

65

Table 4.1 Frequency of GM use in draft 1 Table 4.1 presents the frequency of instances of GM and technical terms identified in the first drafts of the first assignment. The number of words in the data set was 4,330. While the second row of the table shows the frequency of GMs and technical terms per 4,330 words, the third row presents the frequency of GMs and technical terms per 1,000 words. Experiential metaphors are the largest category with 23 instances per 1,000 words. The second largest category is technical terms with 21 instances per 1,000 words. The third category is logical metaphor with 4.6 instances. Each GM type will be explored in the following sub-sections.

Experiential Metaphor Use Experiential metaphor refers to the non-congruent ways of meaning making within our experience with the environment. The students used two sub-types of experiential metaphor, process as noun and quality as noun. Within process as noun, nominalization, ING-nominalization and demonstratives were observed. Examples of each experiential metaphor sub-type will be discussed below. Furthermore, it was observed that students used a great number of technical terms that were created through the use of nominalization. This sub-section, thus, will firstly present how students used experiential metaphor, and then how technical terms were used. However, before I provide examples, it is worth examining the analysis of the type and instance of experiential metaphor in these 16 first drafts. Table 4.2 illustrates various types of experiential metaphors.

Chapter Four

66

Process as noun INGnominalization No. ensuring (1) measuring (6) reading (10) calculating (2) comparing (2) calibrating (1) getting (2) filtering (6) balancing (1) using (5) analysing (1) removing (1) connecting (1)

Nominalization No. improvement (3) change (13) measurement (6) investigation (1) usage (1) relationship (1) realization (1) loss (1) rise (1) calculation (1) leakage (2) configuration (1) performances (1) transfer (1)

Demonstratives No. this (3)

Quality as noun No. inaccuracy (1) difference (8) height (4) probability (2) uncertainty (1) accuracy (6) closeness (1) precision (1)

Table 4.2 Frequency of experiential metaphor in 16 texts (N=4,330 words) As seen in Table 4.2, the students used two major types of experiential metaphor, namely, process as noun and quality as noun. The Process as noun type is employed to a great extent with 27 types and 75 instances. Within this category, the types ING-nominalization and nominalization were almost equal in occurrence. However, ING-nominalization was more frequently used (39 instances) compared to nominalization (34 instances). There was only one type of demonstratives used as experiential metaphor, with three instances. Quality as noun was used in eight types, with 24 instances. I will now consider examples of each experiential metaphor type below. Process as noun Process as noun was realized in three forms: ING-nominalization, nominalization and demonstratives. Example 4.1 below shows how INGnominalization was used by one of the students. Example 4.1 (Student 22) Therefore, each set of reading of both temperature and voltage may not be exactly coherent.

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

67

In Example 4.1, there is an ING-nominalization in the Theme position. The nominal group is “each set of reading of both temperature and voltage”, with “reading” functioning as qualifier. This nominal group might be worded more congruently as “We have read the temperature and voltage”. As it is possible to create a congruent alternative, the non-finite word “reading” is regarded as an ING-nominalization. Example 4.2 illustrates how a student used nominalization. Nominalization was the second largest category of process as noun with 14 types and 34 instances. Example 4.2 (Student 34) Relationship between the cut-off frequency and the response time is the first issue we need to find out.

In Example 4.2, Student 34 uses a nominalization to create a nominal group in the Theme position. The use of the nominalization “relationship” in this nominal group creates stratal tension, as it is possible to form a congruent alternative. The nominalization “relationship” functions as the head of the nominal group and the rest of the nominal group, while “between the cut-off frequency and the response time” functions as qualifier. The congruent alternative would be “the way the cut-off frequency and the response time relate to each other”. The congruent alternative was created by using the verb “relate” to form a clause with the constituents Participant and Process. Thus, the nominalization “relationship” is an instance of process as noun. Example 4.3 shows how a demonstrative is used as an instance of process as noun. Demonstratives that replaced nominalization were categorized as a sub-type of process as noun. There was only one type employed, which was “this”, with three instances. Example 4.3 (Student 46) Throughout the experiment, it was observed each heating or cooling curves contains a flat portion, i.e. temperature doesn’t change at all. However, heat was constantly being lost to the surroundings. This can be explain using the cooling curve, when Lead or Tin freezes, the process liberated some amount of heat (known as latent heat) at exactly the same rate as the heat that was being lost to the surroundings.

In Example 4.3 above, Student 46 uses a demonstrative to refer to the previous clause. The demonstrative is in the Theme position. It was also

Chapter Four

68

possible to use nominalization to paraphrase the previous clause as in “heat loss to the surroundings”. However, the student chooses to use a demonstrative to pack the process into a nominal group, which forms the third category of process as noun in the data set. Quality as noun Quality as noun was the third largest category of experiential metaphor used by this cohort. There were eight types with 24 instances in the data set. Example 4.4 shows an instance of quality as noun. Example 4.4 (Student 39) A large standard deviation indicates that the data points are far from the mean and a small standard deviation indicates that they are clustered closely around the mean. Therefore, the data measured by the PC data logger was more precise. Precision means the data fluctuation measured by the instrument is small.

In Example 4.4 Student 39 uses the word “precision” in the Theme position to explain what “precision” means in the context of the experiment. The student uses the adjective “precise” in the previous clause in the Rheme position. To be able to explain what it means, the adjective needs to be used in the Theme position in the following clause. The student nominalizes the adjective to derive “precision”. Not only does Student 39 manage to use quality as noun to pack the information into a nominal group, but the student also manages the information flow by nominalizing the Rheme of the previous clause as Theme in the following clause. Technical terms Distinguishing technical terms from experiential metaphor instances needed to be addressed during the process of data analysis. In this context, technical terms refer to the technical jargon used in the field of Applied Physics. The way they are identified and distinguished from experiential metaphors required checking whether the stratal tension was lost. To explore whether the loss of stratal tension resulted in the technicalization of process and quality based technical terms, the whole data set was checked for congruent and non-congruent forms. To illustrate, due to the derivational morphology “measurement” is created through the nominalization of the verb “measure”. However, I have explored this using Simple Concordance Program to discover

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

69

whether it is an instance of experiential metaphor or a technical term. There were nine instances of the verb “measure” and six instances of the nominalization “measurement” found in the data set. This shows that the nominalization “measurement” is an instance of experiential metaphor. On the other hand, the nominalization “data logging” was a technical term, because there were 26 instances of “data logger” in the data set. As this term refers to a specific process within the discipline and there was no congruent form in the data set, “data logging” is considered a technical term. Table 4.3 presents types and instances of technical terms identified in the data set. Process-based No. resistance (2) calibration (1) acquisition (2) amplification (9) distortion (2) attenuation (1) fluctuation (3) capacitance (1) deviation (8) impedance (7) supercooling (1) performance (6) data logging (1)

Quality-based No. frequency (34) amplitude (2) sensitivity (9) intensity (2) magnitude (1)

Table 4.3 Technical terms identified in 16 texts (N=4,330 words) As Table 4.3 shows, there are two types of technical terms that are based on process and quality. Both types are created through the process of nominalization. However, they are regarded as technical terms, because, firstly, they refer to a field-specific process and quality within the field, and, secondly, because the stratal tension is lost due to technicalization. Example 4.5 illustrates three technical terms used by Student 4. Example 4.5 (Student 4) During data logging, p-p amplitude was used because amplification is ratio only.

In Example 4.5, Student 4 uses an embedded clause, “data logging”, in marked Theme position. This clause can be unpacked by forming an independent clause as in “While we were logging data”. However, when frequency counts are carried out for “data logging”, only one occurrence

Chapter Four

70

of “data logging” is found, and only one instance of “log” as verb, with the other 26 occurrences referring to the apparatus, “data logger”. As the congruent form occurs only once in the data set, this suggests that the process “data logging” has become technicalized. Moreover, there are two more technical terms in the above example, “amplification”, and “amplitude”. The first term, “amplification”, is derived from the verb “amplify”, and the second term, “amplitude”, is derived from the adjective “ample”. Moreover, there is an apparatus called “amplifier”, with the nominalization instances “amplitude” and “amplification” also used. This shows that the stratal tension is lost and these instances of nominalization need to be considered technical terms.

Logical Metaphor Use The students use logical metaphors to build in-clause causality. This is done in three ways: a) using a material process such as “cause” or “result”, which was named cause as verb; b) using prepositional phrases, especially the combination of the preposition “by” and ING form of verbs, which was referred to as cause as preposition; and c), using a noun, i.e. “result”, to manage in clause-causality, which was named cause as noun. The three types of logical metaphor identified in the data set, cause as verb, cause as preposition and cause as noun, were confirmed by providing congruent alternatives. Table 4.4 presents the types and instances of logical metaphors used by this cohort. Cause as verb No. affect (2) damage (1) lead to (1) trigger (1) cause (1) comparing (1) affecting (1) using (1)

Cause as preposition No. due to (3) by (4)

Cause as noun No. reason (2) effect (1) factor (1)

Table 4.4 Logical metaphor identified in 16 texts (N=4,330 words) As Table 4.4 shows there were three categories of logical metaphor identified in the small data set. The largest category is cause as verb with eight types and nine instances, followed by cause as preposition with two types and seven instances, and cause as noun with three types and four instances. I will now present examples for each category.

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

71

Cause as verb Cause as verb is the most frequently employed logical metaphor category in the data set. The students used material processes to manage cause inside the clause. Example 4.6 shows how material processes were used in this manner. The logical metaphors are in boldface and experiential metaphors are italicized. Example 4.6 (Student 5) Thirdly, during the transfer of the air tank from one container to the other, a change in temperature was experienced. As mentioned earlier, a change in temperature led to a change in volume. Thus, these conditions triggered to the difference between the thermodynamic energy and the mechanical energy.

There are two instances of cause as verb in Example 4.6, “lead to” and “trigger”. Each verb links the nominal groups in the Theme and Rheme positions. The first instance of cause as verb creates causality between the two nominal groups “a change in temperature” and “a change in volume”. The second instance, “trigger”, relates the two nominal groups “these conditions” and “the difference between …”. Cause as verb was also observed in non-finite clauses in ING-form. Example 4.7 shows how the ING-form of the verb “compare “ is used to realize cause inside the clause. Example 4.7 (Student 4) It is easily to find the passive filter is a low pass filter and active filter is the high pass one. Result show in Data and Analysis part already. Comparing experiment Part 2 and 3, similar cut-off frequencies were determined. In Part 2, the high frequency result is difficult to read since the fluctuation is high.

Example 4.7 shows an instance of cause as verb in ING-form. It is possible to convert this instance of logical metaphor into cause as preposition as in “By comparing Part 2 and Part 3”. Furthermore, the whole clause can be worded congruently as in “ We have determined similar frequency cut-off points, because I compared Part 2 and Part 3 of the experiment.” The congruent alternative requires the use of a conjunction to convey causality between clauses. However, the original clause manages this by reducing the prepositional phrase to a non-finite clause. Therefore, it is considered an instance of a logical metaphor.

Chapter Four

72

Cause as preposition The second type of logical metaphor identified in the data set is cause as preposition. This type requires the use of prepositional phrases to convey cause inside the clause. Example 4.8 shows how cause as preposition is used to realize a logical relation inside the clause. Example 4.8 (Student 8) For the transition d ---- a , we found that the position of piston was lower than the beginning of the cycle. This means the volume of the gas was smaller when compare to the original one. This was probably due to the air leakage. In order to improve it, we should carry out the experiment as fast as possible so as to reduce the air leakage.

In Example 4.8, the logical relation is construed though the use of “due to”. “Due to” is in Rheme position and links the Participant to the Circumstance. The Participant in this clause is the demonstrative “this”, which replaces nominalization that would describe the attribute in the preceding clause. Also “due to” connects the nominal group “air leakage”, which is a technical term, to the Participant in Theme position. Alternatively, this clause can be worded congruently as in “The volume of the gas was smaller than the original one, because the air leaked”. As it is possible to convey cause between clauses through the use of a conjunction, “due to” is considered an instance of a logical metaphor in the form of a preposition. Cause as noun The third type of logical metaphor identified in the data set is cause as noun. Rather than conveying causality via verb or preposition, cause as noun assigns this role to the noun. Example 4.9 shows how cause as noun is used. Example 4.9 (Student 36) When step b and c were proceeding, the barometer pressure gauge provided a higher pressure reading even if there was no external pressure added onto the platform of the rubber stopper. According to the formula PV=nRT, where n and R are constant, there was another factor affecting the pressure reading (P) which is the volume of gas (V).

In Example 4.9, the student uses a noun to convey causality. The noun “factor” manages the logical relationship between the “pressure reading” and the “volume of the gas”. The original clause complex can be worded

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

73

more metaphorically as in “The volume of the gas was another factor for the high pressure reading”. Alternatively, the original clause complex can also be worded congruently as in “The pressure reading was high, because the volume of gas was high”. Therefore, the noun “factor” in the original clause is considered an instance of cause as noun. To sum up, experiential metaphor constituted the largest number of GM employed. There were two sub-types of experiential metaphor: process as noun (type: 28, instance: 76), and quality as noun (type: 8, instance: 24). Furthermore, process as noun was realized in ING-nominalization (type: 13, instance: 39), nominalization (type: 14, instance: 34) and demonstratives (type: 1, instance: 3). There were also instances of technical terms (type: 18, instance: 91); the data set was uploaded to Simple Concordance Program to obtain word frequency counts. With reference to logical metaphor (type: 13, instance: 20), there were three sub-types in the data set, use of material Processes such as “result in” or “cause” that constituted logical metaphor sub-type cause as verb (type: 8, instance: 9); prepositional phrases starting with “due to” or “by”, which were referred to as cause as preposition (type: 2, instance: 7); and nouns in relational clauses, which were considered cause as noun (type: 3, instance: 4). Having explored students’ use of GM, the next section will analyse tutors’ feedback targeting students’ GM use.

Tutors’ Feedback on Grammatical Metaphor The analysis of the data set shows that the students were provided with feedback on GM, although the tutors were not trained in GM identification or feedback provision on GM. However, there were a few instances of such feedback. The data set for the GM feedback analysis included all the submitted drafts of the four reports. The number of students enrolled in the unit was 48 and each student submitted eight drafts. However, the total number of drafts analysed was 352, because 32 students did not submit one of their drafts. The analysis of the data set revealed that there were only five instances of feedback on GMs. Three of these concerned experiential metaphors use, and the other two were related to logical metaphor use. No instance of feedback regarding interpersonal metaphor was identified. This finding highlights the importance of the intervention that will be employed during Phase 2 and Phase 3 to help the tutors focus more on GM. The nature of the feedback provided by the tutors to the students on their use of GMs will be discussed below in two subsections: 1) feedback

74

Chapter Four

on experiential metaphor, and 2) feedback on logical metaphor. These subsections will introduce instances of GM feedback and analyse them. The results of the analysis of the feedback show that tutors varied their feedback on a scale of explicitness, with feedback ranging from explicit to implicit. The feedback instances, which provided clues as to how to revise text sections without telling students how to actually make the changes, were considered implicit, because these feedback instances aimed to elicit more appropriate options from students. On the other hand, instances of feedback that provided correct forms to the students and told them to fix their text by using the suggested corrections are considered explicit. The issue of explicit and implicit feedback will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7. However, I will start highlighting this feature of feedback starting below. In addition to looking at the nature of feedback, the discussion below will also briefly examine students’ responses to feedback. In particular, I will look at whether students respond to feedback as uptake or avoidance. The feedback provided by tutors will be presented in italics and in curly brackets and text revisions are in boldface.

Feedback on Experiential Metaphor The following three instances of feedback on experiential metaphor aimed to help students improve their academic language through packing processes and qualities into nominal groups. Two instances of this kind target the use of adjectives to realize the discourse semantic category quality. The third instance aims to help student form a longer nominal group by nominalizing a verb. The feedback instances are in curly brackets. Example 4.11 is regarding feedback on quality as noun as a type of experiential metaphor. Example 4.11a (Student 14: report 2 – draft 1) Therefore comparing the data with the theoretical and checking whether the equation is right or not {Can you think of a noun that refers to whether something is accurate or not? A word like this would sound more technical than whether x is right or not} become an important precaution of the experiment.

In Example 4.11a, the tutor asks the student to come up with a noun to refer to if something is accurate or not. This revision is necessary

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

75

according to the tutor, because the use of such a word would make the text more technical. The tutor wants to elicit the word from the student by providing clues without the correct form. Therefore, this feedback instance is regarded as implicit, as it aims to elicit a more appropriate option from the student. Example 4.11b (Response in draft 2) Therefore, comparing the data with the theory and checking whether the experimental result is accurate or not become an important precaution of the experiment.

In the second draft, Student 14 revises the sentence by using “accurate or not”. The student copies “accurate or not” from the clues provided. In other words, the student’s response results in uptake but not in GM use. Therefore, the tutor provides another instance of feedback on the same text section. The second Example 4.12a is the continuation of the first one, but it is more explicit this time. Example 4.12a (Student 14: report 2 – draft 2) Therefore comparing the data with the theory and checking whether the experimental result is accurate or not {use nominalization “the accuracy of ....” This will improve the sentence, making more formal and academic} become an important precaution of the experiment.

The tutor provides feedback helping the student use “accuracy”. Different from the feedback instance discussed above, the tutor provides more explicit feedback and tells the student what to do. Also, the tutor tells the student how the suggested change will improve the text to provide rationale for why such a change is necessary. The use of the suggested phrase is expected to improve the sentence and make it sound more academic and formal. The tutor had intended to elicit the word from the student in draft 1; however, this was not successful in helping the students change the original text. The student made a small revision in the text, changing “the equation” to “the experimental result”, but this change does not concern a GM. Also, the student used the same wording in the feedback, which provided clues. Thus, the student is provided with the suggested form “the accuracy of …” with the rationale as to why this change is necessary. The tutor provided explicit feedback, supplying the correct form to the student, as the implicit feedback did not result in uptake. Student 14 uses the feedback to revise the text section.

76

Chapter Four Example 4.12b (Response in final submission) Therefore, comparing the data with the theory and checking the accuracy of the experimental results become an important precaution of the experiment.

Due to the tutors’ follow-up feedback, the student uses the phrase “the accuracy of” and also manages to place the suggested phrase within the clause. Thus, the student’s response is considered uptake. The third instance of feedback on an experiential metaphor is provided to the same student by the same tutor where the student is given clues as to how to revise a sentence. Example 4.13a (Student 14: report 3 – draft 1) Suddenly changing the temperature has shown on the graph {instead of using changing as a verb, use the noun form to create a noun group like this: e.g. frequently rising heat ĺ a frequent rise in heat}.

In Example 4.13a, the tutor asks the student to use the noun form of the verb “change”; although the student’s use of the –ING form is not wrong, the tutor believes this would make the sentence more formal and academic. The way this is done by the tutor is worth exploring, as the tutor asks student to form a nominal group. To do this, she provides an example, i.e. “frequently rising heat”, which consists of the same grammatical constituents as “suddenly changing temperature”. Each nominal group consists of an adverb, adjective and noun. So, the congruent version of the example provided by the tutor becomes “a frequent rise in heat”, consisting of an adjective, noun and prepositional phrase. Here, not only does the tutor want to elicit a more appropriate phase from the student, she also provides an example to help the student make this revision. The feedback is considered explicit, but the way explicitness is managed is though providing an example with the same structure. Example 4.13b (Response in draft 2) The graph shows the sudden change of temperature.

As a result of the feedback, the student makes the necessary changes and comes up with a more formal form of the original text. The response, thus, is uptake. The following subsection documents feedback on logical metaphors and students’ responses.

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

77

Feedback on Logical Metaphor Logical metaphor refers to non-congruent ways of realizing logical relationships within clauses. Typical ways of providing logical relationships in lexicogrammar is through the use of conjunctions such as because, if… then, requiring two clauses. Alternatively, conjunctions can be realized non-congruently within clauses. There are two instances of feedback provided on logical metaphors in the data set and these instances will be discussed below. Example 4.14a (Student 14: report 3 – draft 1) Error is something that cause the experiment result not in accuracy and not in precise. They will appear in any areas like the instrument, the environment and personal. There are several uncertainty would be found in this experiment. {See if you can condense this information to one sentence that introduces the idea that various errors can occur in the experiment}.

In Example 4.14a, the tutor wants the student to condense the information into one sentence. Combining two clauses into one requires the use of a logical metaphor. The tutor does not tell the student how to do it; instead, the student was just told to form one clause to condense the meanings in two clauses. That is why this instance of GM feedback is considered implicit. Example 4.14b (Response in draft 2) There are several errors would be found in the experimental instrument and environment which cause the experiment result not in accuracy and not in precise.

The student manages to form one sentence by changing the places of a few phrases. The way the student uses the verb “cause” in the revised version is a logical metaphor, as it logically connects the “errors” to “inaccuracy”. Hence, the response to feedback is considered uptake. Example 4.15 presents how Student 28’s logical metaphor use is supported. Example 4.15a (Student 28: report 2 – draft 1) It is wrong to use the large scale range such as 0 ȍ to 1k ȍ, the measured resistance may not be 10 ȍ, and error would occur {Try using the phrase resulting in… to reword this}.

78

Chapter Four

In Example 4.15a, the tutor asks the student to use the phrase “resulting in” to reword the original text section. The tutor wants the student to use in-clause causality to talk about the consequences of “wrong use of large scale range”. The tutor asks the student to use the verb “resulting in”, which is one of the verbs to provide logical relations within a clause similar to “lead to” and “cause”, to achieve this. However, the way the tutor wants this to be done is through the use of the ING-form of the verb “result”. Because a more appropriate version is suggested, this feedback instance is regarded as explicit. Example 4.15b (Response in draft 2) It is wrong to use a large scale range such as 0 ȍ to 1k ȍ, the measured resistance may not be 10 ȍ which is due to the occurrence of the error.

In the second draft, the student revises the section of the text on which he/she received feedback. However, the student uses a logical metaphor “due to” and an experiential metaphor “occurrence” to revise the sentence. The tutor asked the student to use “resulting in”, but the way the student revises this text section is beyond the feedback. Hence, the response to feedback is considered uptake. In analysing the feedback provided on GMs, I noted that the ratio of feedback on GM was only .014. This ratio was based on considering the total number of drafts analysed for GM feedback (352) and the number of instances of feedback on GM. In other words, there were .014 instances of GM feedback per draft. This ratio will be used below in comparing how the interventions planned for the project helped increase this ratio. Furthermore, four of the feedback instances resulted in GM use and were considered examples of uptake. There was another instance where the student made changes that did not result in GM use. That is, the ratio of uptake based on GM feedback was 4/5 = 0.8. These calculations will be used to compare and contrast the consequences of the interventions that will be implemented during Phase 2 and Phase 3. This number will be used to compare and contrast the uptake ratio calculated in Phase 2 and Phase 3.

Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use Across Drafts This sub-section aims to answer the third research question, which is regarding students’ development of GM use. To explore the research question, I will focus on the final submission of the 16 students whose first

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

79

drafts were analysed to explore the first research question. Table 4.5 presents the frequency of students’ GM and technical term use in their very first draft and final submission. Drafts analysed Assignment 1 draft 1 – instances per 4,330 words Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assignment 4 final submission – instances per 5,548 words Assignment 4 final – instances per 1,000 words Change per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

91

100

20

21

23

4.6

72

139

43

13

25

7.8

-8

2

3.2

Table 4.5 Comparison of GM use in draft 1 and final submission (N=4330 words) Table 4.5 presents the frequency of 11 students’ GM and technical term use in their very first and last drafts. It can be seen that the frequency of technical terms decreased from 21 to 13 instances (8 instances per 1,000 words). On the other hand, the students used experiential and logical metaphors more frequently with an increase of 2 and 3.2 per 1,000 words respectively. Following the presentation of students’ GM use and tutors feedback on GM, the next section presents a discussion of these findings and the road plan for the second phase of the research, which was conducted between January and April 2009.

Reflecting on Results In this section, I will reflect on the findings of the first phase of the project. I will explore students’ use of GM, discussing a number of points. Then, I will explore tutors’ GM instances to be able to plan the second phase’s

Chapter Four

80

training. This section is organized in relation to the research questions introduced in Section 4.1.

Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use There were three important findings regarding students’ GM use. Firstly, experiential metaphors formed the largest category of GM, which was followed by technical terms. Secondly, ING-nominalization was the largest sub-type of experiential metaphor. Finally, technical terms created the second largest category in the procedural recounts composed by the students who were enrolled in the Physics Laboratory unit. Each finding will be discussed in separate sections below. Experiential metaphors formed the largest category of students’ GM use in terms of frequency of types and instances. This category was followed by technical terms. Figure 4.1 illustrates the frequency of technical terms and GM used by this cohort.

–‡…Š‹…ƒŽ–‡” ȋͳͺȌ

ʹΨ ͳͻΨ ͷ͵Ψ

ʹ͸Ψ

‡š’‡”‹‡–‹ƒŽȋ͵͸Ȍ Ž‘‰‹…ƒŽȋͳ͵Ȍ ‹–‡”’‡”•‘ƒŽȋͳȌ

Figure 4.1 Frequency of GM and technical terms types in the data set (N= 4,330 words)

As shown in Figure 4.1, experiential metaphors are employed to a great extent, with 36 types, constituting 53% of GMs and technical terms. This category is followed by technical terms with 18 types (26%). The third largest category is logical metaphors with 13 types (19%), while interpersonal metaphors constituting only 2% of total use. The analysis of types of GM and types of technical terms are complemented by an analysis of instances. Figure 4.2 shows the frequency of occurrence of GMs and technical terms.

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

81

ͳΨ ͻΨ

Ͷ͵Ψ

–‡…Š‹…ƒŽ–‡”ȋͻͳȌ ‡š’‡”‹‡–‹ƒŽȋͳͲͲȌ

Ͷ͹Ψ

Ž‘‰‹…ƒŽȋʹͲȌ ‹–‡”’‡”•‘ƒŽȋͳȌ

Figure 4.2 Frequency of occurrence of GMs and technical terms in the data set (N= 4,330 words)

As Figure 4.2 shows, experiential metaphors form the largest category of GMs and technical terms with 100 instances, comprising 47% of all instances of GMs and technical terms. Technical terms constitute the second largest category of all instances of GMs and technical terms. However, this category is much closer to the experiential metaphor category in terms of frequency with 91 instances, comprising 43% of all instances of GMs and technical terms. To get a better picture of students’ use of GM and technical terms, I have also calculated the ratio of occurrence of different types of GM and of technical terms out of the total number of words (4,330). Experiential metaphors (100) occurred with the largest ratio (.023), followed by technical terms (.021), logical metaphors (.005) and interpersonal metaphors (.0002). These figures will be used to compare students’ texts from the three phases of the research project. Another important finding from students’ GM use analysis was that ING-nominalization was used more frequently than any other type of experiential metaphor. According to the type analysis of experiential metaphor, nominalization is slightly used more frequently than the INGnominalization. However, ING-nominalization was used more frequently in comparison to nominalization. The following figure shows the distribution of experiential metaphor regarding their sub-types.

Chapter Four

82

ʹʹΨ ͵Ψ

͵͸Ψ

 Ǧ ‘‹ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ ȋͳ͵Ȍ ‘‹ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ ȋͳͶȌ

͵ͻΨ

†‡‘•–”ƒ–‹˜‡• ȋͳȌ

Figure 4.3 Frequency of experiential metaphor types in the data set (N= 4,330 words)

As shown in Figure 4.3, the nominalization type forms the largest category with 14 types that correspond to 39% of all the experiential metaphors used by students. This category is followed by ING-nominalization with 13 types that correspond to 36% of experiential metaphors. The third largest category is quality as noun that forms 22% of experiential metaphors used and the smallest category is demonstratives with only one type. Alternatively, an instance analysis of students’ experiential metaphor use presents a different picture. The following figure illustrates the instance analysis of experiential metaphor.

ʹͶΨ ͵Ψ ͵ͶΨ

͵ͻΨ

 Ǧ ‘‹ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ ȋ͵ͻȌ ‘‹ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ ȋ͵ͶȌ †‡‘•–”ƒ–‹˜‡• ȋ͵Ȍ

Figure 4.4 Frequency of experiential metaphor instances in the data set (N= 4,330 words)

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

83

As Figure 4.4 shows, ING-nominalization is the largest category with 39 instances that corresponds to 39% of all instances of experiential metaphors. The second category is the nominalization category with 34 instances that correspond to 34% of all the experiential metaphors. To sum up, ING-nominalization discussed in this section enhance students’ meaning potential to construe experiential meanings metaphorically. The frequent use of ING-nominalization suggests that this structure is quite important in the repertoire of L2 writers. The role of ING-nominalization has not been explored in the SFL literature extensively. Consequently, this is one of the areas that this research project is addressing. The third finding of the GM analysis concerned the sub-types of logical metaphors. The students employed three sub-types of logical metaphor, namely, cause as verb, cause as preposition and cause as noun. Cause as noun formed the largest category of students’ logical metaphor use. Figure 4.5 shows the types of logical metaphor used by students.

Ͳ …ƒ—•‡ƒ•˜‡”„ȋͺȌ

ʹ͵Ψ ͳͷΨ

͸ʹΨ

…ƒ—•‡ƒ• ’”‡’‘•‹–‹‘ȋʹȌ …ƒ—•‡ƒ•‘—ȋ͵Ȍ

Figure 4.5 Frequency of logical metaphor types in the data set (N= 4,330 words)

The largest category was cause as verb with eight types, comprising 62% of all instances of logical metaphor. The second category was cause as noun with three types, comprising 23%, and the third category was cause as preposition with two types, comprising 15% of all logical metaphors. No use of cause as adjective was identified in the data set. Figure 4.6 presents the frequency analysis of students’ logical metaphor use.

Chapter Four

84

Ͳ ʹͲΨ ͵ͷΨ

…ƒ—•‡ƒ•˜‡”„ȋͻȌ ͶͷΨ …ƒ—•‡ƒ• ’”‡’‘•‹–‹‘ȋ͹Ȍ …ƒ—•‡ƒ•‘—ȋͶȌ

Figure 4.6 Frequency of logical metaphor instances in the data set (N= 4,330 words)

As Figure 4.6 shows, cause as verb again formed the largest category with logical metaphor with nine instances, comprising 45% of all logical metaphor instances. The ratio of cause as noun to the total number of words analysed is .002. The second largest category was cause as preposition with seven instances, comprising 35%, and occurring with a ratio of .0016. The third category was cause as noun with four instances, and occurring with a ratio of .001. These figures will be compared to students’ logical metaphor use during the three phases of the research project. These findings suggest that logical metaphors were not as important as experiential metaphors and technical terms in the procedural recount genre. As the genre aims to recount the steps taken and the problems encountered during the completion of a laboratory experiment, logical metaphors were not used to a great extent by the students. The less frequent use of logical metaphors also might point to the proficiency level of the participating students.

Tutors’ grammatical metaphor feedback There were only five instances of GM feedback provided by the participating tutors. Three of these instances targeted students’ experiential metaphor use, with one explicit instance and two implicit ones. The explicit instance of GM feedback asked for text revisions based on one correct option (Example 4.12). On the other hand, the implicit instance of

Phase 1: Observing Students’ Gm Use and Tutors’ Gm Feedback

85

GM feedback aimed to elicit a more appropriate option from various available options (see Examples 4.11 and 4.13). The feedback instances targeted students’ logical metaphor use were worded implicitly or explicitly. The implicit feedback instance asked a student to combine sentences (see Example 4.14), while the explicit one provided a student with a more appropriate option. The ratio of GM feedback instances (5) to the drafts analysed (352) was thus .014. Four of these feedback instances resulted in text revision with a ratio of .8. Although tutors’ GM feedback resulted in text revisions, it cannot be argued that the feedback resulted in a wider range of GM use. The tutors only targeted two students. Student 14 received four instances of GM feedback, while Student 28 received only one. In other words, the feedback provided to students did not target the majority of the students. Therefore, the feedback did not help students improve their GM use in general.

Development of Students’ GM use across drafts Phase 1 was observational and explanatory only, without an interventionist agenda. In other words, the students were not provided with background knowledge regarding GM use nor were the tutors provided with training on GM identification and GM feedback provision. However, I have observed that the students who participated in Phase 2 improved their GM use when GM instances in their very first and final drafts were compared. The main reason for this finding can be found in relation to the development of the students’ writing skills. The students who participated in Phase 1 had the chance of receiving feedback from their tutors eight times throughout a semester, which consisted of 13 weeks. Throughout the process, the students were provided with feedback on content, organization, lexicogrammar, punctuation and GM (with five instances). The reason why these students improved their experiential and logical metaphor use therefore cannot be that they received GM feedback from their tutors. Instead, it is argued that as the students improved their writing skills throughout the process, it is this, which resulted in an increase in the frequency of their GM use.

86

Chapter Four

Planning the Next Phase During Phase 1 of this project, when tutors did not receive training on the identification of GM and GM feedback provision, five instances of feedback targeting students’ GM use were observed. The small size of the number of GM feedback instances encouraged me to continue with a second phase. Therefore, I planned Phase 2 to develop an approach to teaching GM. Phase 2 took place between January and April 2009. The data for the second phase consists of the compositional reports of undergraduate students who were enrolled in the Analogue Laboratory unit in the Department of Electronic Engineering. Compositional reports explain various components of electronic or analogue devices (Martin & Rose, 2008). The second phase was planned as an interventionist phase where the tutors were trained in recognizing types of GM and in feedback provision on GM. Furthermore, the students were also provided with support materials on GMs. This was called frontloading students with background knowledge. The following chapter will present the details of the second research phase based on the action research cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Freebody, 2003; Burns, 2010).

CHAPTER FIVE PHASE 2: SUPPORTING GM USE AT CLAUSE LEVEL THROUGH TECHNICAL METALANGUAGE

This chapter reports on the second phase of the research that investigated the ways in which GM was employed by students and how the tutors supported students in using GM through engaging in a feedback cycle. This phase of the project was the first attempt to develop support material for students and the tutors on the use of GM. This intervention was introduced in a course in the Department of Electronic Engineering. Phase 2, based on the understanding of how students and tutors use/support GM from Phase 1 of the project, aimed to develop an approach to teaching GM to students through tutor training and providing students with background knowledge on GM. Therefore, as stated above, Phase 2 was designed as an interventionist approach where the tutors were trained to evaluate students’ use of GM and how to provide feedback to them on this linguistic structure; in addition, the students were provided with handouts and other support material on how to use GM both before they started drafting their assignment, and during the feedback process. Before reporting on the second action research phase, I will briefly summarize the context and findings of Phase 1, which were helpful in designing Phase 2 of the project. The first phase of this action research focused on students’ GM use, and tutors’ feedback on effective use of GM. Phase 1 did not involve an intervention, but was conducted to observe how students used GM, and whether tutors provided feedback on GM without being explicitly trained to do so. The students in Phase 1 were required to compose laboratory reports as part of their course requirement and I analysed the discussion sections of these reports, which were considered procedural recount (Martin & Rose, 2008), for exploring their use of GM. In analysing students’ texts, using the notion of transcategorization and agnation following Derewianka (2003a), I noted that the students employed experiential and logical metaphors in the discussion section of their

88

Chapter Five

reports. In analysing students’ use of GM in Phase 1, I noted that experiential metaphors formed the largest category of GM, followed by logical metaphor. I also noted that transcategorization and agnation needed to be complemented by word frequency counts to distinguish experiential metaphors from technical terms. These observations led to a comparison between students’ GM use in procedural recount and compositional report, which was the focus of Phase 2. Phase 1 also explored whether there were feedback instances targeting students’ GM use. Again, I noted that while students received feedback on effective use of GM from the tutors in addition to feedback regarding content, genre, register, discourse semantics, lexicogrammar, graphology, and punctuation. In fact, there were only five instances of feedback on GM in the whole sample: three instances of these were considered experiential metaphor use, and two logical metaphor. When the total number of GM instances (5) was divided by the number of drafts (352) submitted, I noted that ratio of feedback per draft was only 0.014. Based on the findings from Phase 1, the action plan for the second phase of the research was designed. Different from Phase 1, Phase 2 had an interventionist approach with a focus on tutor training and providing students with knowledge on GM. Phase 2 involved an interventionist approach through frontloading students and training tutors. The students were frontloaded with annotated models and notes are provided regarding their assignment. The notion of frontloading, as used in this project, refers to providing deconstruction (Rothery,1994) activities to the students before they started drafting their texts. The SLATE research team prepared support materials for the students. Furthermore, the tutors were trained on GM identification and feedback provision. Tutor training targeted the feedback loop and helped them to provide feedback on GM in students’ assignments. Phase 2 was conducted between January and April 2009, focusing on compositional reported composed by the students, who were enrolled in the Electronic Laboratory unit in the Department of Electronical Engineering. There were 108 students enrolled in this unit and they were to complete three compositional reports as their course requirement. The compositional reports were based on “the stages of a four-stage expansion and compression energy cycle”, “parts of a Zener voltage regulator with current amplification”, and “parts of a voltage-variable power supply”. During the first feedback cycle, the tutors were told not to focus on students’ GM use so that they could have a better understanding of the purpose and staging of a compositional report and primarily support

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

89

students at the whole text level. Thus, the intervention targeted the second and the third assignments. To explore the effects of the intervention, the following questions guided Phase 2: 1. What are the effects of frontloading on students’ s GM use? 2. What are the effects of tutor training on tutors’ feedback? 3. What are the effects of GM feedback on students’ GM use? In this chapter, the first research question will be explored in relation to students’ GM use. This will be managed through identifying experiential and logical metaphors in students’ first drafts before they received feedback on GM. Furthermore, the second question will be investigated in relation to tutors’ feedback on experiential and logical metaphors. To explore the effects of feedback on students’ assignments, the ways in which the students responded to GM will be investigated. Finally, the last question will be probed through an analysis of students’ GM use in their final submission of the third compositional report. This chapter follows the action research cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Freebody, 2003; Burns, 2010; see Chapter 3). The chapter firstly summarizes the planning stage, and then moves on to the taking action stage. This will be followed by analysing results, and I will conclude with reflecting on results where the road plan for Phase 3, which took place between January and April 2010, will be outlined.

Planning Planning for Phase 2 of the project focused on frontloading students with knowledge on GM, and training tutors on GM feedback identification and feedback provision. Firstly, I prepared support material with information on how to write compositional reports focusing on a model essay, which was written by the lecturer of the unit of study. In order to evaluate the impact of this work, texts written by 11 of the 108 students enrolled in the Electronic Laboratory unit were selected to be analysed in terms of their GM use. These 11 students were selected due to their successful completion of the three feedback cycles. The remaining 97 students did not submit one or two drafts. This might be due to one major reason, the grading process. Although the students were expected to submit all their drafts and graded by the SLATE tutors on each draft, their content/course lecturer gave marks only on the final draft. Students’ GM use was planned to be explored based on the notions of agnation and transcategorization. These two concepts were complemented by word frequency counts using

90

Chapter Five

the Simple Concordance Program. The process of GM identification was to follow the same methods that were used in Phase 1, which were discussed in Chapter 3 and in Chapter 4. The students were also frontloaded regarding effective use of GM through support material. In addition to providing support material to students, the training of the tutors was also planned. To train tutors on GM, I organized two training sessions. The first session aimed at providing the tutors with background knowledge on GM based on a presentation and the second session was organized as a workshop to train tutors in identifying GM and in providing feedback on these. In order to do this, I developed new support material for the tutors. The following sub-sections discuss the planning of student frontloading and tutor training in more detail. In doing this, I will first look at the support material produced to frontload students; this section is further subdivided into a part that focuses on training students how to write compositional reports, followed by discussing the material used to help students understand and use GM in their writing. Finally, I will describe the tutor training process in more detail.

Frontloading Students There were two types of material developed to help students with their writing before they were asked to draft their reports. The first set of material provided guidelines on how to write compositional reports and the second set focused on the use of GM. Below, I will briefly look at the support material developed for writing compositional reports before examining the material developed specifically for understanding the use of GM. The SLATE research team provided the students with knowledge regarding purpose and staging of compositional report using support material that was prepared jointly by the lecturer of the unit at CityU and the SLATE research team. The support material focused on a model text provided by the lecturer of the unit and the SLATE research team providing information regarding the stages of compositional report and the language necessary to compose these texts. The material specifically focused on the model text provided by the lecturer. The model text prepared by the lecturer of the unit was annotated and explained to the students through support material prepared by the SLATE team. The support material focused on the purpose and staging of the compositional report through analysing the model text. The text was broken down into stages to help students comprehend how each stage functions. Moreover, students were provided with information on how to integrate descriptive

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

91

data into their reports and how to organize their reports based on information flow and to refer to other sources using footnotes referencing style. The model text was broken down into stages and placed in a table with the names of stages and the purposes of each stage. Each stage then showed the students how the information flow can be organized in relation to the thematic structure of reports. The students were also provided with detailed information as to how to use a referencing style and paraphrase other people’s work by using cause and effect relationships, synonyms, changing voice of sentences and creating new word forms. The students were frontloaded with background knowledge on GM. The support material was titled “How to use GM” and consisted of six sections. The first section introduced students to the notion of GM and the types of GM that they could use. Following the introductory section, the material provided a detailed explanation on the role of GM in text, allowing students to see instances of technicality and abstraction, create logical reasoning within the clause, use authoritative language while giving opinions, and provide non-congruent ways of text structuring (Schleppegrell 2004, p. 186). The discussion of the role of GM in academic writing was followed by sections explaining and exemplifying experiential and logical metaphors. The sections explained what GM is and how congruent wordings can be turned into GM. In addition, the tutors also directed the students to this support material on GM as they provided feedback; see Appendix A.

Training Tutors The training of the tutors took place in two stages; the first one concerned the preparation of a presentation using examples and findings from the first phase of this action research project. The second stage of tutor training included a workshop to discuss the support material prepared for students as well as to provide the tutors with information on GM, and how to provide feedback on GM. The presentation was designed in conference presentation format where the tutors were provided with background information on what GM is and included a discussion of experiential and logical metaphors. Each type of GM was described in relation to its function. Instances of GM were presented in relation to tutors’ feedback and students’ response to feedback (based on Phase 1 of the project). Students’ use of GM was presented in relation to the feedback they received to inform the tutors about different ways of providing support and how to follow up with

92

Chapter Five

explicitly worded feedback. The same method was adopted in relation to logical metaphor on the other slides of the presentation. The second stage in tutor training involved the preparation of support material and a workshop for tutors. The document used for the workshop was titled “The role of GM in academic writing”. This text included explanation about the various types of GM, their functions and examples (that showed both congruent and metaphorical wordings). The material was divided into four sections that provided explanation and examples of experiential, logical and interpersonal metaphors. There were two subtypes of experiential metaphor, process as noun and quality as noun. For each sub-type, examples were provided with more congruent agnates. The support material also included a table regarding quality as noun as the other kind of experiential metaphor. The support material also provided the tutors with explanations on logical metaphor via examples. Logical metaphors consisted of the use of verb as cause and prepositional phrase as cause with congruent and metaphorical examples. Four of the examples presented came from students’ essays. The congruent versions involve conjunctions that realize causality between clauses; see Appendix B for a copy of the material. The second stage in tutor training involved planning a workshop. The workshop focused on going over the material prepared for students and tutors. Each example in the materials prepared for students and tutors was examined. The examination of examples with their metaphorical counterparts was followed by a discussion of feedback provision on students’ drafts. The model essay that was written by the lecturer of the Electronic Laboratory was used to guide the discussion. The tutors identified a text section that could be improved by the use of GM and provided feedback. The feedback instances they wrote consisted of identification of the text section and provided suggestions as to how to improve text sections. This included providing suggestions as well as referring students to the specific parts of the support material that was already provided to them.

Taking Action A number of actions were taken to manage the intervention. First, the material prepared for the students titled “How to use GM” was posted on the e-learning medium of CityU. The students were informed about the support material. Based on the material, a couple of email exchanges took

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

93

place to provide students with clarification on GM use. Second, the findings from Phase 1 of the project were presented to the tutors. Third, I organized a workshop for the tutors. The workshop focused on the support materials prepared for students and tutors. The explanation on GM and GM examples were explored. Following the examination of these materials, a model text written by the lecturer of the Electronic Laboratory unit was introduced to the tutors. Using this text as a model, the tutors identified the GM and provided feedback on GM where its use could improve the text. The material used for this and other training/frontloading was described in the previous section. The following section presents the results in relation to the intervention planned and implemented.

Analysing Results This section is divided into two sub-sections in relation to the intervention planned (and the two questions that guided this phase of the project). The first section discusses the effects of frontloading on students’ use of GM. This part of the results reports on the ways in which students employed GM, including responding to questions such as what types of GM the students used. To document this, the original text will be presented followed by a discussion regarding the identification and type of GM used. The second sub-section discusses the second stage of the intervention that looked at the ways in which tutors provided feedback to their students (and with what results). Finally, the third sub-section investigates the effects of tutors’ feedback on students’ GM development.

Students Grammatical Metaphor Use This section examines how the students in this cohort used GM. There were two types of GM used by the students, experiential and logical. Eleven first drafts were chosen to observe what types of experiential and logical metaphors were used by the students, based on type and instance analysis. Table 5.1 presents the frequency of students’ GM use in their first drafts.

Chapter Five

94

Frequency of GM Assignment 1 draft 1: instances per 3,491 words Assignment 1 draft 1: instances per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

21

51

19

6

14.6

5.4

Table 5.1 Frequency of GM use in draft 1 (N=3491 words) Table 5.1 shows the frequency of GM identified in the first drafts of the first assignment. The number of words in the data set was 3,491. The second row of Table 5.6 presents the frequency of various GM types per 3,491 words. Also, I calculated the ratio of instances of GM per 1,000 words to be able to make comparisons within and across the research phases. Experiential metaphors formed the largest category with 14.6 instances per 1,000 words, followed by technical terms with 6 instances per 1,000 words as the second largest category, and logical metaphors with 5.6 instances per 1,000 words as the third largest category. Each GM type will be explored in the following sub-sections. Experiential Metaphor Use The students employed experiential metaphor to a great extent in their compositional reports. There were two kinds of experiential metaphor identified in students’ reports: process as noun and quality as noun. Experiential metaphors were identified employing the method used in Phase 1. Drawing on Derewianka (2003a), and as outlined above, the notions of transcategorization and agnation were employed. Table 5.2 presents the results of a type and instance analysis of students’ experiential metaphor use.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

Process as noun INGnominalization No. Discharging (1) Stabilizing (2) Amplifying (2) Adding (1) Using (4) Including (1) Applying (1) Varying (1) Damaging (1) Replacing (1) Exceeding (1) Producing (1) Inserting (1) Taking (1) Comparing (1) Controlling (1)

Nominalization No. Arrangement (1) Leakage (1) Operation (1) Increase (2) Gain (13) Drop (4) Change (1) Destruction (1)

Demonstratives No. This (4)

95

Quality as noun No. Stability (1) Difference (1)

Table 5.2 Frequency of experiential metaphors in 11 texts (N=3,491 words) As seen in Table 5.2, the students employed two major types of experiential metaphor, namely, process as noun and quality as noun. The process as noun type is employed to a great extent, with 25 types and 49 instances. Within this category, the frequency of ING-nominalization (16 types) outnumbers that of nominalization (8 types). However, nominalization was more frequently used (24 instances) than INGnominalization (21 instances). There was only one type of demonstratives used as experiential metaphor (4 instances). Quality as noun was used, with 2 types and 2 instances. The following subsection will explore types of experiential metaphor via examples. Students who took part in Phase 2 also used technical terms frequently. The technical terms were identified using the method introduced in Chapter 4, complementing transcategorization and agnation with word frequency counts. Table 5.3 presents types and instances of technical terms used by this cohort.

96

Process-based No. Resistance (3) Breakdown (8) Amplification (6) Configuration (3)

Chapter Five

Quality-based No. Magnitude (1)

Table 5.3 Frequency of technical terms in 11 texts (N=3,491 words) As Table 5.3 illustrates, there were two types of technical terms, processbased ones and quality-based ones. There were four sub-types of processbased technical terms in the data set, whereas only one type of qualitybased technical term was observed. The number of instances of processbased technical terms is 20, with only one instance of a process-based technical term was found. Logical Metaphor Use This section focuses on students’ logical metaphor use. There are three sub-types of logical metaphors identified in the data set. The first one uses a material clause to provide in-clause causality. The processes used are verbs such as “cause” and “lead to”, and also ING-forms of these verbs formed as embedded clauses. These are referred to as cause as verb. The second category uses a prepositional phrase to provide in-clause causality. The most common preposition used by the students is “by”. This type was named cause as preposition. The third sub-type of logical metaphor deployed uses nouns such as “result”, which was categorized as cause as noun. Cause as verb No. Causing (1) Lead to (1) Allow (1) Producing (1) Enabling (1)

Cause as preposition No. By (12) Due to (1)

Cause as noun No. Reason (1)

Table 5.4 Frequency of logical metaphors in 11 texts (N=3,491 words) As can be seen in Table 5.4, three categories of logical metaphor were identified in the data set. The largest category was cause as verb with 5 types and 5 instances, followed by cause as preposition with 2 types and 13 instances, and cause as noun with 1 type and 1 instance.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

97

Tutors Feedback on Grammatical Metaphor and Students’ Response In this section, I will focus on the effects of the training of tutors in GM feedback, which corresponds to the second research question. Tutors were trained in GM identification and formation, as discussed above. The effects of the training will be investigated with reference to tutors’ GM feedback and the ways in which students responded to feedback. There were 12 tutors who worked to support this cohort of 108 students enrolled in the unit. The tutors were asked to provide GM feedback during the second and the third reports. The tutors provided feedback on GM in two ways following the feedback protocol discussed in Section 5.1. The first way was called off-text where they provided general comments on students’ writing, which corresponded to the “orientation” and “encouragement” stages of the SLATE feedback protocol. This was done at the beginning of student texts and at the end of the text as general recommendations. The second way was providing in-text feedback on GM of which I observed 13 instances. The tutors placed their open comments in curly brackets. The following section will examine off-text feedback, which will be followed by a section on in-text feedback. Off-text Feedback There were 13 instances of off-text feedback on GM in the whole data set in relation to the SLATE feedback protocols. Nine of these feedback instances were placed at the beginning of the reports, called orientation to the feedback in the SLATE project; four other instances were placed at the end of the reports, as either recap or encouragement phases of the feedback protocol (Mahboob et al., 2010). This section presents two feedback instances that occurred before the text and two instances of feedback that were provided after the text to exemplify the off-text feedback type. The first instance of off-text feedback was provided to Student 66. Example 5.1 (Student 66: report 2, draft 1) {Dear Student, It is good to see your draft and that you have looked at the model. Your layout is good, you are guiding the reader to look at your diagrams well and your referencing seems clear. Have you seen the A2 support material in the documents folder? This may help you to not rely so heavily on the model and to take control of the material yourself. Why it seems that you are relying on the model is that you are again starting your

98

Chapter Five second paragraph with the transformer. If you read your assignment question carefully, your lecturer has asked you to identify and explain the components inside the dotted lines. So unfortunately much of your current explanation does not match the assignment question. This makes it difficult for me to provide feedback. So I have made comments about an advanced language feature of academic writing called ‘grammatical metaphor’. Please answer the question in D2!}

In Example 5.1, the feedback instance included multiple phases of the “orientation” stage with warm greetings, strengths and the focus of the feedback. The tutors started the feedback with praise on draft submission. Following the praise on submitting a draft, the tutor goes on to list the positive sides of the submitted first draft, regarding layout and referencing. This is followed by directing the student to the support material prepared by the lecturer of the unit. The tutor suggests the student read this support material and answer the assignment question properly and also lets the student know this version of the report is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the assignment. As the assignment does not answer the question completely, the tutor tells the students that he/she will provide feedback on GM as an advanced language feature of academic writing. To sum up, the feedback instance that occurred before the text has four distinguishable phases: general praise on submission, praising the positive sides of the assignment, talking about the negative sides and then making a suggestion, and finally mentioning the focus of the feedback with rationale. The following instance of feedback was found at the end of drafts as either recap or encouragement stages of the SLATE feedback protocol. There were four occurrences of feedback at the end of the assignment. One of the feedback instances that will be discussed here was provided to Student 12. Example 5.2 (Student 12: report 2, draft 1) {Reference is an essential part of academic writing. You should include a reference list in your report. It is also important that you are specific about page numbers, and have in-text references at the places that have been referenced. This is a very good first draft. Please include a complete reference in your second draft. Your writing could be more concise by the effective use of grammatical metaphors, which are elaborated in the advanced language support material provided by LCC team. We look forward to receiving your second draft! }

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

99

Example 5.2 presents how the recap and recommendations stages of the feedback protocol were incorporated into the tutor’s feedback. The tutor starts the feedback by highlighting the importance of referencing in academic writing. This is why the student is reminded to include a reference list at the end of the assignment. This is followed by making a suggestion regarding using GM. The student is directed to the support material prepared by the SLATE research team. The rationale behind using GM is that they make the assignment more concise. To sum up, this feedback instance reminds the student of ways to improve the assignment and the student is directed to the support material on GM. In-text Feedback The other type of feedback that was more effective in helping students revise their text was the in-text feedback. In providing this feedback, the tutors stated what the problem was and explained why it was a problem before providing suggestions as to how to remediate it (including directions to Blackboard resources and model text, and alternatives). The explicit framing of feedback was also observed in Phase 2. By explicitness, I mean the kind of feedback that provides a correct or more appropriate alternative to the students and asks students use the suggestion. In other words, the explicit feedback does not aim to elicit a more appropriate alternative from the students. Furthermore, the tutors used technical metalanguage, such as “grammatical metaphor”, to help students improve their written work. The tutors placed open comments in-situ to let students know about the problems regarding their assignments. To do this, the tutors asked students to use GM or directed them to support material about prepared for students. There were 13 instances of GM feedback placed in text targeting experiential and logical metaphors. It is important to note that there was no feedback instance that only targeted logical metaphor; the logical metaphor feedback was always provided along with experiential metaphor feedback. These types of feedback will be discussed in separate sections below.

Feedback on Experiential Metaphor There were a total of seven experiential metaphor feedback instances in the data set. Four of these instances will be explored below. The feedback instances are in italics and placed in curly brackets, and students’ revisions are in boldface. The first example is praise on experiential metaphor use.

100

Chapter Five Example 5.3 (Student 66: report 2, draft 1) The Zener diode is similar to the semiconductor diode but it has a difference of including a Zener region at the reverse biasing. This property allows {Very nice language. Here ‘property’ is what we call a grammatical metaphor. The noun ‘property’ relates the previous sentence about the smoothing function. So, instead of repeating it all, a noun is used to compact the meaning. You might like to look at the handout in the documents folder for more examples of these. } the ideal diode to operate at a Zener voltage on reverse biasing.

In this example, the student uses the nominal group “this property” to refer to the process taking place in the preceding sentence. The tutor provides an explanation of the importance of using such a phrase and its function in referring to the information in the preceding text section. The tutor reminds the student that this is a kind of GM and more information and examples can be found in the support document prepared and posted on Blackboard. The following example illustrates how Student 93 was supported in experiential metaphor use. Example 5.4a (Student 93: report 2, draft 1) The first one is the 1kȍ resistor, which is used to provide a biasing current. The Zener diode is to regulate {you could use the simple present tense here ‘regulates’. Alternatively you could use Grammatical metaphor, beginning the sentence with “Regulation of...”} the voltage across the load. It should be noted that the Zener diode is placed in a reverse biased way.

In Example 5.4a, Student 93 introduces one of the components of the Zener voltage regulator, the resistor. The tutor provides feedback to tell the student to use the verb “regulate” rather than using the infinitive form “to regulate”. Also, the tutor provides feedback on GM use, suggesting a sentence beginning with “regulation of”. Here, the tutor provides clues on how to start the sentence, which is considered explicit feedback using technical metalanguage. The student revises his clause as follows. Example 5.4b (Response in draft 2) The first one is the 1kȍ resistor, which is used to provide a biasing current. Regulation of the voltage across the load is determined by the Zener diode.

Student 93 revises the clause by using the suggestion, “the regulation of …”. However, the rest of the clause is grammatically accurate. In other words, not only does the student use the suggestion by the tutor, but he/she also completes the sentence accurately. The following instance of

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

101

feedback in Example 5.5a is provided to the same student by the same tutor. Example 5.5a (Student 93: report 2, draft 1) The 680ȍ resistor is used to avoid the thermal runaway of the power transistor while the 0.1kȍ resistor is to keep the transistors operating at a suitably low current when there is no load on the output. Otherwise, people may be hurt by the high voltage on the output.{could you rewrite this without using ‘people’? consider using Grammatical metaphor - consider a new sentence using ‘injury’}

The tutor asks the student to use GM and start a new sentence using “injury” rather than saying “people get hurt/injured”. This instance of feedback is considered experiential metaphor use and considered implicit, because it does not provide explicit clues that show the student how to revise the text section. The student, however, does not change the clause to what is recommended. Example 5.5b (Response in draft 2) Otherwise, people may be hurt by the high voltage on the output.

The student does not revise the sentence and uses the sentence in the next draft without change. This might be due to a number of reasons. First of all, the student might think that revising the sentence in this way will not improve the sentence and make it more academic and formal. Secondly, the feedback provided by the tutor is implicit, that is, the tutor might have provided more explicit feedback or provided a rationale as to why this change is necessary. The following feedback instance is provided to Student 70, focussing on experiential metaphor use. Example 5.6a (Student 70: report 2, draft 1) Lastly, the 0.1K-ohm resistor converts the current to voltage, enabling us to measure {You could use the grammatical metaphor in this spot e.g. : the measurement of...} the output voltage across it.

In Example 5.6a, the student introduces the last component of a Zener voltage regulator, the resistor. The introduction of the component is followed by its function. The student uses the infinitive form of the verb “measure”. The tutor thinks this is an appropriate text section to use an experiential metaphor. So, he/she provides feedback on experiential metaphor use by suggesting the student use “the measurement of …”. The student revises the sentence based on the feedback.

102

Chapter Five Example 5.6b (Response in draft 2) Lastly, the 0.1K-ohm resistor converts the current to voltage, enabling the measurement of the output voltage across it.

Student 70 uses the feedback to revise the sentence. The suggestion from the tutor “the measurement of …” is used. Furthermore, the student deletes “us” following the verb “enable”. This suggests that the student is knowledgeable regarding the requirements of academic register and deletes the personal pronoun.

Combined Experiential and Logical Metaphor Feedback There were a total of six instances of feedback that targeted experiential and logical metaphor use. Two of these instances will be explored below. The feedback instances are in italics and placed in curly brackets, and students’ revisions are in boldface. The first example illustrates how a tutor suggests a text section following explanation on GM. Example 5.7a (Student 63: report 2, draft 1) The Zener Diode serves a function of stabilizing the variable voltage applied on it at a certain value. To ensure the Zener diode is working at Zener region {Instead of using infinitive to start the sentence, you may try using a noun (see Support Material for A2 on grammatical metaphors). For example, you may write this: The performance of the Zener diode at Zener region is protected by the use of ... and you will have to adjust the remaining part of the sentence}, the reverse-biasing voltage should larger than Zener voltage. The 1kohm resistor connected in series with the Zener diode is used to provide the biasing voltage for the transistor.

Student 63, in Example 5.7a, introduces one of the components of Zener voltage regulator, the Zener diode, at the beginning of paragraph. Then, the student goes on to provide an explanation of the component. At that point, the tutor provides the student with feedback on GM. The tutor asks the student to use nominalization rather than the infinitive form “to ensure”. The way the tutor suggests this is through providing an explicit suggestion for the sentence. The tutor suggests two experiential metaphors, “performance” and “use”, and the logical relation between the constituents, actor and goal in this clause, is carried by a prepositional phrase starting with “by”. The student is also directed to the support document. The student responds to the feedback in draft two. The revised sections are in boldface in the examples below.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

103

Example 5.7b (Response in draft 2) The performance of the Zener diode at Zener region is ensured by applying a reverse-biasing which is larger than Zener voltage.

The student responds to the feedback by using the suggestion by the tutor. The actor in the revised clause is the same as in the suggestion from the tutor. However, the student uses a different process, “ensured”. Also, the student uses a different experiential metaphor, “applying”, in the goal of this clause. As suggested by the tutor, the logical relation between actor and goal is managed through a prepositional phrase. Thus, this revision is considered an uptake. The following instance of feedback is provided to Student 84. Example 5.8a (Student 84: report 2, draft 1) A Zener diode allows current flow in the forward direction like a normal diode, but also in the reverse direction if the voltage is larger than the breakdown voltage known as a “Zener voltage”. So {we usually use ‘so’ in speaking in the beginning, but in academic writing it would be better to use sentence linkers such as ‘therefore’ or ‘ thus. You may also try to use some of grammatical metaphors: This results in limiting the input voltage ... and by doing so you will have the same focus in the sentence and would not need to use ‘ by the Zener diode} the input voltage is limited from 10V to 6.8 by the Zener diode.

As can be seen in Example 5.8a, the tutor provided feedback on GM use to suggest a change to the original clause. The tutor does this by providing clues to the student. The way this is done requires the use of three GM instances. Firstly, “this” is a demonstrative that replaces nominalization, and it is followed by a logical metaphor in the form of a verb, “results”. The process needs to be followed by another GM. This is an experiential metaphor in the form of an ING-nominalization. The student makes revisions to the original sentence. Example 5.8b (Response in draft 2) A Zener diode allows current flow in the forward direction like a normal diode, but also in the reverse direction if the voltage is larger than the breakdown voltage known as a “Zener voltage”. This results in limiting the input voltage from 10V to 6.8. In order to amplify the input current, two 2N3055 NPN power transistors are compounded together to form a Darlington pair.

104

Chapter Five

Student 84 revises the original sentence based on the suggestion from the tutor. The revised text section starts with the suggestion and the student manages to form a grammatically accurate sentence. Therefore, this response to feedback is considered uptake. To summarize, this section explored the second research question regarding tutor training by analysing GM feedback. There were a total of 26 instances of feedback targeting GM use. Thirteen of these were provided off the text, either before or after students’ reports, and the other 13 instances were provided in-text. There were nine instances of off-text feedback found at the beginning of students’ drafts. On the other hand, there were a total of four instances of off-text feedback that were placed at the end of the report to remind the students of the points to be improved as well as direct them to support materials. The off-text feedback, in general, focused on the learning process through praise, encouragement and suggestions. With reference to the in-text feedback, there were 13 instances of this kind in the form of open comments. The majority of feedback instances were framed explicitly and the metalanguage used was technical, limited to grammatical metaphor. While the majority of the feedback instances were provided explicitly in the form of suggestions, some feedback instances provided detailed explanation on the importance of GM in academic genres, how it improves texts and how it can be used effectively. The tutors targeted students’ experiential and logical metaphor use. It is important to note that the feedback instances targeting logical metaphors also included feedback on experiential metaphor. In other words, there was not a single instance of feedback that targeted only logical metaphor.

Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention This sub-section aims to answer the third question that was intended to explore the effects of tutors’ GM feedback on students’ GM use. To investigate the last research question, I will focus on the final submission of the 11 students whose first drafts were analysed to explore the first research question. This will be followed by a comparison of students’ GM use in their very first and last drafts. Table 5.5 presents the frequency of students’ GM use in their very first draft and final submission.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

Drafts analysed Assignment 1 draft 1 – instances per 3,491 words Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assignment 3 final submission – instances per 3,292 words Assignment 3 final – instances per 1,000 words Change per 1,000 words

105

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

21

51

19

6

14.6

5.4

21

49

24

6.4

14.9

7.2

.4

.3

1.8

Table 5.5 Comparison of GM use in draft one and final submission (N=3491 words) Table 5.5 presents the frequency of 11 students’ GM use in draft 1 and the very final submission. To be able to compare these figures, the frequency of GM instances were calculated per 1,000 words. It can be seen that the frequency of technical terms increased from 6 to 6.4 instances per 1,000 words. Furthermore, the frequency of experiential metaphor increased from 14.6 to 14.9 instances per 1,000 words. Similarly, there was an increase in the frequency of logical metaphor. The frequency of logical metaphor increased from 5.4 to 7.2 instances per 1,000 words. Not only did the students use experiential and logical metaphors more frequently, but they also used more effective GM instances. The following example shows how a student linked experiential metaphors with a logical one. Experiential metaphors are underlined and the logical one is in boldface. Example 5.9 (Student 55) The explanation of the circuit working principle calls for the introduction of the BC 549 transistor.

In Example 5.9, Student 55 used two instances of post-modified experiential metaphor (nominalization type) in the Theme and Rheme positions. These nominal groups are connected to each other through the use of a material process “call for” and the student manages to use nominalization to pack information into nominal groups and post-modify them. Also, the logical metaphor (cause as verb type) “call for” was not

Chapter Five

106

observed in draft one. The following example shows how a student uses causality to manage information flow more effectively. Example 5.10 (Student 63) When the voltage drops, the base current of the transistor decreases. This decrease leads to a reducing of the collector current of the transistor. Due to the decrease of collector current, the current going through the amplify circuit is increased and this current is further amplified to cause the increase of the output voltage. At this time, the voltage at point P is again increased due to the larger current.

In Example 5.10, Student 63 uses experiential and logical metaphors effectively to explain the effects of voltage drop. The second sentence starts with the Rheme of the previous clause where the process “decrease” is nominalized. The logical relationship is managed through the use of the verb “lead to”, and then another nominal group is found in Rheme position. The student uses ING-nominalization to explain the process. The following sentence starts with another logical metaphor in the form of a preposition, “due to”, and the Rheme of the previous sentence is nominalized to create a nominal group in marked Theme position. The student continues organizing the paragraph using logical and experiential metaphors. In the following clause, another logical metaphor, “cause”, manages cause inside the clause, linking the amplification of the current to the increasing of the voltage. The student uses another logical metaphor to explain the cause of the voltage increase. This example illustrates how effective use of experiential and logical metaphors organizes the information flow. The next section discusses the ways in which the findings from Phase 2 relate to Phase 1 and help us plan Phase 3.

Reflecting on Results This section will reflect on the intervention in relation to the research question set out for Phase 2, which explored students’ GM use, tutors’ feedback and the development of GM.

Reflecting on Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use The first research question was formulated to investigate students’ GM use. In this section, I will compare and contrast Phase 1 and Phase 2. These comparisons will lead to the planning of Phase 3.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

107

Similarities between Phase 1 and Phase 2 have been observed. Similarities were regarding students’ GM use in their laboratory and compositional reports. The students from Phase 1 and Phase 2 employed various types of GM and their GM employment was rather similar in terms of sub-types of GM. Firstly, the students frequently used experiential metaphors, process as noun and quality as noun. Within process as noun, nominalization, ING-nominalization and demonstratives were used as subtypes of experiential metaphor. With reference to logical metaphor, cause as verb, cause as preposition, cause as adjective and cause as noun were used to manage in-clause causality. With reference to the differences between these two phases, I have observed that technical terms were used more frequently during Phase 1 than in Phase 2. Table 5.6 illustrates the frequency of GM and technical terms identified in the first drafts of both phases. Frequency of GM Phase 1 procedural recount

Phase 2 compositional report

Drafts Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

21

23

4.6

6

14.6

5.4

Table 5.6 Comparison of GM use in Phase 1 and Phase 2 (N=1000 words) As can be seen in Table 5.6, the students who participated in Phase 1 used 21 technical terms per 1,000 words, whereas technical terms were not frequently used in Phase 2 (6 instances per 1,000 words). Experiential metaphor was the largest category during both phases. However, there were more instances of experiential metaphor in Phase 1 (23 instances) than in Phase 2 (14.6 instances). The frequency of logical metaphors was slightly larger in Phase 2 (5.4 instances) than in Phase 1 (4.6 instances per 1,000 words). These findings suggest that technical terms were more important in procedural recount than in compositional report. Experiential metaphors were more frequently used than technical terms in both genres. Thus, their

108

Chapter Five

development is crucial in the development of written communication skills. Finally, interpersonal metaphor was not as significant as the other types of GM as both genres depend on objective recounting and explanation.

Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Feedback GM feedback was investigated in relation to the second research question that was formulated to explore the impact of tutor training. There were similarities and differences between Phase 1 and Phase 2 in relation to the quality and frequency of feedback. Similarities were found regarding supporting students’ experiential and logical metaphor use. The feedback was framed explicitly and implicitly during both phases. However, there were more instances of explicit feedback. The way the tutors framed their feedback was similar to the regulatory scale suggested by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994, p. 471). However, I have observed three kinds of explicit feedback and only one type of implicit feedback as opposed to the 12-point regulatory scales of Aljaafreh and Lantolf. Moreover, the majority of the feedback instances were framed explicitly. This was done in a number of ways such as suggesting edits/rephrasing, providing explanation plus suggesting edits/rephrasing, and directing students to the support document and providing edits/rephrasing. In investigating students’ response to explicit feedback, I noted that all the feedback instances of explicit feedback instances resulted in full uptake. This was for two reasons. First of all, the tutors provided the students with phrases to revise their work. The phrases suggested by tutors required the students to replace their original text sections with what was suggested. There was not much room for elicitation. As a result, all these explicitly framed feedback instances resulted in full uptake. Also, the tutors provided rationale to students for improving their GM use and how to do so. The rationale in fact extended to including information as to how a suggested revision would improve the text, giving examples to explain how to revise text sections, and providing clues to students to help them improve their texts. The provision of a rationale and advice as to how to improve their GM use was crucial in the sense that it led to improving the learning process through the elicitation of more appropriate revisions from students.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

109

In relation to the differences between Phase 1 and Phase 2, the frequency of GM feedback, various ways that the tutors supported their students’ GM use, and the metalanguage used created differences. Firstly, the ratio of GM feedback instances per draft was larger during Phase 2. While there were .014 instances of GM feedback per draft in Phase 1, the ratio of GM feedback per draft was .06 instances during Phase 2. This finding suggests that the tutor training in Phase 2 resulted in more grammatical feedback instances. Secondly, the tutors who participated in Phase 2 followed the SLATE feedback protocols. Providing orientation before students’ assignments and encouragement at the end of assignments. The tutors included GM in their off-text feedback when they focused on GM. Although it is not possible to observe the effects of offtext feedback on students’ GM use, I believe this helped the learning process. The last difference is related to the use of metalanguage. During Phase 1, the tutors used “nominalization” to help students use experiential metaphor. However, the tutors who participated in Phase 2 used technical metalanguage, such as “grammatical metaphor”, to support their students. The metalanguage used in this way also made the feedback instances more explicit. Therefore, all the explicitly framed feedback instances resulted in full uptake. On the other hand, one instance of GM feedback, which was implicitly stated without using metalanguage referring to GM, did not result in text revision. These findings suggest that explicit feedback with explicit metalanguage resulted in text revisions.

Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention The third guiding question aimed to explore whether students developed their GM use due to the feedback provided. I will present comparisons within and across phases to investigate the issue. Table 5.7 illustrates the development of GM during Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Chapter Five

110

Frequency of GM

Phase 1 procedural recount

Phase 2 compositional report

Drafts/ change Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assignment 4 final – instances per 1,000 words Change in ‰ Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assignment 3 final – instances per 1,000 words Change per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

21

23

4.6

13

25

7.8

-8

2

3.2

6

14.6

5.4

6.4

14.9

7.2

.4

.3

1.8

Table 5.7 Comparison of development of GM during Phase 1 and Phase 2 (N=1000 words) Table 5.7 shows the difference between students’ GM use in Phase 1 and Phase 2. During Phase 1, the students improved their experiential metaphor use by 2, and logical metaphor use by 3.2 per thousand, while their technical term use decreased 8‰ and interpersonal metaphor use dropped by .2‰. On the other hand, the students increased their use of technical terms (by .4 ‰), experiential (by .3‰) and logical metaphors (by 3.2 ‰). These findings suggest that there was a slight difference between the development of GM in both phases, although the students received fewer instances of GM feedback and the tutors were not provided with training. In other words, the increase in the frequency of GM in Phase 1 might have resulted from the increase in students’ language proficiency. Therefore, the role of language proficiency should also be investigated.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

111

Planning the Last Phase Phase 1 of the project was designed to study students’ use of GM and tutors’ feedback on GM before any intervention took place. Phase 2 of the project, which was the focus in this chapter, was the first intervention planned to help students and tutors develop their use of and feedback on GM. An analysis of the findings of the first intervention showed promising results, but also identified a number of issues (as discussed in the previous section). First of all, during Phase 2, the students’ GM was not explored in relation to their language proficiency. According to Byrnes (2009), the ability to use GM develops in relation to language development. Therefore, the way students use GM should be explored in reference to their language proficiency level as well. Secondly, the reflections on this phase of the project enabled me to fine-tune and further develop the resources and material for learning and teaching GM. In particular, the focus of the GM feedback was shifted from periodicity at the clause level to periodicity at the whole text level as GM results from the resetting of the relationship between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. The unit of analysis is the clause on the stratum of lexicogrammar, and the unit of analysis is text on the discourse semantics stratum. Therefore, taking the whole text level as the unit of analysis and basis for the training would improve the effects of the intervention. The training provided in Phase 2 helped students develop their GM use. However, the development of GM was not much different during Phase 1 and Phase 2, although Phase 1 did not have an interventionist agenda. In other words, providing intervention at clause level and planning no intervention at all had similar results in relation to students’ GM development. Therefore, tutor training sessions that focus on periodicity at the whole text level were thought to be more robust both theoretically and practically. Next, the procedural recount and compositional report genres require limited GM use, as technicality is more salient in these genres. The data from Phase 1 and Phase 2 show how students used technical terms that were nominalization of processes. The largest category of GM was experiential metaphors during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Logical metaphors were not used as frequently as experiential metaphors, possibly because the procedural recount and compositional report genres do not concentrate

112

Chapter Five

on cause and effect relationships, but explain steps of procedures and parts of gadgets. As logical metaphors operate in alignment with experiential metaphors, a genre that explains a cause and effect relationship will require the use of logical and experiential metaphors and an appropriate text type to teach GM. According to Martin and Rose (2008, p. 150): Explanations are concerned with explaining how processes happen. To this end they imply sequences of causes and effects; process x occurs, so process y results, which in turns causes process z, and so on.

While it is possible to explain causes and effects using conjunctions between the clauses, it is also possible to realize cause inside the clause though logical metaphor. Martin and Rose (2008) include four explanation genres: sequential explanation with simple cause and effect sequence, factorial explanation with multiple causes, consequential explanation with multiple effects and conditional explanation with effects depending on variable conditions. Of these four types, factorial and consequential explanation realize cause inside the clause. Martin and Rose (2008) state that: Factorial and consequential explanation share this predilection for realizing cause inside the clause. They differ from recounts and accounts in that chronology is not used to organize texts. Rather explanations are organised rhetorically, beginning with the event being explained and then unfolding through a set of relevant factors or consequences.

The way cause is realized inside the clause requires the use of logical metaphors. Using logical metaphors necessitates the use of experiential metaphor. In other words, a factorial and consequential genre would be more appropriate to teach how GM is used in relation to the whole text level. Therefore, Phase 3 shifted the focus to an explanation genre. To do this, the SLATE research team designed an assignment asking the students from the Department of Linguistics to “explain the effects of nominalization on language”. The following chapter, Chapter 6, will report on the procedures of assignment design, student frontloading, and tutor training on GM identification and feedback provision. To conclude, this chapter focused on exploring the three research questions to observe students’ GM use, tutors’ GM feedback and the development of GM through feedback. The chapter was framed in relation to the action research cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Freebody,

Phase 2: Gm Use at Clause Level Through Technical Metalanguage

113

2003; Burns, 2010). The planning section discussed the procedures of how the support documents were prepared for students and tutors. The next section focused on the actions taken to execute the plan. This was followed by the results section, which was discussed in relation to the research questions to explore the effects of frontloading students and training tutors. Based on the findings of Phase 2, Phase 3 was planned to improve the impact of the intervention.

CHAPTER SIX PHASE 2: SUPPORTING GM USE AT WHOLE TEXT LEVEL THROUGH SIMPLER METALANGUAGE

This chapter discusses the ways in which the final phase of the action research project was designed and implemented between January and April 2010. Phase 3 focuses on a course titled Introduction to Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics at CityU and aims to develop an approach to teaching GM by frontloading the students and training tutors. Thirtynine students took part in Phase 3 and they were provided with GM feedback by five tutors who were trained. The last phase builds on Phase 1 and Phase 2, which were discussed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 respectively. However, before reporting on Phase 3, I will briefly summarize the context and findings of Phase 2 in order to provide the rationale for the changes made in the final round of the project. Phase 2 aimed to frontload students on GM and train tutors on GM feedback provision. The research questions set for Phase 2 explored the effects of this intervention including of the frontloading of students and training of tutors. Similar to the GM types used by students in Phase 1, experiential metaphor was the most frequently used metaphor type with two sub-types: process as noun and quality as noun. Process as noun was realized by using nominalization, ING-nominalization, and demonstratives. The findings show that ING-nominalization was the most frequently employed experiential metaphor sub-type. With reference to logical metaphor, the students used three types to construe in-clause causality. The first type of logical metaphor was the use of material processes such as “cause” and “lead to” in independent clauses, and INGforms of these forms in embedded clauses, which were referred to as cause as verb. The second type was the use of prepositions to provide logical relation within a clause such as “due to” and “by” that were considered cause as preposition. The most frequently used preposition in this context was “by”. Finally, the students also used nouns to construe in-clause

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

115

causality such as “cause”, which was referred to as cause as noun. It is reasonable to argue that the frontloading helped students use a variety of GM. However, when students’ first drafts were compared with their very final drafts during Phase 2, the range and frequency of GM use were found not to differ from Phase 1. In other words, the frontloading of the students in Phase 2 did not result in a higher range and frequency of GM use than in Phase 1. The second part of the intervention was the tutor training in Phase 2. The training of the tutors in Phase 2 allowed the tutors to provide various instances of GM feedback. The tutors who worked with this cohort supported students’ GM use by providing open comments. The feedback provided on GM was in conjunction with the feedback protocol adopted in the SLATE project. There were a total of 26 instances of feedback targeting students’ GM use. Thirteen of feedback instances were provided off-text, either before or after students’ reports, and the other 13 were provided in-text. The off-text feedback was used to praise the student on draft submission, praise the positive sides of drafts, highlight text sections to be improved, direct students to support materials prepared by the SLATE research team and their lecturer, and to summarize the focus of feedback. Although there were feedback instances that only targeted experiential metaphor use, logical metaphor feedback was always in conjunction with experiential metaphor feedback. Furthermore, the GM feedback instances did not help students see a bigger picture in relation to the context of GM instances. In other words, the students were advised to use GM without understanding their textual effects that are helpful in organizing texts in smaller and larger information waves (Martin and Rose 2003). Moreover, the tutors used technicalized metalanguage to support students’ GM use. The metalanguage used included the term grammatical metaphor itself, and the GM feedback instances were mostly worded explicitly to help students use GM. Based on the findings from Phase 2, the action plan for the third phase of the research was designed. This phase aimed to address the limitations experienced during Phase 2 regarding student frontloading and tutor training. Specifically, Phase 3 of the project focused on GM use to address the issues of the use of technical metalanguage, provision of more explicit feedback and the lack of provision of GM feedback in relation to information flow. This chapter reports on planning, actions taken, results and reflection on results during the last phase of the action research

116

Chapter Six

project, Phase 3. In organizing the discussion of Phase 3, I set a number of questions to guide our analysis and discussion: 1. What are the effects of frontloading based on periodicity at whole text level on students’ GM use? 2. What are the effects of tutor training on tutors’ feedback? 3. What are the effects of GM feedback on students’ GM use? 4. What kind of role does language proficiency play in students’ grammatical use? The first three research questions are similar to the ones explored during Phase 2, and the way in which they are explored is also not different from Phase 2. The first research question will be explored by analysing a number of students’ first drafts. The second research question will be investigated though looking at the ways in which tutors supported their students’ GM use and how the students responded to feedback. The third question will be explored by analysing the instances of GM in students’ very last draft to observe the development of GM. However, I have added a fourth research question to investigate the role of language proficiency in students’ GM use. The comparison between Phase 1 and Phase 2 revealed that the students who participated in Phase 2 did not use a wide range and frequency of GM, although the intervention aimed to improve students’ GM use through student frontloading and tutor training. In other words, students improve their GM use when they advance with the help of tutors’ feedback on genre, discourse semantics and lexicogrammar. As a result, I decided to explore in some detail how high and low proficiency level students use and develop their GM use. This chapter, similar to Chapter 5, follows the action research cycle (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Freebody, 2003; Burns, 2010; see Chapter 3). The chapter first summarizes the planning stage, and then moves on to the taking action stage. This will be followed by analysing results, and the chapter will conclude with reflecting on results.

Planning In order to plan the third phase of the research project, a process similar to Phase 2 was followed. Both tutor training and student frontloading were planned. However, different from Phase 2, the SLATE research team designed an assignment for the students who were enrolled in the

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

117

Introduction to Linguistics unit in the Department of Linguistics. During the time of the assignment, the students would have covered derivational morphology based on a chapter in their textbook, Linguistics: an introduction to language (Fromkin, 2010). This required the SLATE research team to focus on derivational morphology and design an assignment to help students improve their written work. The assignment supported by the SLATE project in this phase was titled “the effects of nominalization on language”. The students were required to write an explanation to introduce the effects of nominalization, using examples from the two texts on the differences between spoken and written language. Therefore, the genre of the assignment was “consequential explanation” (Martin & Rose, 2008) where the students were required to list and explain the consequences of using nominalization. As GM is one of the fundamental notions in SFL, and the students were introduced to linguistics through Transformational Grammar, they were provided with background information on nominalization and its effects on language. Following the frontloading of students on nominalization, five of the tutors who worked with this cohort were trained in GM identification at sentence, paragraph and whole text levels. The training was based on “periodicity” at the whole text level (Martin & Rose, 2003). The following sections discuss the actions taken during designing the assignment, frontloading students and training tutors. The actions taken during Phase 3 consisted of an assignment design for this cohort, and frontloading them regarding consequential explanation as well as differences between spoken and written language. This approach was complemented by training the tutors based on periodicity at whole text level. In addition, to be able to identify differences between students in terms of their GM use, the cohort was divided into two groups, a high proficiency and a low proficiency group. Determining student groups is discussed following the sub-section on tutor training.

Designing Assignment The designing of the assignment was based on the Sydney School’s genrebased pedagogy. Firstly, the SLATE research team decided to design an assignment that would help the students use GM effectively. The final decision was to assign the students to write an explanation on the effects of nominalization. This was believed to help students get a better understanding of the concept and therefore use GM more appropriately. Thus, the type of the explanation was classified as consequential (Martin

118

Chapter Six

& Rose, 2008), and the SLATE research team prepared a document to provide the students with further information about the assignment. The support document was prepared to support the students in relation to the staging of the consequential explanation genre. In this document, students were provided with information as to how to frame the introduction, body and conclusion sections. The phases in the introduction stage consisted of defining nominalization, introducing the effects of nominalization and a text preview that would tell the reader how the explanation would be carried out. In the body stage, the students were expected to introduce the effects of nominalization in topic sentences, and give examples from the sample texts. Finally, the students were supposed to summarize the effects of nominalization in the conclusion stage. The support document introduced the students to the notion of periodicity at whole text level, as they were expected to create a thesis statement, topic sentences and a paraphrase of the thesis statement in the conclusion stage. Therefore, I planned the assignment in relation to the goals of Phase 3, which focused on the relationship between periodicity at whole text level and GM use.

Frontloading Students In order to help the students complete their task successfully, I prepared two support documents to frontload the students. The students were provided with a support document that used scaffolding to get them to use GM appropriately. This document was different from the document prepared in Phase 2 in the sense that it focused on how GM functions in relation to the information structure of the consequential explanation genre. The first document was prepared to provide explanation on the effects of nominalization. The effects of nominalization were summarized with the following subheadings: compact information, organize information in more logical way, make the style of writing more academic and formal, and remove people from the text. Each point was exemplified by sample sentences from the two texts that had been introduced, a more spoken version and a more written version. As a continuation of the information sheet, the SLATE research team also prepared an activity sheet with exercises designed from the two texts introduced earlier. The activities were designed in such a way as to give the students the idea that macro-Themes (a.k.a. thesis statement) and hyper-Themes (a.k.a. topic sentences) are appropriate places for effective GM use. Organizing information flow at the whole text level is referred as

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

119

periodicity by Martin and Rose (2003). Text preview, macro-Theme compacts the information for further evaluation in hyper-Themes and these two levels of information waves depend on the use of GM to a great extent in explanation genres (Martin, Wignell & Eggins, 1993). In each of these documents prepared for the students, the SLATE research team avoided the use of GM and expected the students to nominalize the verbs and adjectives in the information sheet. The extract below is taken from this support material. The students had it explained to them how to nominalize and were presented with activities that asked them to form nominalization and metaphorical sentences.

Training Tutors The training of the tutors in Phase 3 of the project took place in a workshop. The workshop aimed to provide knowledge about GM and engage tutors in activities that would help them see the relationship between GM and periodicity at the whole text level. Different from the material from Phase 2, the material prepared for tutors contained activities to help tutors identify GM and provide language support to help students improve their written work. The first activity focused on GM identification at the paragraph level. This focused on the deployment of GM at the paragraph level, which connected to the second activity that focused on periodicity at the whole text level. The second activity concentrated on GM at the whole text level where the tutors were asked to write a thesis statement and topic sentences. Appendix C.

Determining Achievement Groups Due to one of the findings that arose from a comparison of Phase 1 and Phase 2, I realized that it was important to explore what roles GM play in relation to language proficiency. Therefore, the students in this cohort were grouped into two groups based on their language proficiency. A total of 44 students enrolled in the Introduction to Linguistics unit and of these, 39 completed their first and second drafts and submitted their assignments. The study thus concentrated on those 39 students. Although they were undergraduate linguistics students with a 6.0 IELTS score on average, variations in students’ English language proficiency were observed. Due to these differences, I decided to group the students based on their language proficiency using Marking Academic

120

Chapter Six

Success at University (MASUS) assessment tool, developed by the Leaning Centre at USYD. The tool comprises four sections, specifically content, academic language, organization, and grammar and punctuation, with a maximum total of 16 points awarded for these. A MASUS marker who worked at the Learning Centre assessed the first drafts of assignments. To manage interrater reliability, all first drafts were also graded by three members of the SLATE research team (who were also familiar with the MASUS procedures) and any essays that had three or more points of discrepancy between the raters underwent a closer examination and given a final consensus score.

Taking Action A number of actions were taken to manage the intervention in Phase 3 of the project. First, the material prepared to frontload students about nominalization were posted on the e-learning medium of CityU. The students were informed about the support material. Second, the workshop was implemented. The workshop focused on the support materials prepared for students and tutors. The explanations about GM and GM examples were explored. Also the tutors worked on the activities to identify GM at the paragraph and whole text level. Following the workshop, the feedback cycle started and the tutors provided feedback on students’ first drafts. The 39 students who were subjects of the study were grouped based on their MASUS score. Two major groups were formed; the students who got 13 points or above were placed in the high proficiency group, and the students who received 12 points or below were placed in the low proficiency group. These groups, based on students score on the MASUS assessment criteria, will be used to analyse the differences between these two groups in relation to their GM use. There were 15 students in the high proficiency group and 24 in the low proficiency group. The next section discusses results.

Analysing Results This section presents the results from Phase 3. The results will be presented in relation to the four research questions that Phase 3 aimed to explore The findings will be discussed in separate sub-sections on

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

121

students’ use of GM, tutors’ feedback targeting GM, the development of GM through the intervention and GM use in relation to language proficiency.

Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use This section explores how the students used experiential and logical metaphors in their consequential explanation. Eight first drafts were chosen to observe what types of experiential and logical metaphors were used by the students based on type and instance analysis. These drafts were randomly chosen from high proficiency and less proficiency groups in order to reach a representative sample. Similar to Phase 1 and Phase 2, I also observed the students’ use of technical terms. Table 6.1 presents the frequency of occurrence of the students’ GM and technical terms in their first drafts. Frequency of GM

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

4

113

59

1

28.1

14.7

Assignment 2 draft 1 – instances per 4,016 words Assignment 2 draft 1 – instances per 1,000 words

Table 6.1 Frequency of GM use in 8 texts (N=4,016 words) Table 6.1 illustrates the frequency of GM and technical terms identified in the first drafts of the first assignment. The number of words in the data set was 4,016. The second row of the table presents the frequency of various GM types per 4,016 words. This ratio of frequency of GM per 1,000 words was calculated to make comparisons within and across the research phases. Experiential metaphors formed the largest category with 28.1 instances per 1,000 words; this was followed by the second largest category, logical metaphor, with 14.7 instances per 1,000 words. Finally, technical terms formed the third largest category with 1 instance per 1,000 words. Each category will be explored in the following sub-sections. Experiential Metaphor Use The students employed experiential metaphor to a great extent. There were two kinds of experiential metaphor identified in students’ reports, process as noun and quality as noun. Experiential metaphors were identified

122

Chapter Six

employing the method used in Phase 1 and Phase 2, tracking transcategorization and creating congruent alternatives. Table 6.2 presents the results of a type and instance analysis of students’ experiential metaphor use. Process as noun ING-nominalization No. Changing (1) Adding (2) Compacting (7) Organizing (3) Making (7) Demonstrating (1) Using (4) Altering (1) Comparing (3) Highlighting (1) Outlining (1) Expressing (1) Attaining (1) Producing (1) Applying (1) Undergoing (1) Turning (1) Clarifying (1)

Nominalization No. Change (6) Organization (8) Explanation (2) Removal (8) Formation (8) Conversion (1) Attainment (1) Use (12) Expression (2) Introduction (1) View (2) Compression (3) Description (1) Development (2) Comparison (2) Relationship (2) Help (1)

Demonstratives No.

Quality as noun No. Importance (5) Readability (1) Difference (1) Ease (2) Ability (1) Compactness (2) Abstraction (1)

Table 6.2 Frequency of experiential metaphors in 8 texts (N=4,016 words) Table 6.2 shows that the students employed two major types of experiential metaphor, namely process as noun and quality as noun. The process as noun type is employed more frequently, with 56 types and 100 instances. Within this category, the frequency of ING-nominalization (18) is greater than that of nominalization (17 types). However, nominalization was more frequently used (62 instances) than ING-nominalization (38 instances). Quality as noun was used with 7 types and 13 instances. The following subsection will explore the types of experiential metaphor by providing examples in relation to their context. This section presents examples of process as noun with two realizations, nominalization and ING-nominalization. As these types were introduced with examples in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, the focus will be on the occurrence of GM in relation to information structure. This will be done by providing examples focusing on various information waves.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

123

Students who participated in Phase 3 also employed technical terms. The technical terms were identified using the method introduced in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, complementing transcategorization and agnation with creating word frequency counts. Table 6.3 presents the types and instances of technical terms used by this cohort. Process-based No. Information flow (1) Transformation (2)

Quality-based No. Congruency (2)

Table 6.3 Frequency of technical terms in 8 texts (N=4,016 words) As shown in Table 6.3, there were two types of technical terms that are based on process and quality. There were three types of process-based technical terms, whereas only one type of quality-based technical term was observed. The number of instances of process-based technical terms was three, and there is only one instance of process-based technical terms. Logical Metaphor Use The students used logical metaphor to construe causality inside the clause. Three sub-types of logical metaphors were identified in the data set. The first one was the use of a material clause to provide in-clause causality. The processes used were verbs such as “cause” and “lead to”, and also ING-forms of these verbs in the form of embedded clauses. These are referred to as cause as verb. The second category was created through the use of prepositional phrase to provide in-clause causality. The most common preposition used by the students is “by”. This type was named cause as preposition. The second most frequent sub-type of logical metaphor deployed was the use of nouns such as “result”, which was categorized as cause as noun. Table 6.4 presents the results of the type and instance analysis of students’ logical metaphor use in their first drafts.

124

Cause as verb No. Affect (1) Help (6) Result in (3) Play an important role (1) Cause (2) Enable (1) Raise (1) Bring about (1) Lead to (1) Bring by (2) Draw (2) Exert (1) Encourage (1) Create (1) Enhance (3) Generate (1) Advance (1) Allowing (1) Reducing (1) Creating (1) Using (1) Play a key role (1)

Chapter Six

Cause as preposition No. Due to (2) Without (4) By (9) Owing to (1)

Cause as noun No. Influence (6) Result (1) Move away (1) Benefit (1)

Table 6.4 Frequency of logical metaphors in 8 texts (N=4,016 words) As shown in Table 6.4, three categories of logical metaphor were identified in the data set. The largest category was cause as verb with 22 types and 34 instances, followed by cause as preposition with 4 types and 16 instances, and cause as noun with 4 types and 9 instances. I will now present examples for each category in relation to information flow. This section discussed how the students employed GM to manage information flow. Various types of experiential and logical metaphors were used in thesis statement and topic sentences. Using cause inside clause not only manages logical organization, but also shows the linguistic abilities of proficient students. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

125

Tutors’ Feedback on Grammatical Metaphor and Students’ Response This section explores the second research question to discuss the effects of GM training. The findings show that the tutors provided feedback in various ways. In comparison to the intervention that took place in Phase 2, the tutors also provided implicit GM feedback. The explicitness of feedback is defined following Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994). Furthermore, the feedback on GM was framed in relation to the ZPD of the students. The analysis of the data showed that low proficiency students received more instances of explicit feedback, as they needed more explicit support. The tutors also provided a rationale for making changes to students’ texts to advance the learning process. They provided the students with arguments why changes are necessary and how changes will improve the formality of texts, and also provided clues to making changes. The metalanguage was also different in comparison to Phase 2. The tutors used “theme” to help students start a sentence, “nominalization” to make students use experiential metaphors, and “cause verb” to ask students to construe causality inside clauses. The tutors, who had received training in GM identification and feedback provision, supported their students’ GM use in two ways. Firstly, they provided general comments at the beginning and end of students’ assignments. This type is referred as off-text feedback. Secondly, the tutors embedded their open comments in students’ assignments. The second way of providing support was considered in-text feedback. Off-text and in-text feedback were also observed during Phase 2. There were five tutors who were trained in GM and they supported 23 students in total. I will discuss each feedback type using examples below. This will be done in relation to the context of GM. Off-text Feedback These general comments are considered off-text feedback. The feedback provided at the beginning of texts corresponded to the orientation stage of the feedback protocol. The feedback provided off-text functioned to foster the learning process as it focused on encouragement, praise, listing strong points and points for further development. There were 36 instances of offtext feedback on GM. These instances of feedback had pedagogical functions that advised students regarding effective GM use and its effects. Two feedback instances that are representative of this procedure are illustrated below.

Chapter Six

126

Example 6.1 (Adrian to Wendy, draft 1) Thank you very much for submitting the first draft of your assignment! It’s a great first draft. You have achieved good structure of the essay. The introduction explicitly indicates what is going to follow in the “middle”, and the conclusion shows what has been done in the body of the text. You have explained the key points in each paragraph, which is fantastic. The topical sentences give enough information about the content of the paragraphs. Good work! I would like you in the next draft to try to use more nominalized expressions. See how much you can compact the information on the fewer words, and combine the sentences logically. I have indicated at a few places in my in-line comments below. Another thing, which you can consider reviewing is the use of the modal “can” in the text. If you are sure that nominalization does something, say it does. You don’t need to say it “can do”. The last thing, try to make you topic sentence a little broader, so that it can give a gist of the entire paragraph. I look forward to reading your second draft. All the very best,

In this instance of feedback, Adrian summarizes the strong points in Wendy’s first draft. This section of feedback also serves as praise and encouragement. This is followed by the focus of Adrian’s feedback on nominalization, the effective use of modal verbs and the textual organization of the whole text. Example 6.2 shows how a tutor provided off-text feedback at the end of student’s draft. Example 6.2 (Amy to Latanya, draft 2) Well done for your second draft. You have structured your draft appropriately and it has clear stages. However, you can further improve it by using nominalization. This will make your draft more academic and formal in tone. Also please rephrase the sentences, which are too long. A sentence, which is too long, has more than one main focus and may become confusing for the reader. Good luck with the final draft.

This feedback instance takes place at the end of Latanya’s second draft. Similar to off-text feedback that takes place at the beginning of drafts, this instance starts with praise, and then moves onto the points for further improvement. Amy suggests to Latanya that she use nominalization to

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

127

manage formality and pay attention to long sentences, which need to be clearly rephrased. The feedback ends with good wishes. In-text Feedback The feedback instances that were placed within students’ assignments are called in-text feedback. This type of feedback focused on the effective use of experiential and logical metaphors. The feedback instances provided to support students’ GM use were in line with the feedback protocol. Feedback instances targeting experiential and logical metaphors will be discussed below in relation to the context in which they occur. In other words, GM feedback will be discussed with regards to periodicity at the whole text level. Each example will be followed by a brief discussion of the feedback instance and how the students responded to feedback. The way the students responded to feedback depends on the proficiency of the student and how feedback was framed. There were a total of 60 instances of in-text feedback targeted students’ GM use. However, only eight of these instances will be discussed in this section. These instances are chosen because they show variety in terms of the text section they target, and also in the way in which they are worded. Therefore, the instances of GM feedback will be analysed in relation to their explicitness level, the presence of rationale and the metalanguage used. The feedback instances are placed in curly brackets and italicized, whereas students’ revisions are in boldface in the following examples. Example 6.3a presents an instance of feedback provided to a proficient student, Nolan. The feedback targets Nolan’s topic sentence. Example 6.3a (Anna to Nolan, draft 1) First of all, nominalization helps compacting {Why don’t you try to use some nominalization here? By removing the processes from this sentence, you can realize some of the changes you discuss.} information.

Anna casts her feedback implicitly with rationale and uses “nominalization” as metalanguage. In the original text, Nolan uses INGnominalization, “compacting” in a topic sentence, to introduce the first effect of nominalization on language. The way this is done also requires the use of a logical metaphor, “help”. Anna, the tutor, provides feedback at this point, asking Nolan to use nominalization that would help remove the processes from the sentence and talks about the effects of nominalization. Anna underlines the text section where she is suggesting a change and telling Nolan what to do. The way the feedback is framed is implicit, because there is no information as to how to make this change. The

128

Chapter Six

metalanguage used asked Nolan to use “nominalization”, with rationale as to why this change is important. Based on the feedback, Nolan makes changes in his original text section. Example 6.3b (Response in draft 2) First of all, the compactness of text will be improved by using nominalization.

Nolan uses an experiential metaphor in the nominalization form, by transforming the verb “compacting” to the noun “compactness”. Also, he uses a logical metaphor in the form of cause as preposition using the preposition “by”, and another experiential metaphor in the form of INGnominalization. Because Nolan makes changes that result in GM use and a grammatically accurate clause, his response to feedback is considered uptake. The following feedback instance is provided to a proficient student by the tutor, Amy. Amy’s feedback targets a topic sentence. Example 6.4a (Amy to Latanya, draft 2) A logical organization is provided in nominalization. {Again start your sentence with the theme ‘Nominalization’ and use a more appropriate verb to show ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ relationship.}

Amy provides Latanya with implicit feedback with no rationale. The metalanguage used in Example 6.4a includes “nominalization”. Latanya, a proficient student, introduces one of the effects of nominalization in one of her topic sentences where she receives feedback. The sentence needs some improvement to make it an effective topic sentence. Amy therefore targets this text section by reminding Latanya to start the topic sentence with the theme of the assignment, “nominalization”, and to use a verb to show a cause and effect relationship that connects the cause, “nominalization”, to the effect, “logical organization”. Amy’s feedback regarding starting the sentence with the theme is explicit, because it tells Latanya what to do. However, the way Amy frames the second bit of the feedback is implicit with an intention to elicit an instance of a logical metaphor from Latanya. Example 6.4b (Response in final submission) Nominalization also encourages a logical organization.

Latanya benefits from the feedback by moving “nominalization” to the Theme position and the effect, “logical organization”, to the Rheme position. She also manages to use a “cause” verb to manage in-clause

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

129

causality, which is an instance of logical metaphor. Her revision involves GM use as suggested by the tutor, resulting in a grammatically accurate clause. Hence, Latanya’s response to Amy’s feedback is considered uptake. The following feedback instance is provided to a low proficiency student by the same tutor, Amy. Amy targets a topic sentence in this example. Example 6.5a (Amy to Shanice, draft 1) After applying nominalization, the information is compacted {The word ‘apply’ is not a suitable word here. It is not possible to ‘apply’ nominalization because it is not a formula. You can begin your sentence with the theme ‘nominalization’ and use a cause verb to show the relationship.} which means the fewer words are used to convey the meaning of the same thing.

In Example 6.5a Amy provides support to a topic sentence in an implicit way with rationale. The metalanguage includes “nominalization” and “a cause verb” where she introduces one of the effects of nominalization. Amy asks Shanice to start with the theme of the assignment, “nominalization”, use a “cause” verb to manage in-clause causality, and then introduce the effect. The first section of Amy’s feedback where she tells Shanice to use “nominalization” in Theme is explicit. However, the second bit of the feedback where she tells Shanice to use a “cause” verb is implicit. Shanice makes changes based on the support provided. Example 6.5b (Response in draft 2) Nominalization leads to compacted information which means fewer words are used to convey the meaning of the same thing.

Shanice benefits from the feedback by revising her topic sentence in the suggested way. She moves “nominalization” to the Theme position and uses “lead to” to manage in-clause causality. However, her topic sentence still needs a bit of work. Shanice’s response to feedback involves the use of GM, but it does not result in a grammatically accurate sentence. Thus, the response to feedback is considered partial uptake. The next example in this section is provided to a low proficiency student by another tutor, Adrian. Adrian aims at a topic sentence. Example 6.6a (Adrian to Talisha, draft 1) When the sentence is nominalized, the information is compacted. {It is good to be nominalization here in your own expression; try to nominalize

130

Chapter Six the entire clause complex and make that nominalized expression part of the next sentence as Theme.}

Adrian, in Example 6.14a, provides Talisha with implicit feedback without rationale. The metalanguage used is limited to “nominalization”. Talisha, in her topic sentence, introduces one of the effects of nominalization in a topic sentence. Because the topic sentence involves two clauses, Adrian reminds her to use nominalization to replace the first clause by underlining it. This feedback instance provides the student with a rationale for how to make the change. The feedback instance is worded implicitly with the aim of eliciting a more appropriate text section from the student. He also tells Talisha to use this nominalized section as the Theme. Talisha makes changes to revise her topic sentence. Example 6.6b (Response in draft 2) Nominalization makes the sentence compacted.

Talisha manages to construe in-clause causality by responding to the feedback positively. She nominalizes her first sentence, and it becomes “nominalization”, and she also uses a “cause” verb, “make”, to place the cause and effect in one clause. Talisha’s response to feedback is considered uptake, because it involves GM use resulting in a grammatically accurate clause. Amy provides the following instance of feedback to a low proficiency student’s thesis statement. Example 6.7a (Amy to Shanice, draft 1) During the {Inappropriate word choice, consider revising it.} nominalization, the information is compacted. Besides, the information is organized more logically. Moreover, the style of writing is changed to more academic and formal and people in the text are removed. {These sentences can be easily summed up in one sentence with the help of nominalization.}

In Example 6.7a, Amy provides Shanice with implicit feedback without rationale. The metalanguage used includes “nominalization”. The way Amy frames her feedback is implicit because there are endless ways of summing up those sentences. Also, Amy does not provide a rationale for how to sum those sentences or why this change is important. However, Shanice makes some changes in her next draft.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

131

Example 6.7b (Response in draft 2) In nominalization, the information is compacted. It helps to achieve a logical organization of information and an academic and formal style of writing with the removal of people in the text.

In her response Shanice responds to the feedback in a positive way by making changes. Shanice includes two instances of nominalization, “organization” and “removal”, and manages to turn her original sentences into one sentence by packing clauses into a nominal group. Thus, Shanice’s response to feedback is considered uptake. The next example discussed in this section presents how a high proficiency student is supported. Example 6.8a (Anna to Nolan, draft 1) To sum up, changes on language are made when nominalization occurs {Excellent start. This clause can be further simplified with the use of a logical metaphor. Try to show a simple relationship between the two parts of the action, “changes” and “nominalization”.} in text.

Anna, in Example 6.8a, provides Nolan with implicit feedback with rationale. The metalanguage used introduces a technical term, “logical metaphor”. Anna asks Nolan to simplify the original text section by using the term logical metaphor to show the logical relationship between “changes” and “nominalization”. The way in which Anna does this is through providing clues to Nolan how to start and finish. However, Nolan does not make any changes. Example 6.8b (Response in draft 2) To sum up, changes on language are made when nominalization occurs in text.

Nolan does revise his original text section but leaves it as it is. This might be related to the metalanguage used by Anna, which was not shared between students and tutors. Thus, this instance of response to support is considered avoidance. Amy provides the following feedback instance to a low proficiency student. Amy targets Suzy’s thesis statement. Example 6.9a (Amy to Suzy, draft 2) The effects of the change are compacting information, organizing texts better, making the style of writing more academic and formal, and removing people from the texts. {You can also try to use some nominalization here. To make your sentence more formal instead of using the phrase “removing people” you can use “removal of animate objects.”}

132

Chapter Six

In Example 6.9a, Amy provides Suzy with explicit feedback with rationale. The metalanguage used included “nominalization”. Suzy introduces the effects of nominalization on language. The way she does is through using ING-nominalization. Amy targets these instances of nominalization by asking Suzy to use nominalization with rationale as to how this change will improve the text. Amy goes one step further and provides Suzy with a suggestion. In her following draft, Suzy makes some changes. Example 6.9b (Response in draft 2) The effects of the change are compacting information, organizing texts better, making the style of writing more academic and formal, and removal of animate objects.

In her second draft, Suzy benefits from Amy’s explicit GM feedback with rationale by changing “removing” to “removal”. Therefore, this instance of GM feedback results in full uptake. The last example of GM feedback is provided to a low proficiency student by the tutor Daisy. Daisy targets Peace’s thesis statement. Example 6.10a (Daisy to Peace, draft 2) The purposes of nominalizing are to compact information, organize the information more logically, give a more formal and academic style of writing remove people from texts. {You can nominalise this sentence by focusing on the theme ‘nominalisation’ and changing the verbs into nouns. For instance, ‘to compact information’ can be written as ‘the compaction of information’. }

In Example 6.10a, Daisy provides Peace with explicit GM feedback with no rationale. The metalanguage she uses includes “nominalization” and “theme”. In her thesis statement, Peace introduces the effects of nominalization on texts using verbs. At this point, Daisy asks Peace to change verbs to nouns by suggesting a text section to her. Peace uses this instance of GM feedback to revise her original thesis statement. Example 6.10b (Response in final submission) Nominalization helps with the compaction of information, the logicality of organizing information, the construction of formal and academic writing and the removal of people from text.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

133

Peace benefits from the feedback by revising her thesis statement in her final submission. As suggested by Daisy, the verb “compact” is changed to “compaction” in the final draft. To summarize, this section provided eight of 60 instances of feedback that targeted students’ GM use, as well as the way students responded to feedback. The tutors targeted various text sections functioning as macroTheme, hyper-Theme, by framing explicit or implicit feedback with or without rationale as to how texts will improve due to suggested changes. Explicit feedback provided the students with clues, whereas implicit feedback intended to elicit revisions from students. To help students improve their written work, the tutors used a metalanguage consisting of “theme”, “nominalization”, and “cause verb”, which was different from the metalanguage used in Phase 2. The way the students responded to feedback was categorized based on uptake and avoidance. When students made necessary changes that resulted in a grammatically accurate sentence, this type of response was considered uptake. On the other hand, students avoided feedback by simply ignoring it. Having discussed students’ GM use, analysed tutors’ GM feedback and students’ response to feedback, the next section will focus on whether the students developed their GM use due to the intervention.

Development of Grammatical Metaphor Use through the Intervention This section aims to answer the third research question that was formed to explore the effects of the intervention. To investigate this research question, I will focus on the final submission of the eight students whose first drafts were analysed to explore the first research question. This will be followed by a comparison of students’ GM use in their very first and last drafts. Table 6.5 presents the frequency of students’ GM and technical term use in their very first draft and final submission.

Chapter Six

134

Frequency of GM Assignment 2 draft 1 – instances per 4016 words Assignment 2 draft 1 – instances per 1,000 words Assignment 2 final – instances per 4008 words Assignment 2 final – instances per 1,000 words Change per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

4

113

59

1

28.1

14.7

6

129

86

1.5

32.2

21.5

.5

4.1

6.8

Table 6.5 Comparison of GM use in draft one and final submission (N=1,000 words) Table 6.5 presents the frequency of eight students’ GM use in their first draft and their very final submission. To compare these figures, the frequency of GM instances was calculated per 1,000 words. It can be seen that the frequency of technical terms increased from 1 to 1.5 instances per 1,000 words. Furthermore, the frequency of experiential metaphor increased from 28.1 to 32.2 instances in 1,000 words. Similarly, there was an increase in the frequency of logical metaphor. The frequency of logical metaphor increased from 17.4 to 21.5 instances in 1,000 words. Not only did the students use experiential and logical metaphors more frequently, but they also managed a more effective way of using GM instances. The following example text presents how experiential and logical metaphors were used in relation to periodicity at the whole text level. The draft below belongs to Nolan. This particular student was chosen because he received the highest score from MASUS. The instances of experiential metaphors are in boldface, logical metaphors are in boldface and underlined. Example 6.11 Nolan’s first draft Nominalization is the process of changing a verb, adjective, adverb or conjunction into noun form and this process will lead to changes on language. English words can be nominalized through two methods. The first one is adding deviational morphemes, mostly affixes, into the word and the second one is using a verb as a noun. Nominalization is essential since it affects the tone and style in the language. It has four main effects

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage on language: compacting information, organizing context in more logical way, making the style of writing more formal and removing people in the text. In this explanation, changes made by nominalization will be demonstrated by two sample texts. They have same meaning in context. Text A is in spoken form, and will be called Oral Sample and Text B is in written form and called Written Sample. First of all, text can be compacted using nominalization. With nominalization, fewer words can be used to express a certain meaning. For instance, the second part of the second sentence in the Oral Sample has three clauses with twenty-five words: “…you can record books for blind people, and you can build libraries of sounds. We used to write letters to people who lived far away.”. However, in the Written Sample, nominalization changed these three clauses into just eleven words, “…talking books for the blind, mp3 players, libraries of recorded sounds…”. These eleven words carry exactly the same meaning of those three clauses in Oral Sample text and they are either nouns or noun phrases. Thus, through nominalization, information in a sentence can be compacted. Nominalization can also result in a logical organization of context. Since verbs, adjectives and conjunctions are converted into nouns, the nominalized words can easily be the focus of the topic sentences. In Written Sample, nominalized texts can be found in topic sentences of each paragraph: “The relative permanence of written language…” , “The immediacy of speech…” and “…for memorization and learning tasks…”. The nominalized words in each topic sentence carry out the main focus of the paragraph clearly and therefore the structure of the whole passage will become more logical. Nominalization makes the writing style more academic and formal. Formal writing involves abstract ideas and explanations. As mentioned above, nominalization can be found in topic sentences in Written Sample as abstract ideas will be formed to generalize the ideas in the whole paragraph. These abstract ideas are always formed through nominalization. For example, the nouns in each topic sentence in Written Sample, “permanence”, “immediacy” and “memorization”, all carry abstract meanings. They refer to the clauses “it can last a long time…” , “we speak to people directly with no time-lag…” and “if you want to remember something…” in the Oral Sample respectively. Using those individual words will lead to the introduction of generalized idea and avoidance of clumsy passages. Thus, the passage can be more formal written. Lastly, people can be removed from the text if a sentence is nominalized. People are used in the clauses in Oral Sample but not in Written Sample. In Oral Sample, people are always the beginning of a clause, such as

135

136

Chapter Six “Nowadays, we can speak to them…” , “…But you can also write things down to tell people what you feel about them…” and “…you can read it again and again…”. Yet, in Written Sample, nominalized words, but not people, are the centre of the attention, such as “…writing also has its social functions…” and “Written explanations can be read often…”. Therefore, nominalization of sentences can result in the removal of people in the text. To sum up, changes on language are made when nominalization occurs in text. Nominalization plays an important role in language as it has four main effects on writing. Information will be compacted since fewer words are used after nominalization. Also, the whole passage can be more logically organized and the writing style will become more formal, due to the formation of abstract ideas. People can also be removed form the text when nominalization takes place. All these effects can make nominalized writing greatly differ from the language without nominalization, which is the spoken discourse.

As shown in Example 6.11, Nolan uses experiential and logical metaphors in thesis statement, topic sentences, concluding sentences and paraphrase of the thesis statement. These text sections are the realizations of macroTheme, hyper-Theme, hyper-New and macro-New respectively. The deployment of GM instances based on periodicity is one of the differences between Phase 3 and the initial phases. There are 14 occurrences of experiential metaphor, and six occurrences of logical metaphor. Nolan only uses process as noun type to pack information into nominal groups through using nominalization (8 instances), and ING-nominalization (9 instances). Of all 17 instances of experiential metaphors, 11 were used within periodicity at genre level. In other words, 11 instances of experiential metaphor occurred in macroTheme (4 instances), macro-New (2 instances), hyper-Themes (1 instance), and hyper-New (4 instances). This shows that the majority of experiential metaphor instances were used within the information structure. Regarding logical metaphors, Nolan employed 11 instances of logical metaphors in the form of cause as verb (7 instances), cause as preposition (2 instances) and cause as noun (2 instances). Of 11 instances of logical metaphors, nine were deployed in relation to the notion of periodicity. One of the logical metaphor instances was used in macro-Theme, three in macro-New, three in hyper Theme, and three in hyper New. To sum up, the deployment of experiential and logical metaphors in relation to the information structure of this draft highlights the relationship

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

137

between GM and periodicity. Therefore, the deployment of GM, as shown in Example 6.16, in Phase 3 is different from the distribution of GM in Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Similarities of and Differences between High and Low Proficiency Groups This section explores the fourth research question, which was regarding GM use and proficiency level. High and low proficiency students’ experiential and logical metaphor use will be presented in tables. The tables present sub-types of GM with a type analysis of the words/phrases used by students. This analysis was conducted through investigating all the submitted 39 first drafts. Similarities and Differences Regarding Experiential Metaphor Use The experiential metaphors are presented in Table 6.6 below. Each type of process as noun and quality as noun will be discussed separately with examples from high and low proficiency students. The numbers in brackets represent various wordings that realize experiential metaphor subtypes. The table will be followed with a discussion of similarities of and differences between high and low proficiency groups.

138

Experiential metaphor type

process as noun: nominalization

process as noun: ING-nominalization

process as noun: demonstratives

quality as noun

Chapter Six

Experiential metaphor use by high and low proficiency groups High proficiency group: (27): compaction… organization… development… removal… expression… transformation… occurrence… application… demonstration… creation… use… compression… comparison… relationship… move away… formation… change… addition… conversion… attainment… introduction… usage… alteration… impression… clarification… attachment… shift away… Low proficiency group: (28): change… organization… removal… usage… clarification… formulation… creation… transformation… presentation… use… explanation… elaboration… repetition… reduction… enhancement… development… relationship… comparison… demonstration… improvement… expression… collaboration… perception… derivation… compact… delivery… impression… avoidance… High proficiency group: (32): making… styling… using… occurring… compacting… organizing… explaining… expression… outlining… clarifying… removing… changing… comparing… nominalizing… adding… stating… employing… eliminating… introducing… attaining… demonstrating… highlighting… altering… paraphrasing… omitting… compressing… strengthening… basing… contrasting… applying… creating… increasing… Low proficiency group: (38): producing… using… compacting… changing… explaining… making… organizing… removing… nominalizing… reading… expressing… presenting… doing… applying… undergoing… looking… turning… clarifying… paraphrasing… comparing… forming… creating… having… enhancing… outlining… writing… alternating… having… adding… transforming… distracting… reading… comprehending… inserting… understanding… modifying… examining… applying… High proficiency group: (7): This shows… This is caused… This means… This can be seen… This is to express…This can be demonstrated…This is essential… Low proficiency group: (11): This means… This makes… That is makes…That is what…That is the reason…This can be seen…This can contribute…This can be observed… This is because… That gives… This can be shown… High proficiency group: (9): difference… brevity… conciseness… length… importance… ease… compactness… readability… formality Low proficiency group: (6): compactness… length… formality… difference… importance… effectiveness

Table 6.6 Two groups use of experiential metaphor based on type and instance (N=39)

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

139

As can be seen in Table 6.6, the first similarity between these two groups is their use of process as noun to a great extent. Both high and low proficiency students incorporated this sub-type into their assignments, and it is the second most frequently used experiential metaphor sub-type. There seem to be no significant differences between high and low proficiency groups in their use of this particular type. Both groups draw on their linguistic resources to form experiential metaphors in the form of process as verb. The second similarity concerns their use of ING-nominalization. The high and low proficiency students used various instances of this particular type and it is the most widely used type of experiential metaphor in the data set. Furthermore, high and low proficiency students’ reliance on this particular type on various occasions suggests that this is a rather important resource in the linguistic repertoire of ESL users. Also, mastery of this type is crucial in understanding how nominal groups work in the English language. The last of the similarities of high and low proficiency groups is realizing experiential metaphor though demonstratives. Demonstratives refer to the grammatical structures that can replace nominal groups and are also called reference items (Halliday, 1994). Demonstratives in the data set refer to situations where nominalization is used in the previous sentence or the use of demonstratives replaces nominalization to summarize previous text sections. In the data set, there are 18 occurrences of demonstratives used with this aim, and there do not seem to be any differences between high and low proficiency students’ use. Apart from similarities, a difference between these two cohorts was observed in relation to their use of quality as noun. In the data set, 10 different instances of this sub-type are identified. The high proficiency students’ use of this sub-type is slightly more advanced than that of low proficiency students. While there are nine occurrences of this sub-type in high proficiency students’ drafts, there are only six in the assignments of the low proficiency group. Similarities and Differences Regarding Logical Metaphor Use The use of logical metaphors by high and low proficiency groups is presented in Table 6.7 below. Four types of logical metaphor are identified: cause as verb, cause as preposition, cause as adjective and cause as noun. Table 6.7 illustrates the instances of sub-types of logical

140

Chapter Six

metaphor. The numbers in brackets represent various wordings that realize logical metaphor sub-types. A discussion regarding similarities and differences is presented following the table. Different from the similarities regarding the experiential metaphor use, high and low proficiency groups have more differences in terms of their logical metaphor use. Logical metaphor type

cause as verb

Logical metaphor use by high and low proficiency groups

High proficiency group: (21): affect… help… make… play a key role… enhance… allow… conceive… play an important role… result in… bring… encourage… help to clarify… develop… contribute… lead to… involved with… exert… assist in…bring advantages of… achieved by… promote… ING-form (5): leading… allowing… making… reducing… creating… Low proficiency group: (17): help… affect… make… convert… achieved by… brought by… modify… resulted by… lead to… play a significant role… advantage… enhance… allow… give help… benefit… result… produce… ING-form (1): offering…

cause as preposition

cause as adjective

cause as noun

High proficiency group: (8): with the aid of… by the means of… due to… as a result… because of… with the help of… by… through… Low proficiency group (5): because of… owing to… due to… by… through… High proficiency group: (4): useful in… helpful in… crucial in… helpful for… Low proficiency group (0): High proficiency group: (5): impact… result… feature… influence… aspect… Low proficiency group: (5): function… influence… result… advantage… contribution…

Table 6.7 Students’ use of logical metaphor based on type and instance (N=39) As Table 6.7 illustrates, the first difference between these two groups concerns their cause as verb use. The first type of logical metaphor is cause as verb, which is the metaphorical realization of causality using a verb. There are many verbs that can carry the notion of causality in a clause, such as result, lead to, cause, etc. The high and low proficiency

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

141

groups slightly differ in their use of cause as verb. The high proficiency students use a variety of verbs to form this type of logical metaphor. Those verbs are less frequently used verbs as compared to the verbs used by the low proficiency group. Cause as preposition use is another difference between these two cohorts. Cause as proposition is realized in a prepositional phrase where providing causality becomes possible within a clause. Both high and low proficiency students use this type of logical metaphor in their assignments such as “as a result of”, “because of”. However, the high proficiency group used cause as preposition more frequently than the low proficiency group. The last difference between these groups concerns their cause as adjective use. Cause as adjective is another type of logical metaphor where in-clause causality is provided in nominal groups. This sub-type is identified only in the assignments of high proficiency students. Four instances of this sub-type are identified. Cause as adjective requires the use of an adjective with a relational process to realize in-clause causality. The only similarity between high and low proficiency groups is their cause as noun use. Cause as noun as a type of logical metaphor occurs when the notion of logical relations is realized by a noun in lexicogrammar. There are several nouns that provide the resources for this type, such as effect, impact, reasons, results, etc. As the words’ impact was used in support of material prepared for students, these words are excluded from the analysis. Both the high and low proficiency groups use this sub-type and there seems to be no significant difference between proficiency levels. To summarize, the students who participated in Phase 3 of the research employed GM in relation to periodicity at the whole text level. The experiential and logical metaphors were used in thesis statements and topic sentences to organize assignments. The high and low proficiency groups showed differences in terms of the range of their GM use. With reference to experiential metaphor, the high proficiency group used quality as noun with less frequently used words in comparison to low proficiency students. Furthermore, the proficiency groups differed in their logical metaphor use. The high proficiency students employed logical metaphors more frequently than the low proficiency group. These findings suggest that proficiency level has an effect of students’ GM use. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

Chapter Six

142

Reflecting on Results The results from the last phase of the research will be discussed in relation to the four research questions that guided Phase 3 of this research focusing on students’ use of GM, tutors’ GM feedback and students’ response to feedback, development of GM use, and high and low proficiency groups’ GM use.

Reflecting on Students’ Grammatical Metaphor Use This section will compare the GM use of students who participated in Phase 2 and Phase 3. I will firstly explore the similarities between these two cohorts, and then focus on the differences. Table 6.8 presents the frequency of GM instances per 1,000 words. Research phases Phase 2

Phase 3

Drafts Assign. 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assign. 2 draft 1 – instances per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

6

14.6

5.4

1

28.1

14.7

Table 6.8 Comparison of GM use in Phase 2 and Phase 3 (N=1,000 words) As Table 6.8 shows, the similarities between these two cohorts are related to the GM types that were used. The students who participated in Phase 2 and Phase 3 used experiential metaphors, logical metaphors and technical metaphors. Furthermore, experiential metaphor was the most frequently used category during both phases. In relation to the differences between these cohorts, the first difference concerns the frequency of technical terms and GM. The students from Phase 3 used experiential metaphors almost two times more frequently with 28.1 instances per 1,000 words as compared to Phase 2. The second category was the logical metaphor with 14.7 instances per 1,000 words, which means an almost three times more frequent use. The other difference between these two cohorts concerned their technical term use.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

143

The students in Phase 2 used technical terms more frequently than the students in Phase 3. Also, the technical terms formed the second largest category during Phase 2. These results show that the field or subject area has influence on the linguistic choices regarding abstraction, technicality and logical relations. The compositional recount genre requires more frequent use of technical terms and less use of logical metaphor, as the purpose of the genre is to report on components of an electronic device. However, technical terms were not used as frequently by the students in Phase 3. The findings show that the consequential explanation genre requires the use of cause in clause, as the students employed experiential and logical metaphors. This is also in line with the literature, which states that explaining phenomena using implication structure is one of the characteristics of factorial and consequential explanation genres (Martin & Rose 2008; Wignell, Martin & Eggins, 1993).

Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Feedback and Students’ Response This section aims to reflect on tutors’ GM feedback and students’ response to feedback, comparing Phase 2 and Phase 3, where frontloading of students and training of tutors took place. Drafts and GM feedback

Phase 2

Phase 3

Drafts analysed No.

432

78

Off-text GM feedback No.

13

36

In-text GM feedback No.

13

60

GM feedback No.

26

96

Ratio of GM feedback instance per draft No.

.06

2.1

Ratio of uptake per GM feedback No.

11/13

54/60

Table 6.9 GM feedback and students’ response to feedback As can be seen in Table 6.9, during Phase 2 the tutors provided off-text feedback 13 times, and in-text feedback 13 times on 432 drafts. Therefore, the ratio of GM feedback to draft was .06. This ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of feedback instances by the number of drafts.

144

Chapter Six

Furthermore, 11 out of 13 instances of GM feedback were responded to as uptake where students revised their text sections based on tutors’ feedback. There was only one instance where a student ignored the feedback provided on GM use. During Phase 3, on the other hand, there were more instances of feedback on GM. The tutors who took part in Phase 3 provided off-text feedback on GM 36 times, and in-text feedback 60 times. There were 23 students who were supported by the trained tutors, and the number of drafts that received feedback was 46. When the number of GM feedback instances (96 instances of off-text and in-text feedback) is divided by the number of drafts, the ratio of GM feedback per draft is calculated, which is 2.1. Therefore, it can be concluded that the tutor training during Phase 3 resulted in more instances of GM feedback and outweighs the training in Phase 2. The majority of GM feedback instances resulted in full uptake (54 out of 60). The tutors who managed to provide feedback depending on the proficiency level of students bearing in mind the information flow were more successful. The tutors provided feedback on a continuum ranging from more explicit to less explicit (see Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). Explicit feedback was generally provided to low proficiency students, because some needed more explicit support. On the other hand, the tutors also provided implicit feedback where they told the student what to do. To illustrate, telling a student to “use nominalization here” is considered implicit, because it does not scaffold how to do it. On the other hand, giving clues to students or providing them with sentence beginnings were considered an explicit type of feedback. This was the situation where the tutors showed students how to use nominalization. The findings show that less implicit feedback was more effective with high proficiency students, whereas the low proficiency students needed more explicit feedback to revise their text in the required way. However, providing explicit or implicit feedback depending on the proficiency level of students was achieved within the notion of periodicity. There was another difference between tutors’ GM feedback in Phase 2 and Phase 3 in terms of the context of feedback instances. The tutors who participated in Phase 3 followed the feedback protocol of the SLATE project (Mahboob et al., 2010). The tutors stated the problem, explained why this was a problem and suggested ways to improve texts. This was the case in Phase 2 and Phase 3. However, the instances of GM feedback were different from the instances analysed in Phase 2, as these were provided in relation to periodicity at the whole text level.

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

145

The metalanguage used between tutors and students also differed in Phase 3. When the tutors thought using GM would improve text sections, they told students to nominalize original text sections or asked them to use nominalization. This refers to the use of experiential metaphor. On the other hand, the tutors also supported their students’ use of logical metaphor. To do this, they provided the students with clues such as “use a ‘cause’ verb to connect these sentences”. The tutors also used another linguistic term, “theme”, when providing feedback. The way the feedback was provided was different from the second phase of the project. During Phase 2, the tutors simply asked students to use GM. On the other hand, Phase 3 concentrated on using “nominalization” and “theme” as technical terms to provide feedback. Using less technical metalanguage terms provided clearer instructions for students, as well as resulted in more instances of GM feedback in comparison to Phase 2. Furthermore, the students who took part in Phase 3 were required to write a text explaining the effects of nominalization on language. It is reasonable to argue that the explicit use of metalanguage was effective, as the students were studying nominalization. Those students were provided with support materials regarding what nominalization is, and how it affects the language. Because the students were taught about nominalization and its effects, and scaffolded for their assignment, the metalanguage used during Phase 3 was more effective in relation to the Phase 1 and Phase 2. The difference between the research phases is rather visible when the rates of GM feedback per draft are compared. While the GM feedback rate per draft was 0.014 during Phase 1, it was 0.06 during Phase 2, and the rate during Phase 3 was 2.1 per draft. The increase in GM feedback during Phase 3 was not particularly related to the use of explicit metalanguage, but the intervention based on periodicity at whole text level played a bigger role. The explicit metalanguage was one of the tools that the tutors used to help students improve their written work. However, the training provided to tutors helped tutors use metalanguage in a more effective way, in turn, the number of GM feedback per draft increased considerably.

Reflecting on the Development of Grammatical Metaphor This section will focus on the similarities of and differences between Phase 2 and Phase 3 regarding the development of GM and technical terms. Table 6.10 outlines the frequency of technical terms and GM instances across drafts and phases.

Chapter Six

146

Research phases

Phase 2

Phase 3

Drafts/change Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assignment 3 final – instances per 1,000 words Change in ‰ Assignment 2 draft 1 – instances per 1,000 words Assignment 2 final – instances per 1,000 words Change per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

6

14.6

5.4

6.4

14.9

7.2

.4

.3

1.8

1

28.1

14.7

1.5

32.2

21.5

.5

4.1

6.8

Table 6.10 Comparison of development of GM both phases (N=1,000 words) Table 6.10 shows that the students participating in both research phases used technical terms and GM. Regarding the similarities between Phase 2 and Phase 3, the students in both phases used technical terms and GM more frequently in their final draft of their last assignment. Regarding the differences between these two groups of students, students in Phase 3 used experiential and logical metaphors more frequently in their first drafts, with 28.1 and 14.7 instances per 1,000 words respectively. Furthermore, the ratios of the frequency of experiential and logical metaphors were higher than in Phase 2. The third difference between these cohorts concerned their technical term use. The students in Phase 3 did not draw on technical terms as much as the students who participated in Phase 2. These findings suggest that the intervention that was planned and implemented in Phase 3 generated more instances of GM. Furthermore, the training provided to tutors helped students develop their GM use more in comparison to the students from Phase 2. This finding might be related to tutors’ GM feedback in relation to information flow, the use of simpler

Phase 2: Gm Use at Whole Text Level through Simpler Metalanguage

147

metalanguage in providing feedback, provision of a rationale and clues to students, and finally the ability to support students in relation to their ZPD. These findings will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

Reflecting on Grammatical Metaphor Use and Language Proficiency This section reflects on the findings of the fourth research question, which aimed to investigate whether GM use changes according to the proficiency level of students. As discussed in Section 6.4.4, the students from the high proficiency and low proficiency groups showed similarities regarding their experiential metaphor use. Experiential metaphor was the most frequently used GM type by both groups. Furthermore, ING-nominalization was the most frequently used experiential metaphor sub-type. Regarding the type and instances of experiential metaphors, the two groups were similar in their GM use. With reference to students’ logical metaphor use, I have observed some differences. First of all, cause as verb was used more frequently by the high proficiency group. Similarly, the same group also used cause as adjective more frequently. I have identified five types of cause as noun in both groups’ texts. However, the number of students in the high proficiency group was 15, which means that the proficient students used cause as noun more frequently as well. The last type of logical metaphor was cause as adjective, which was never used by the low proficiency group. These findings suggest that the level of English language proficiency has an effect on students’ construal of in-clause causality, which refers to logical metaphor, and this finding is in line with the literature (Colombi, 2006; Brynes, 2009; Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Ryshina- Pankova, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2004); see Chapter 2. In summary, this chapter reported on the last phase of this action research project. Phase 3 focused on the undergraduate students who were enrolled in the Introduction to Linguistics unit in the Department of Linguistics. Similar to Phase 2, Phase 3 had an interventionist approach that focused on student frontloading and tutor training. This chapter was divided into four main headings to report on the action research, specifically planning, taking action, analysing results and reflecting on results. The planning section reported on the procedures of intervention planning for the last phase of the research. The taking action section

148

Chapter Six

outlined the actions taken prior to data analysis. The analysing results section presented findings that answer the four research questions formulated in the introduction section of this chapter. The goal of the last section, reflecting on results, was to evaluate the significance of findings that would pave the way to the following chapter. Chapter 7 will discuss the issues raised during the three phases of this action research project. Specifically, Chapter 7 aims to discuss the relationship between GM use and language proficiency, GM use and periodicity, GM feedback and ZPD, GM feedback and periodicity, and also the categorization of GM feedback.

CHAPTER SEVEN BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER

This chapter will discuss the similarities of and differences between the three research phases. The first section provides a general picture in relation to students’ GM use to examine the effects of the interventions that took place during Phase 2 and Phase 3. The second section provides a deeper analysis of the nature of GM feedback regarding level of explicitness, provision of rationale and use of metalanguage. The third section, building on the previous one, suggests a categorization of corrective and supportive GM feedback with examples from the three research phases. The fourth section highlights the relationship between GM feedback and the contexts in which GM feedback takes place. The fifth and final section discusses how GM feedback is cast depending on the proficiency level of students. The chapter ends with a summary and a brief outline of Chapter 8.

Language Proficiency and GM use This section discusses the way in which the ratio of GM per 1,000 words increases in relation to language proficiency. It has been observed that the students increased the frequency of GM instances throughout the three research phases. To be able to make comparisons across and between research phases, students’ GM use in their first draft of the first assignment and final draft of the final assignment were compared. The comparisons show that even the students, who participated in Phase 1 where no intervention was planned, improved their GM use. This finding is consistent with the literature that suggests how GM use improves with language development (Byrnes, 2009; Colombi, 2006; Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Ryshina–Pankova, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2004; Wang, 2010). Table 7.1 presents the frequency of technical terms, experiential metaphor and logical metaphor in relation to the research phases.

Chapter Seven

150

Research phase

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Drafts/ change Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assignment 4 final draft – instances per 1,000 words Change per 1,000 words Assignment 1 draft -1 instances per 1,000 words Assignment 3 final draft – instances per 1,000 words Change per 1,000 words Assignment 2 draft 1 – instances per 1,000 words Assignment 2 final – instances per 1,000 words Change per 1,000 words

Technical terms No.

Experiential metaphor No.

Logical metaphor No.

21

23

4.6

13

25

7.8

-8

2

3.2

6

14.6

5.4

6.4

14.9

7.2

.4

.3

1.8

1

28.1

14.7

1.5

32.2

21.5

.5

4.1

6.8

Table 7.1 Frequency of technical terms and GM across research phases (N=1,000 words) As shown in Table 7.1, the students improved their experiential and logical metaphor use during all three research phases. The increase was 2 per 1,000 words in Phase 1,3 per 1,000 words in Phase 2, and 4.1 per 1,000 words during Phase 3. While technical terms decreased at the end of Phase 1 (-8 per 1,000 words), the students used slightly more technical terms in their final drafts during Phase 2 (.4 per 1,000 words) and Phase 3 (.5 per 1,000 words).

Bringing it All Together

151

A comparison of Phase 1 and Phase 2 reveals similarities and differences. Firstly, I observed that students who participated in Phase 1 and Phase 2 used experiential and logical metaphors more frequently, although the increase in the instances of experiential metaphor was smaller in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. Although Phase 1 did not adopt an interventionist agenda, students improved their GM use. I also observed that during Phase 1 students used technical terms to a great extent (21 instances per 1,000 words). However, there was a drop in their technical term use in their final drafts of the final assignment (13 instances per 1,000 words). This finding highlights the difference between the two genres, procedural recount and compositional report. In other words, the procedural recount genre requires more frequent use of technical terms than the compositional report. This finding suggests that these two genres, due to their scientific nature, do not require personal opinions, as objectification is more valued. I have also observed similarities and differences between Phase 2 and Phase 3. Before making comparisons, it is important to note that these two phases were interventionist in nature. The intervention took place during Phase 2 focused on GM identification and formation, whereas the student frontloading and tutor training during Phase 3 also concentrated on GM use based on periodicity (see Chapter 5 and Chapter 6). Regarding the similarities between these two phases, I have observed that the students who participated in these phases used more instances of experiential and logical metaphors than technical terms. Furthermore, there was a slight increase in their technical term use in their final drafts. Regarding the differences, the frequency of experiential and logical metaphor in the very first draft was much higher during Phase 3, specifically, 28.1 and 14.7 per 1,000 words respectively, in comparison to the frequency of experiential (14.6 per 1,000 words) and logical (5.4 per 1,000 words) metaphors during Phase 2. This finding highlights the effectiveness of the intervention during Phase 3, which was based on periodicity at whole text level with less technical metalanguage being used. Secondly, the increase in the frequency of experiential metaphors was much higher (4.1 per 1,000 words) during Phase 3 in comparison to Phase 2 (.3 per 1,000 words). Based on these results, it can be argued that the tutors’ GM feedback during Phase 3 generated more instances of experiential metaphor. Next, the rise in the frequency of logical metaphor was much higher (6.8 per 1,000 words) in Phase 3 compared to Phase 2 (1.8 per 1,000 words). This finding suggests that tutors’ GM feedback

152

Chapter Seven

during Phase 3 resulted in more instances of logical metaphor. Therefore, the training in Phase 3 was more effective in comparison to Phase 2. The most salient finding was that the students improved their GM use in relation to their increasing language proficiency throughout the feedback cycles. To put it simply, the students improved their writing skills due to tutors’ feedback. This, in turn, had an effect on students’ GM use. The second important finding from these comparisons points to the effectiveness of the intervention during Phase 3, which concentrated on GM used in relation to periodicity. Having presented the similarities and differences between the research phases, I will discuss the nature of tutors’ GM feedback in relation to the level of explicitness, provision of rationale and use of metalanguage in the following section.

Feedback across Phases This section will first present an overall picture regarding the frequency of GM feedback across the research phases. The first section, therefore, is descriptive in nature, based on quantitative data analysis. The following three sections will turn the gaze onto distinct features of GM feedback in relation to how the tutors gave their feedback. The following sections will discuss the role of explicitness, rationale and metalanguage used in GM feedback throughout the research phases. During Phase 1, the tutors were not provided with training on GM; however, there were some instances of GM feedback. Phase 2 and Phase 3, on the other hand, aimed to develop an approach to teaching GM. Therefore; the tutors supported their students’ GM use in a more consistent and informed manner. Table 7.2 summarizes each phase in relation to GM feedback and students’ response to feedback.

Bringing it All Together

Research Phase

Genre

Phase 1

Procedural recount Compositional report Consequential explanation

Phase 2 Phase 3

153

Drafts analysed No.

GM feedback instances No.

Ratio of GM feedback per draft No.

Ratio of uptake to GM feedback No.

352

5

.014

.8

432

13

.06

.85

46

60

2.1

.9

Table 7.2 Tutors Feedback on GM and Students’ Response Table 7.2 shows that there is a marked difference in the ratio of instances of GM feedback in Phase 3 (2.1) compared to Phase 1 (0.014) and Phase 2 (0.06). This difference is mainly related to the intervention implemented to frontload students and train tutors. Although students’ language proficiency, genre familiarity and sociocultural background are also contributing factors to the ways in which they have improved their linguistic resources, the current research did not focus on these variables. There were mainly three important factors identified in tutors’ feedback: level of explicitness, provision of rationale and use of metalanguage. These will be discussed using examples in relation to the relevant literature.

Explicitness, Rationale, Metalanguage The level of explicitness refers to the way in which tutors provide GM feedback. More explicit feedback aimed to tell students exactly what to do and provided them with a correct or more appropriate option, while less explicit feedback aimed to elicit a correct or more appropriate option from various options available. While SLA research on corrective feedback focuses on targeting lexicogrammar (see Ellis, 2009), my categorization of explicitness is based on Sociocultural Theory of Learning (Lantolf, 2006) as the feedback instances were intended to correct and support students. Therefore, we draw on Lantolf and Aljaafreh’s (1994) explicitness scale in analysing GM feedback instances in relation to explicitness. The tutors cast their GM feedback in relation to the proficiency level of their students. In other words, proficient students might be provided with more implicit feedback, while more explicit feedback might easily be taken up by less proficient students. In the feedback process, another

154

Chapter Seven

important issue concerns the negotiation of feedback with a student. When a teacher provides implicit feedback to a low achiever, and observes that the students does not make any changes, then the feedback may need to be framed more explicitly. This means that the tutor has to monitor how students respond to the feedback on each draft and change their feedback strategies when providing feedback on the next draft. However, the way GM feedback was categorized in relation to explicitness was slightly different from Lantolf and Aljaafreh’s (1994) scale, as I only grouped the instances of feedback based on two levels, more explicit and less explicit. The second important notion identified in the data set was the provision of a rationale for making changes. When the tutors gave their feedback, they also provided the students with a rationale for change. Rationale refers to providing students with explanation or elaboration regarding the revision suggested. I have identified various ways in which the tutors supported their students. The most commonly used way of providing a rationale was to tell students why a change was necessary and how the change would improve the text section. A second way of doing this was through directing students to the support material prepared. Also, the tutors provided students with clues to elicit a more appropriate option from them, e.g. suggesting sentence beginnings. The provision of rationale and its role in the learning process has not been investigated in the SLA and SLW frameworks (see Chapter 2). Therefore, this is a contribution of the project to the literature on written feedback. The third important factor regarding tutors’ feedback was the use of metalanguage. Metalanguage can be simply defined as the language used to talk about language. In other words, it is the language used while providing written comments/feedback. In SLA research, Ellis (2009) outlines various ways of providing feedback by using different metalanguage. In addition, other research that analyses SLW identifies various ways of using metalanguage (Li, 2010; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Russell & Spada 2006). In the current research context, the tutors provided written feedback on GM using different metalanguage in various research phases. I will now take a look at the examples from the three research phases to explore how the level of explicitness, provision of rationale, and the use of metalanguage shaped tutors’ feedback. The first example, which is from Phase 1, presents shows how a tutor provided a student with feedback on consecutive drafts.

Bringing it All Together

155

Example 7.1a (Student 14 report 2 – draft 1), same as Example 4.11a Therefore comparing the data with the theoretical and checking whether the equation is right or not {Can you think of a noun that refers to whether something is accurate or not? A word like this would sound more technical than whether x is right or not} become an important precaution of the experiment.

In Example 7.1a, the tutor wants to elicit an experiential metaphor from the student. The way the tutor frames the feedback is regarded as implicit as the tutor aims to elicit the desired form from the student. The tutor also notes the importance of such a revision, which is regarded as rationale in the context of the research. The metalanguage the tutor uses can be considered commonsense rather than technical. The student revises the text section based on the feedback, but does not come up with a word to express whether something is accurate or not. The following extract is taken from a student’s response to feedback in draft 2. Example 7.1b (Response in draft 2), same as Example 4.11b Therefore, comparing the data with the theory and checking whether the experimental result is accurate or not become an important precaution of the experiment.

The student makes a revision in draft 2; however, this revision is not what the tutor was looking for. The student simply copies “accurate or not” from the feedback and pasted it into draft 2. The tutor follows up with another instance of feedback, targeting the same text section. This time the level of explicitness increases. Example 7.2a (Student 14 report 2 – draft 2), same as Example 4.12a Therefore comparing the data with the theory and checking whether the experimental result is accurate or not {use nominalisation “the accuracy of ....” This will improve the sentence, making more formal and academic} become an important precaution of the experiment.

Different from the feedback instance discussed above, the tutor provides more explicit feedback to tell the student what to do. The tutor provides feedback, helping the student to use “accuracy”. According to the tutor, the use of such a word would improve the sentence and make it more academic and formal. This refers to rationale. The tutor uses the word “nominalization”, which is considered technical metalanguage. This time, the student makes the necessary revision in the final submission.

156

Chapter Seven Example 7.2b – (Response in final submission), same as Example 4.12b Therefore, comparing the data with the theory and checking the accuracy of the experimental results become an important precaution of the experiment.

Due to the tutors’ follow-up feedback, the student uses the phrase “the accuracy of” and also manages to place the suggested phrase within the sentence accurately. These examples show how feedback can be given explicitly, implicitly, with rationale, and using commonsense and technical metalanguage. They also show how the tutors have to monitor student response and then adjust their feedback as necessary. The second example is from Phase 2 where a student is provided with feedback on GM use. Example 7.3a (Student 93 report 2 – draft 1), same as Example 5.4a The first one is the 1kȍ resistor, which is used to provide a biasing current. The Zener diode is to regulate {you could use the simple present tense here ‘regulates’. Alternatively you could use Grammatical metaphor, beginning the sentence with “Regulation of...”} the voltage across the load. It should be noted that the Zener diode is placed in a reverse biased way.

In Example 7.3a, a tutor provides feedback to Student 93 to help him/her improve the text section using GM. The way the tutor cast the feedback is implicit, as starting the sentence with “regulation of” will require forming a grammatically correct sentence based on several options. The text section suggested to the student serves as a clue rather than as fixing the text. The tutor does not tell the student why this change is necessary. That is, no rationale is provided. The metalanguage used in the feedback instance is technical, using the term GM, which is considered technical. The student revises the text section. Example 7.3b (Response in draft 2), same as Example 5.4b The first one is the 1kȍ resistor, which is used to provide a biasing current. Regulation of the voltage across the load is determined by the Zener diode.

The student benefits from the feedback and manages to form a grammatically accurate clause using an instance of experiential metaphor. This example shows how feedback can be cast explicitly without rationale or using technical metalanguage.

Bringing it All Together

157

The last set of examples also shows how a tutor follows up the same text section in consecutive drafts. This set comes from Phase 3. Example 7.4a (Max – draft 1) Nominalization helps us for the purpose of compacting information, organizing information in more logical way, making the style of writing more academic and formal and removing people from the text. {Can you think of a more formal phrase here, example: removal of animate objects....}

In Example 7.4a above, the tutor supports Max by telling him to think of a more formal phrase. The tutor suggests a text section to Max and Max uses the suggested phrase in his second draft. The way the feedback is cast is explicit because it tells the student how to revise the text. However, the tutor does not provide a rationale to tell the student how this change will improve the text. That is, no rationale is provided. The metalanguage does not involve any technicality, thus it is considered commonsense. Example 7.4b (Response in draft 2) Nominalization helps to compact information, organize information in more logical way, make the style of writing more academic and formal and removal of animate objects.

Max uses the suggestion to revise the text section. However, other points listed in the thesis statement remain unchanged. Therefore, the tutor follows up with another instance of feedback in draft 2. Example 7.5a (Max – draft 2) Nominalization helps to compact information, organize information in more logical way, make the style of writing more academic and formal and removal of animate objects. {The last part of the sentence is nominalized where as the earlier part still includes the process. The highlighted part can be made more terse and compact by using nominalization.}

The tutor simply reminds Max of the other points that are not nominalized in the thesis statement. The other points are highlighted for Max to spend more time on. This feedback instance is also explicit in comparison to the one provided in draft 1 (it also includes metalanguage, but no rationale). Max makes the necessary changes in his final submission.

158

Chapter Seven Example 7.5b (Response in final submission) Nominalization is useful in compactness information, re-organization information in more logical way, making the writing style more academic and formal and removal of animate objects.

Max, in the final version of his explanation, manages to nominalize all the points that are listed in the thesis statement. In summary, the training provided to the tutors increased the feedback instances during Phase 2. Also, the training provided to the tutors during Phase 3 generated more GM feedback instances in Phase 3. To be able to fully understand the reasons behind this, I have investigated important features of GM feedback in relation to the level of explicitness, provision of rationale and the use of metalanguage. During Phase 2, the tutors provided more instances of explicit feedback. However, there was a variety in GM feedback in relation to the level of explicitness and provision of a rationale during Phase 3. Furthermore, the use of metalanguage was less technical than in Phase 2. The next section will present a categorization of GM feedback, drawing on examples from the three research phases.

Feedback Topology Based on the features of GM feedback discussed in the previous section, this section presents a categorization of GM feedback. The categorization of GM feedback is explicated using a grid, in relation to the level of explicitness and provision of rationale consisting of four quadrants. Furthermore, the level of explicitness and the provision of rationale are surrounded by the metalanguage. The GM feedback instances that were framed explicitly without rationale were referred to as carrying, which is similar to a situation where a parent carries a baby. The second quadrant was considered hand holding where the students were provided with a rationale, which is similar to a situation where a parent holds hands with their child. The third quadrant was titled bridging where the tutors provided less explicit feedback with rationale. This category is similar to parents building a bridge for their child to cross over. The fourth quadrant is named free climbing where the tutors simply asked students to make changes implicitly without providing any rationale, which reminds one of free climbing where the child climbs up a boulder without using ropes. Figure 7.1 illustrates how the explicitness of feedback and the provision of rationale relate to each other within the boundaries of a shared metalanguage.

Bringing it All Together

159

 Figure 7.1 Topology of feedback within metalanguage (Devrim, 2014, p. 6)

Figure 7.1 shows the categorization of feedback based on explicitness and provision of rationale. The explicitness of feedback is given in a cline ranging from more explicit to less explicit. As the context of this particular study is an online one, the feedback instances provided to students are all explicit without implying or indirect feedback (as discussed in Ellis, 2009). However, explicitness in my context refers to one correct or another more appropriate option suggested by the tutors. The explicit feedback, thus, tells the student what to do exactly. On the other hand, implicit feedback aims to elicit a correct or more appropriate option from the students. In this case, the tutors do not tell students what to do. Instead, the students are encouraged to come up with improved text sections using their linguistic repertoire. In the data set, some instances of feedback required students to consider only one option where students were expected to delete a text section, or use the noun form of a verb. This type of feedback might be considered a rewrite where students need to revise their work based on only one correct/desired option. Furthermore, this type of feedback (carrying and hand holding) is framed to correct students’ writing. On the

160

Chapter Seven

other hand, the feedback, which is classified as belonging to bridging and free climbing, involves several correct options. This is the case when students are asked to make a change in their text, but this change results in restructuring the whole clause where there is more than one way of doing it. Less explicit feedback, thus, takes the form of comment rather than rewrite and aims to elicit the revised version of text from students rather than correcting their mistakes (see Devrim, 2014). The rationale axis in Figure 7.1 refers to the ways in which the tutors chose to tell a student how a text section would be improved based on a suggested change, to show how to revise a text section or to direct students to support documents. Furthermore, these feedback instances provided the students with information on how the change would improve their assignments or how to manage the change by providing students with clues. The language feedback provided with rationale as to why a particular change is required is grounded in students’ ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978) and framed in relation to student language frequency.

Carrying: Explicit feedback without any rationale The first category of feedback was framed explicitly without providing a rationale that explains the process or why revision is necessary. Throughout the data set, the majority of instances of feedback were provided as more explicit without providing a rationale. Explicit feedback without any rationale takes place when tutors only asked students to make changes without telling them why the change was necessary. This feedback type might request students to delete a text section or use a clause/sentence that tutors think will fix the problem in the text, and as a result, improve the text. Table 7.3 presents how tutors supported their students providing explicit feedback without rationale.

Bringing it All Together

Research phase Phase 1 Phase 2

Phase 3

161

Feedback instances no instance observed Example 7.6 (same as Example 5.6a) Lastly, the 0.1K-ohm resistor converts the current to voltage, enabling us to measure {You could use the grammatical metaphor in this spot e.g. : the measurement of...} the output voltage across it. Example 7.7 People always use this kind of transformation because it is ordinary and used generally on language either written or spoken language. {I would suggest you start your sentence as ‘Nominalisation can be used in both written and spoken language’.} It happens more frequently in written language appreciably.

Table 7.3 Explicit feedback without any rationale (+E, -R) The feedback instances in Table 7.3 demand text revisions from students based on one desired option. Example 7.6 (in Table 7.3) suggests the student use GM to replace the phrase “us to measure”. This feedback instance concerns experiential metaphor use. The feedback is framed as suggestion. Example 7.7 (in Table 7.3), on the other hand, suggests a clause complex to the student. These two examples provide students with suggestions and do not mention how these text sections will improve students’ assignments. Therefore, the feedback instances discussed in this sub-section are categorized as explicit feedback with no rationale provided.

Hand holding: Explicit feedback with rationale provided This category of feedback refers to the situation where tutors provide reasons for text revision or clues that help students revise their texts. Different from the examples in Section 7.4.1, where students received feedback without rationale, the tutors also provided explicit feedback with rationale. The following three extracts from the data set show how tutors managed this.

162

Research phase Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Chapter Seven

Feedback instances Example 7.8 (same as Example 4.12a) Therefore comparing the data with the theory and checking whether the experimental result is accurate or not {use nominalisation “the accuracy of ....” This will improve the sentence, making more formal and academic} become an important precaution of the experiment. Example 7.9 (same as Example 5.7a) The Zener Diode serves a function of stabilizing the variable voltage applied on it at a certain value. To ensure the Zener diode is working at Zener region {Instead of using infinitive to start the sentence, you may try using a noun (see Support Material for A2 on grammatical metaphors). For example, you may write this: The performance of the Zener diode at Zener region is protected by the use of ... and you will have to adjust the remaining part of the sentence}, the reversebiasing voltage should larger than Zener voltage. Example 7.10 Thirdly, nomination can modify the text in a more academic and formal way. It {Rather than starting your sentence with the empty theme “It”, why not use the demonstrative article “This”, which tells your reader that you are referring to the process mentioned in the last sentence?} is because the abstract meaning are formed through nomination.

Table 7.4 Explicit feedback with rationale provided (+E, +R) The feedback instances presented in Table 7.4 as Examples are based on one correct/more appropriate option where students need to make the necessary change suggested by the tutors. It does not involve several correct choices and students need to rewrite their original sentence by making the suggested change. Example 7.8 suggests the students use nominalization and provides the correct form with rationale that tells the students how this change will improve the text. The following example, Example 7.9, provides the student with the desired form by directing the student to the support material that was posted on CityU’s e-learning website. Example 7.10, similarly, illustrates how a student was supported on experiential metaphor use where the student is provided with an explanation regarding the necessity of revision. Feedback instances belonging to this category do not require elicitation from students where students need to come up with a correct version from several choices. However, students are provided with a rationale why the suggested change is necessary. This might strengthen the learning process, because the tutors interact with the students rather than showing them how to fix their text,

Bringing it All Together

163

using the opportunity to explain reasons. They tell them why we use language the way we do and therefore help them understand the linguistic choices that they are being asked to make – instead of just being told what to do without any clear reasoning why it should be done and what effect it might have.

Bridging: Low explicitness feedback with rationale provided This category of feedback, which aims to elicit more appropriate options from students, provides them with explanations on context and procedure, or the importance of a suggested revision. This category is different from the first two categories discussed above in the sense that it is based on several correct/more appropriate options with the aim of elicitation. The students are supported in the form of comments that make them think and thus in turn elicit a better option from several correct options. The students are asked to revise a sentence by using GM. To revise their text sections, students need to revise the whole sentence, and there are several ways of revising a sentence. Table 7.5 presents how tutors preferred to elicit text revisions through elicitation rather than correction. Research phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Feedback instances no instance observed no instance observed Example 7.11 (same as Example 6.3a) First of all, nominalization helps compacting {Why don’t you try to use some nominalization here? By removing the processes from this sentence, you can realize some of the changes you discuss.} information.

Table 7.5 Less explicit feedback with rationale provided (-E, +R) The example presented in Table 7.5 does not only ask students to use GM, but it also provides clues on how to make changes. This feedback type has not been observed in the data from Phase 1 and Phase 2. Example 7.11 (in Table 7.5) asks the student to use nominalization and provides a rationale for the need to make a change. The tutor provides clues by underlining the text section where the change is required. This feedback type aims to elicit more formal and academic sounding revisions from students. The students are provided with a rationale for the need to make the changes required. The provision of a rationale is believed to encourage the elicitation process.

164

Chapter Seven

Free climbing: Low explicitness feedback without any rationale Feedback instances that are categorized in this section refer to the most implicit level of feedback identified in the data set. This feedback category does not provide an explanation of context, procedure or importance of text revision, but simply asks for revision based on a variety of correct/appropriate options. The students are asked to revise their phrases, groups, clauses and sentences through provision of less explicit feedback without rationale. This type of feedback simply tells students what to do, but no clues are provided as to how to make changes and why change is required. Table 7.6 provides examples of this category of feedback from three research cycles. Research phase Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Feedback instances Example 7.12 (same as Example 4.14a) Error is something that cause the experiment result not in accuracy and not in precise. They will appear in any areas like the instrument, the environment and personal. There are several uncertainty would be found in this experiment. {See if you can condense this information to one sentence that introduces the idea that various errors can occur in the experiment}. Example 7.13 (same as Example 5.5a) Otherwise, people may be hurt by the high voltage on the output. {could you rewrite this without using ‘people’? consider using Grammatical metaphor - consider a new sentence using ‘injury’} Example 7.14 (same as Example 6.7a) During the nominalization, the information is compacted. Besides, the information is organized more logically. Moreover, the style of writing is changed to more academic and formal and people in the text are removed. {These sentences can be easily summed up in one sentence with the help of nominalization.}

Table 7.6 Less explicit feedback without any rationale (-E, -R) Example 7.12 concerns logical metaphor use. This feedback instance asks the student to condense the information into one sentence. The tutor does this without mentioning the importance of condensing information into one sentence. That is, the tutor does not provide a rationale. Similarly, Example 7.13 suggests that the student form a new sentence using “injury”. The tutor wants to elicit an instance of experiential metaphor from the student without providing an explanation as to how to do it or

Bringing it All Together

165

how this change will improve the text. The third example, Example 7.14, simply requests a text revision through the use of nominalization. This type of GM feedback is based on the ZPD of students and the tutors’ ability to provide feedback in relation to the language proficiency level of students. Briefly, throughout the three research phases it was possible to categorize GM feedback using a grid. The grid was surrounded by the shared metalanguage, including more and less technicality. The level of the explicitness axis spreads on the cline of –explicit and +explicit, the provision of the rationale axis presented a cline from –rationale to + rationale. In other words, the research project adds a new dimension to the categorization of feedback in SCT (e.g. Lantolf & Aljaafreh, 1994) and the SLATE project (Humphrey et al., 2010). The next section will discuss the effectiveness of feedback in relation to text sections and the ZPD of students.

Feedback and GM use This section discusses the relationship between GM feedback and GM use based on periodicity (Martin & Rose, 2003). Periodicity refers to the organization of textual meanings in text consisting of smaller and larger waves. These waves are realized by thesis statement, topic sentence, concluding sentence and paraphrase of thesis statement. Figure 7.2 presents periodicity at whole text level.

166

Chapter Seven

Figure 7.2 Periodicity at whole text level (based on Martin & Rose, 2003)

Figure 7.2 illustrates how various information waves relate to the whole text. Macro-Theme previews the context of the texts, and then each point listed in macro-Theme is further previewed in hyper-Theme and summarized in hyper-New. Macro-New summarizes the points discussed in the conclusion. Organization of text based on various information waves was also referred to as “implication structure” in an earlier article by Martin, Wignell, and Eggins (1993). During Phase 1 and Phase 2, GM feedback was not related to periodicity at whole text level. Because the tutors were not trained in GM feedback provision during Phase 1 and the tutor training provided focused on clause level, the tutors did not provide GM feedback in relation to periodicity. We will now present two instances of feedback where the tutors did not target information waves.

Feedback example targeting second sentence of a draft The training that took place during Phase 3 focused on periodicity at whole text level (see Chapter 6). Therefore, the tutors supported students’ GM use in thesis statements, topic sentences, concluding sentences and

Bringing it All Together

167

paraphrase of thesis statement in the conclusion. To provide a better understanding, I will present two examples, which were not framed within information flow. The first example presents GM feedback targeting the second sentence of a draft. The second example aims at the evaluation of an example in a body paragraph. Example 7.15a (Daisy to Peg – introduction second sentence) It is the process of producing a noun by adding some derivational affixes to the words in another part of speech instead of noun. People always use this kind of transformation of morphology because it is ordinary and used generally on language either written or spoken language. {Why is such transformation ordinary? You can remove ‘people’ by nominalising your sentence here. It will help shorten your sentence, too. }

In Example 7.15a Daisy’s feedback targets the second sentence where Peg evaluates the use of nominalization. Daisy asks Peg to nominalize the sentence, which will make the sentence shorter. The feedback instance belongs to the “bridging” category where feedback is worded implicitly with the aim of eliciting a more appropriate option from the student. As it also provides how this change will affect the text, it is regarded as a rationale. The metalanguage used is less technical compared to Phase 2. The feedback, however, does not target an information wave, although the other feedback instances targeting topic sentences work with this particular student. However, the feedback does not result in revision where the student would use GM. Example 7.15b (Response in final submission) It is the process of producing a noun by adding derivational affixes to the words in another part of speech. The transformation of morphology is ordinarily used and appreciably occurs more frequently in written language.

The student simply deletes this part of the text rather than attempting to use GM. In other words, the feedback did not help the student use GM.

Feedback targeting an evaluative sentence in a body paragraph Example 7.16a below presents an instance of GM feedback targeting a sentence that evaluates an example used in a body paragraph.

168

Chapter Seven Example 7.16a (Anna to Nolan – body paragraph 3 example evaluation) However, in the second topic sentence in the written text, the immediacy of speech makes it ideal for social functions, abstract idea about the significance of the immediacy of speech is formed there without raising any examples in the topic sentence {This portion of the sentence is overly complex, with too many processes. Can you try to rephrase this using nominalization, and make the example more clear?}.

In Example 7.16a, Anna provides feedback on GM with rationale. The feedback instance is worded implicitly, aiming to elicit a more appropriate text section from Nolan. The tutor, Anna, also provides a rationale as to why this change is necessary. The metalanguage used is limited to “nominalization”, which is not highly technical. Nolan revises the text section; however, the change does not result in the nominalization of processes as Anna had suggested. Example 7.16b (Response in final submission) However, abstract idea is formed with needlessness of examples in the topic sentence. It is illustrated in the second topic sentence in the written text, the immediacy of speech makes it ideal for social functions. Those concrete examples in the spoken text are combined to an abstract concept, which is the significance of the immediacy of speech in the written text by making use of nominalization.

The student revises the text section and the meaning is clearer this time. However, Nolan does not include additional GMs to revise the text section. Although the other feedback instances targeting topic sentences and thesis statement help Nolan use GM, this particular feedback instance does not result in GM use. The examples discussed above show that GM feedback might not result in a student’s revision when it does not target information waves. The students were frontloaded regarding using experiential metaphor in thesis statement and topic sentences. Different from the feedback in SLA (Ellis, 2009) and SLW research (Ferris, 2010), the results from the current study show that the context in which feedback is provided is also important. This section presented various ways in which the tutors helped their students use GM. The level of explicitness, provision of rationale and the use of metalanguage were important characteristics of feedback. Additionally, the context of feedback is identified as another feature of feedback. The next section will focus on the fifth dimension of feedback,

Bringing it All Together

169

which is related to students’ proficiency level, and the ways in which tutors worked considering students’ ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978).

Feedback and ZPD The analysis of the feedback on GM and response to feedback from students reveals the fifth important characteristic of feedback, which is related to language proficiency. This refers to the concept of ZPD suggested by Vygotsky (1978). In this section I will focus on a tutor whose GM feedback resulted in full student uptake. The analysis of the data set reveals that one of the tutors who received training on GM, Amy, helped low and high proficiency students to revise their drafts by providing feedback based on the ZPD of students. Amy provided 17 instances of GM feedback. She worked with three high and three low proficiency students. All the instances of GM support were responded to as full uptake. The following sub-section explores the reasons behind this. All of Amy’s GM feedback instances resulted in full uptake. This subsection will be devoted to Amy’s support on GM. Amy was responsible for three high proficiency students, Latanya, Tasha and Max, and three low proficiency students, Shanice, Suzy and Serenity, students. Table 7.7 illustrates the distribution of Amy’s GM feedback.

Chapter Seven

170

Student Latanya - high (14) Tisha - high (15)

Max - high (13)

Draft

Feedback type

2

free climbing

1

bridging

2

free climbing

1

hand holding bridging

2

bridging bridging carrying

Shanice - low (11)

1

free climbing bridging bridging bridging hand holding

Suzy - low (12) Serenity - low (12)

Text section body paragraph 2: topic sentence body paragraph 3: topic sentence body paragraph 4: topic sentence introduction: thesis statement introduction: evaluation of definition introduction: thesis statement body paragraph 1: topic sentence body paragraph 2: evaluation of example introduction: thesis statement body paragraph 1: topic sentence body paragraph 1: concluding sentence body paragraph 2: topic sentence body paragraph 4: topic sentence

1

hand holding

introduction: thesis statement

2

hand holding

1

hand holding

2

hand holding

introduction: thesis statement body paragraph 4: evaluation of topic sentence introduction: thesis statement

Table 7.7 An overview of Amy’s GM feedback The first column presents students’ names with their MASUS grade (out of 16) in parentheses, with the status of the draft given in the second column. The other columns show the type of support given, based on explicitness and provision of rationale, and the text section where the support was provided. Table 7.7 shows that proficient students received more instances of less explicit support, classified as bridging and free climbing, while less proficient students received more instances of more explicit support, e.g. hand holding. Figure 7.3 presents the distribution of type of support among high and low achievers.

Bringing it All Together

171

…ƒ””›‹‰ Šƒ†Š‘Ž†‹‰ Š‹‰Š’”‘ˆ‹…‹‡…› Ž‘™’”‘ˆ‹…‹‡…›

„”‹†‰‹‰ ˆ”‡‡…Ž‹„‹‰ Ͳ

ʹ

Ͷ

͸

Figure 7.3 Distribution of Amy’s feedback based on type

As shown in Figure 7.3, the proficient students received one instance of support belonging to carrying, while the low proficiency students are not supported with this type. The biggest difference between high and low proficiency students concerned the hand holding category where students were provided with explicit support with rationale. The high proficiency group gets only one instance of this type, whereas the low proficiency group receives five instances of hand holding. This is the major difference between support provided to the high and low proficiency groups. In regards to less explicit support, the high proficiency group received four instances of bridging, whereas the low proficiency group received three instances of this type of feedback. The last category of feedback, free climbing, is provided to the high proficiency group twice and the low proficiency group once. To sum up, the low proficiency group receives more instances of the explicit type of support, whereas the high proficiency group receives more instances of less explicit support. Consequently, Amy managed to provide feedback in relation to the ZPD of her students in each instance of feedback she provided. Not only did Amy provide feedback in relation to the ZPD of her students, she also targeted the notion of periodicity while providing feedback. Figure 7.4 presents the distribution of feedback on assignments.

Chapter Seven

172

ƒ…”‘ǦŠ‡‡ Š›’‡”ǦŠ‡‡ Š‹‰Š’”‘ˆ‹…‹‡…› Ž‘™’”‘ˆ‹…‹‡…›

Š›’‡”Ǧ‡™ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘ Ͳ

ʹ

Ͷ

͸

Figure 7.4 Distribution of Amy’s feedback based on text section

Figure 7.4 reveals the text sections that Amy targeted. She focused on the information waves of periodicity: macro-Theme, hyper-Theme and hyperTheme. She also provided three instances of GM support where students evaluate their topic sentences. The low proficiency group received four instances of support on macro-Theme, whereas the high proficiency group was supported twice. The situation is the other way around regarding feedback instances targeting hyper-Theme. The low proficiency group received three instances while the high proficiency group received four. There is only one instance of feedback targeting hyper-New, which was provided to a low proficiency student. Lastly, students also received support while they were evaluating their topic sentences. The low proficiency group received one instance of feedback, while the high proficiency group was supported twice. Overall, the low proficiency group received more feedback than the high proficiency group on their macro-Theme (thesis statement); on the other hand, the high proficiency group received more instances of feedback on their hyper-Theme (topic sentence), although the numbers are quite close to each other. The reason why Amy reached a hundred per cent success rate lies in her ability to adjust her support according to the proficiency level of her students as well as targeting waves of information. In order to explore how she manages this, I need to investigate four examples. Two of these

Bringing it All Together

173

examples were provided to a high proficiency student, and these are less explicit, and the other two come from low proficiency students to whom she provided two instances of explicit support. In the first example, Amy supports a high achiever, Tisha, who received 15 out of 16 on the MASUS marking criteria. Amy targets Tisha’s topic sentence in body paragraph three where she frames her support as less explicit and with rationale. Example 7.17a (Bridging Amy to Tisha – draft 1) Such kind of formation of abstract ideas from the concrete one can attain more formal and academic writings. {{You can also try some nominalization here to make this sentence sound more formal.}} Example 7.17b (Response in Draft 2) Such kind of formation of abstract ideas from the concrete one facilitates the attainment of more formal and academic writings.

Amy only asks Tisha to use nominalization and this will make the sentence more formal. No additional information is provided as to how to do it. However, the topic sentence in Tisha’s second draft includes two GM instances, a nominalization (attainment) and a logical metaphor (facilitate). Due to the placement of support and Amy’s realization that implicit support will work with the student, Tisha comes up with two appropriate uses of GM that enhance the formality of the text. The next example of support is again provided to Tisha. Example 7.18a ( Free climbing Amy to Tisha – draft 2) Finally, removal of animate subjects is involved {{I am not sure if this verb is the most suitable here. Try to begin your sentence with the theme ‘nominalization’ and use a verb to show ‘cause and effect relationship’.}} with the use of nominalization. Example 7.18b (Response in final) Finally, the use of nominalization gives rise to the removal of animate subjects.

Amy supports Tisha in her topic sentence of the fourth body paragraph. The support is classified as free climbing where the support is implicit with no provision of rationale. Amy first asks Tisha to move the theme of the assignment to the subject position and use a verb to show a cause and

174

Chapter Seven

effect relationship. Being a proficient writer, Tisha makes the correct moves and comes up with an instance of logical metaphor, which completes the sentence. The next two examples present support provided to a low proficiency student, Suzy. Suzy received 12 out of 16 on the MASUS marking criteria and received support twice on her thesis statement. The following instance of support is classified hand holding. Example 7.19a (Hand holding Suzy – draft 1) The effects of the change are compacting information, organizing texts better, making the style of writing more academic and formal, and removing people from the texts. {{You can also try to use some nominalization here. To make your sentence more formal instead of using the phrase “removing people” you can use “removal of animate objects.”}} Example 7.19b (Response in draft 2) The effects of the change are compacting information, organizing texts better, making the style of writing more academic and formal, and removal of animate objects .

Suzy lists the effects of nominalization in her thesis statement by using ING-nominalization. Amy provides her with support by asking her to use “removal” instead of “removing”. The feedback is framed explicitly, because Suzy is told what to do exactly. Suzy manages to revise the last effect of nominalization with the noun “removal”. Amy continues to support her in her draft 2. Example 7.20a (Hand holding Amy to Suzy – draft 2) The effects of the change are compacting information, organizing texts better, making the style of writing more academic and formal, {A good attempt to state the features of nominalization, however can you try to remove the process from this sentence? This can be done by using nominalization, e.g. ‘compactness of information’, ‘better organization of information.....’} and removal of animate objects. Example 7.20b (Response in final submission) The effects of the change are compactness of information, better organization of information, more academic and formal style of writing, and removal of animate objects.

Bringing it All Together

175

Amy supports Suzy with the same type of support, providing rationale and showing Suzy what to do. Based on the feedback, Suzy uses two more instances of experiential metaphor. Amy is one of the GM trained language tutors who provided 17 instances of GM feedback to her high and low achievers. All instances of Amy’s GM support resulted in revision. A close exploration of her support reveals that she manages to concentrate on information waves where it is appropriate to use GM (Martin, Wignell & Eggins, 1993). The second important issue is her ability to support high achievers with less explicit support and low achievers with more explicit support. To sum up, this chapter discussed the important issues arising from the research findings. The first section aimed to provide a broader picture of students’ GM use during various phases of the research. It was observed that the students improved their GM use during the three research phases. This suggests that GM use increases due to the development of language proficiency as well the intervention. The next section discussed the salient characteristics of GM feedback in relation to the level of explicitness, presence of rationale and the use of metalanguage. These characteristics were used to develop a categorization of GM feedback in the following section. The following sections discussed two other important characteristics of GM feedback that relate to periodicity and the language proficiency level of students. The next chapter will summarize the book, and discuss the limitations encountered in the research process as well as present pedagogical implications arising from the project.

CHAPTER EIGHT SUMMARIZING THE RESEARCH, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Chapter 8 summarize the action research project that spanned a period of three years between 2008 and 2010. The context, data analysis procedures and findings of each research phase will be summarized. This will be followed by two sections where the pedagogical implications and limitations of the research will be discussed. Finally, the chapter will conclude with suggestions for future research.

Research Context This research was conducted to develop an approach to teach GM to undergraduate students who used English as a second language. The research was conducted as part of the Scaffolding Literacy in Adult and Tertiary Environments (SLATE) project, which was jointly conducted by the City University of Hong Kong and the University of Sydney. GM is one of the fundamental characteristics of the academic register (Halliday, 1985a; Halliday & Martin, 1993), and its mastery can lead to success in educational contexts. Thus, developing an approach to teaching GM is crucial. The SLATE project was based on the fundamental notions of the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy, which incorporates SFL inspired genre-based theory (Martin and Rose 2008), sociology of education (Bernstein, 1975) and sociocultural theory of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The SLATE project applied these insights to an online teaching/learning medium where tutors working on the project were trained and provided online feedback to students. The research project reported in this book is framed as action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Freebody, 2003; Burns, 2010).

The Research, Implications, Limitations and Future Directions

177

Phase 1 The purpose of Phase 1, which was discussed in Chapter 4, was to understand how the undergraduate Electronic Engineering students employed GM, and whether they received feedback on GM from their tutors. That is, Phase 1 was set to gain an understanding of the research context. The students used experiential and logical metaphors in their laboratory reports, and they also received feedback from their tutors regarding their GM use. The experiential metaphor types identified through analysing 16 students’ first drafts were process as noun and quality as noun. Process as noun was used in the form of nominalization, ING-nominalization and demonstratives. Due to the specialized language required in the field of Engineering, the students also used technical terms. The technical terms were identified using word frequency counts obtained using the Simple Concordance Program. If both congruent and metaphorical forms existed in the data set, it was concluded that the words under investigation were not technicalized as both congruent and metaphorical forms were observed. In the opposite case, if only the metaphorical form existed in the data set without a congruent counterpart, it was concluded that those words were technicalized. For example, “accuracy” is the nominalized form of the adjective “accurate”. If both forms were identified in the data set, then it was concluded that “accuracy” was to be considered an experiential metaphor. The ratio of experiential metaphor use was 23 instances per 1,000 words, while the ratio of technical terms was 21 instances per 1,000 words. The students who participated in Phase 1 also used logical metaphors. The types of logical metaphor identified in the data set were cause as verb, cause as preposition and cause as noun. The ratio of logical metaphors identified per 1,000 words was 4.6 in the first draft of the first assignment. With reference to the feedback on GM, five instances of GM were identified. Three of these instances were classified as experiential metaphor and two as logical metaphor. The instances of GM were categorized using a topology, which was introduced in Chapter 7. The feedback topology consisted of four quadrants, i.e. carrying, hand holding, bridging and free climbing. One of the feedback instances was categorized as carrying, two as hand holding, one as bridging and one as free climbing. Furthermore, students’ response to feedback was categorized using another topology, also introduced in Chapter 7. While four instances

178

Chapter Eight

of GM feedback resulted in revision, one instance did not result in any student revision. Therefore, the ratio of student revision to the total number of GM feedback instances was .8. The total number of students enrolled in the Electronic Laboratory unit was 48, who were required to complete four reports consisting of two drafts; the total of number of drafts that received feedback was 352. Thus, the ratio of GM feedback per draft was .014. In order to explore the development of GM throughout the feedback cycles, the 16 students’ final drafts of their final assignments were also analysed to discover whether the frequency of students’ GM and technical term use had changed. It was observed that the students used more instances of experiential metaphor in the final drafts of their final assignment than in the first drafts of the first assignment. The change was 2 instances per 1,000 words. The students also used logical metaphors more frequently in the final draft of the final assignment, with a 3.2 frequency increase 1,000 words. Based on the findings from Phase 1, Phase 2 was planned with an interventionist approach.

Phase 2 Phase 2 aimed to teach GM to students and tutors through student frontloading and tutor training and focused on compositional reports by the undergraduate students enrolled in the Physics Laboratory. To train tutors on GM, a workshop series was designed and implemented. The training consisted of a presentation of findings from Phase 1 with a focus on theoretical explanations of types of GM, providing examples from the data set. This was followed by another session where the tutors were introduced to support material with a focus on GM identification and formation. With reference to student frontloading, the students were introduced to support material that provided background knowledge on GM types using examples from Phase 1. This support material was posted on CityU’s e-learning website, Blackboard. It was observed that students employed experiential and logical metaphors in their compositional reports. The experiential metaphors were in the form of process as noun and quality as noun, and the logical metaphors were in the form of cause as verb, cause as preposition and cause as noun. To distinguish experiential metaphors from technical terms, the method used in Phase 1 was followed. The first drafts of 11 students were uploaded into the Simple Concordance Program and word frequency

The Research, Implications, Limitations and Future Directions

179

counts obtained. The frequency of experiential metaphor instances was 14.6 per 1,000 words, the frequency of logical metaphors was 5.4 per 1,000 words, and the frequency of technical terms was 6 per 1,000 words. In regards to tutors’ feedback on GM, two types of feedback were observed. The first type occurred off-text, either at the beginning or the end of students’ reports. There were 13 instances of off-text support in the data set and they served to praise, encourage students, summarize focus of feedback and direct students to support materials posted on CityU’s elearning website. The tutors also provided in-text feedback where they placed open comments on students’ reports. There were 13 instances of intext feedback regarding GM, which were classified according to the feedback topology. One instance of feedback praised a student’s GM use, one instance was categorized as carrying, nine instances were categorized as hand holding, one feedback instance was categorized as bridging and one feedback instance was categorized as free climbing. The students responded to feedback rather positively with revisions. Of 13 instances of GM feedback, 11 resulted in text revision, resulting in a ratio of .85. To calculate the ratio of GM feedback instances per draft, the total number of drafts was divided by the number of feedback instances. The total of number of students was 108 and they composed two reports, each consisting of two drafts, thus the total number of drafts during Phase 2 was 432. The ratio was thus .06, which was much higher than the ratio observed in Phase 1. To explore the development of GM, the 11 students’ final drafts of the final assignment were analysed. It was observed that the students used slightly more instances of experiential metaphor in their very final draft (.3 per 1,000 words). Also, the instances of technical terms were slightly higher in number (.4 per 1,000 words). The students used more instances of logical metaphor with and increase of 1.8 per 1,000 words. The findings from Phase 2 were used to improve the intervention in Phase 3, which was based on periodicity at whole text level. It was observed that although there were more instances of GM feedback during Phase 2 than in Phase 1, the students who participated in Phase 1 also improved their GM use. Phase 2 had an interventionist agenda to frontload the students and train tutors. However, the focus of this intervention was based on periodicity at clause level with technical metalanguage. Therefore, Phase 3 aimed to improve the effectiveness of intervention

180

Chapter Eight

concentrating on periodicity at whole text level through simpler metalanguage.

Phase 3 Phase 3 focused on consequential explanation essays composed by the undergraduate students enrolled in the Introduction to Linguistics unit. Similar to Phase 2, Phase 3 adopted an interventionist approach through tutor training and student frontloading. Different from Phase 2, the training focused on the level of genre, with simpler metalanguage used between tutors and students, i.e. “use nominalization” or “nominalize”. The SLATE research team designed the assignment for this cohort in conjunction with the textbook used in the unit. The course book was Introduction to Linguistics (Fromkin 2010), and the focus was on derivational morphology during the time of the assignment. Thus, the SLATE research team designed an assignment titled the effects of nominalization on language. The students were frontloaded on the effects of nominalization, e.g. removal of people, better textual organization, etc. The tutor training, on the other hand, focused on explanation essays to show tutors how experiential and logical metaphors interact at the genre level. Based on the explanation provided on types of GM, the tutors worked on activities focusing on GM identification at paragraph and genre level, as well as on feedback provision on GM. The results from Phase 3 show that the students who participated in this phase employed a larger range of experiential and logical metaphors. Eight students’ first drafts were analysed to investigate their GM use. The use of two experiential metaphor types, process as noun and quality as noun, was observed. Process as noun was observed in the form of nominalization, ING-nominalization and demonstratives. Regarding the use of logical metaphor, cause as verb, cause as preposition, cause as noun and cause as adjective were observed in the data set. The frequencies of occurrence of experiential and logical metaphor per 1,000 words were 28.1 and 14.7 instances respectively. These figures are much higher than in the Phases 1 and 2. Feedback on GM was provided within and/or outside the body of the assignments. There were 36 instances of off-text feedback targeting GM, and 60 instances of in-text GM feedback. Applying the feedback topology, three instances of GM feedback were unclassified, 10 were categorized as carrying, 13 as hand holding, 20 as bridging, and 14 as free climbing.

The Research, Implications, Limitations and Future Directions

181

The total number of students who received feedback from the trained tutors was 23. They each submitted two drafts, so the total number of drafts analysed in terms of GM feedback was 46. The ratio of GM feedback per draft was calculated by dividing the number of GM feedback instances (96) by the total number of drafts (46). The ratio was 2.1, which was much higher than the ratio observed in Phase 2. Furthermore, the final drafts of eight students’ whose first drafts were analysed regarding their GM use were also analysed to explore whether the frequency of GM use had increased or not. I observed that the frequencies of experiential and logical metaphors increased by 4.1 and 6.8 instances per 1,000 words. These figures were higher than the figures seen in Phase 2. Therefore, I can argue that the intervention based on periodicity at whole text level was more effective in terms of the number of GM feedback instances, and students’ development of GM use. To conclude, the action research project reported in this book presented the ways in which undergraduate students enrolled in Applied Physics, Electronic Engineering and Linguistics employed GM. While experiential metaphors constituted the majority of GM instances in each phase of the research, more instances of logical metaphor were observed in Linguistics. Furthermore, experiential metaphor in the form of ING-nominalization was the most frequently employed GM sub-type throughout the research. However, it is observed that technical terms were also used frequently in laboratory and compositional reports composed by the students enrolled in Applied Physics and Electronic Engineering. In relation to GM feedback, the interventions implemented during Phase 2 and Phase 3 increased the number of instances of GM feedback. Moreover, the intervention in Phase 3 resulted in a variety of GM feedback regarding level of explicitness, provision of rationale and use of metalanguage. With reference to the intervention implemented, the teaching of GMbased periodicity at genre level using simplified metalanguage in Phase 3 was proven to be more effective than the intervention during Phase 2.

Limitations Throughout the design and implementation of this action research project, a number of limitations were experienced. The first of these limitations concerned the inability to work with one consistent field/genre.

182

Chapter Eight

The SLATE project was informed by CityU which courses were allocated to the SLATE project. Therefore, I worked with different units and different cohorts. Phase 1 of this action research project concentrated on laboratory reports of students who were enrolled in the Physics Laboratory unit. Phase 2, on the other hand, focused on compositional reports of students who were enrolled in the Analogue Laboratory unit of the Department of Electronic Engineering. Phase 1 and Phase 2 concentrated on reports; however, the purpose and staging of these reports were different from each other. Finally, Phase 3 focused on consequential explanations composed by students enrolled in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Sydney. During Phase 3, the field shifted from science to arts, and the focus on genre shifted from report to explanation. However, working with a consistent genre/field would have deepened the understanding of GM, as language use is discipline oriented, and the GM use shows variations across fields and genres. Another limitation was experienced during assignment design in Phase 3. At the beginning of the term, the SLATE research team designed two assignments for Introduction to Linguistics students. However, a sudden change in the unit syllabus reduced the responsibility of the SLATE team to only one assignment. Having the chance of designing two consecutive assignments would have had a positive effect on students’ written language development. However, the team had to base the training on only one assignment. Subsequently, the training on GM was also based on the only assignment designed by the research team. Due to this change, the team designed an assignment based on derivational morphology to be consistent with the syllabus of the Introduction to Linguistics unit. The genre of this assignment was consequential explanation where the students were asked to explain the effects of nominalization on language. Designing an assignment on nominalization, which is considered a type of experiential metaphor, was another limitation of this current research. Another limitation of the research is its inadequacy to answer the question: how much GM is use is too much? This is worth attention, because underuse of GM and overuse of GM are both problematic. Underuse of GM in texts results in commonsense meaning making, pushing texts away from written language; so English language users need to improve their GM use. However, overuse of GM makes texts difficult to read, as meanings are packed in linguistic structures. When GM is overused the texts become abstract and it is hard to identify processes, participants and circumstances. In order to find out what the appropriate and sufficient GM use is, further research is needed to investigate whether

The Research, Implications, Limitations and Future Directions

183

there is a saturation point for GM use. This action research aimed to develop an approach to teaching GM. Throughout the research phases, I moved away from the clause level to whole text level in order to design and implement a more effective intervention. However, the question how much GM use is sufficient remains to be unanswered. The findings from the research suggest that GM works well in relation to periodicity at the whole text level in consequential explanation genre. The saturation of GM is also needed to be explored using similar and/or different genres in different cohorts. Another limitation of the SLATE project was that the project was labour intensive and expensive. First of all, the tutors who worked on the project spent a significant amount of time providing feedback to their students. Not only were they expected to provide feedback to students’ essay, but they were also expected to check their feedback for consistency, do some administrative work such as entering the grades, and respond to emails. Furthermore, the project was expensive given the number of tutors and the hours required to do this work. However, there are a couple of ways to reduce the costs in time. Firstly, the introduction of a more effective use of computer technology would result in a reduction of costs in time. The tutors who took part in the project provided online written feedback based on the 3x3 Matrix. The matrix served as guidelines for tutors while they were casting their feedback. However, tutors had their own way of casting feedback. This created the major limitation for the project, as the tutors had to spend almost equal amount of time for each draft. This problem can be solved by preparing a comment bank based on the 3x3 Matrix. Following the creation of such a comment bank, the tutors who are new to the project can be scaffolded through the use of the comment bank in relation to the matrix. This will reduce the time spent in feedback provision and, in turn, result in a reduction of costs. One more limitation of the current action research is regarding the hurdles of bringing SFL, visible pedagogy and ZPD model in such traditionally based contexts such as Hong Kong. The research studies conducted on the English demands at Hong Kong tertiary institutions highlight the difficulties experienced by students (Li & Casanave, 2012; Poon, 2009; Flowerdew, Miller & Li, 2000). However, genre-based pedagogy of the Sydney School is a real alternative to solve these difficulties. First of all, the genre-based pedagogy helps identify the needs of students (Humphrey & Hao 2012), and this is the first step in dealing

184

Chapter Eight

with difficulties. Secondly, the pedagogy is helpful in developing tools and metalanguage that enhance learning (Dreyfus & Macnaught, 2012). Next, those tools and metalanguage are helpful in designing support material for students (Dreyfus, Humphrey, Mahboob and Martin, 2012). Finally, the pedagogy is effective in adapting to the needs of online learning-teaching contexts (Devrim 2014). Due to these reasons, the genre-based pedagogy of the Sydney School has a lot to offer to the academic literacy demands of traditionally based educational contexts like Hong Kong. One of the limitations of the current research is regarding the general criticism directed at the Sydney School’s genre-based pedagogy. The Sydney school receives a great amount of criticism and most of the criticism has been related to the definition and categorization of genres, additionally the theoretical foundations of a genre-based pedagogy. It is reasonable to argue that the criticisms targeted at Sydney School genre-based pedagogy mostly originate from the scholars who favour progressive approaches as opposed to a visible pedagogy adopted by the Sydney School. For example, Sawyer and Watson (1987) highlight the need for learner autonomy by referencing Freedman’s (1987b) research where she argues that genre learning is not a conscious process. Moreover, Sawyer and Watson ask for evidence to support the need for an explicit genre instruction. Complimentary to their assertions, Freedman (1994) herself also questions the necessity, usefulness and possibility of genre instruction. Furthermore, she accentuates her doubts regarding the most effective time to start genre teaching. In a recent paper, Martin (2012) highlights how the relationship between context and language is theorized in different ways in three genre traditions: NR, ESP and the Sydney School. According to Martin (2012), the Sydney school sees context and language existing in tangential circles, whereas NR and ESP see context and language. This difference makes NR and ESP put more emphasis on context rather less emphasis on linguistic features of language. However, the Sydney School places equal importance on context and language. This, in turn, helped the researchers who work in the Sydney School develop an explicit genre based pedagogy based on the context consisting of genre and register, and language including discourse semantics, lexicogrammar and graphology/phonology. Martin and Rose (2008, p. 258-260) summarize the criticisms directed at the Sydney School’s genre based pedagogy in five points; the scope genre covering various types of communication, the development of genres, boundaries of genres, the view that argues genres kill creativity,

The Research, Implications, Limitations and Future Directions

185

and the perspective that holds genre maintains hegemonic discourses. Martin and Rose (2008) touch upon the issue while discussing how the genre-based pedagogy emerged within SFL. Based on their analysis of the school genres taught in the Australian primary schools in the 1980s, they conclude that the genres taught to students did not prepare the students to write across curriculum in various subject areas. In addition, those genres did not prepare the student to the requirements of secondary schools. The progressive approaches during those years favoured a learner-based pedagogy in which the students decided what to write about, because the progressive approaches highlighted learner autonomy as a reaction to the traditional approaches. The progressive approaches categorized as ‘invisible pedagogy’ adopting Bernstein’s (1975) terminology. Therefore, the genre based pedagogy of the Sydney School sought to come up with a visible pedagogy, which empowers students as well as teachers. The scholars who work in the framework of the genre-based pedagogy of the Sydney School provide counter evidence to the criticisms directed at them. Martin and Rose (2008) highlight that the educational linguists who work in the Sydney School framework have a higher possibility to cover more meanings, as they engage with register variables. In terms of genre development, Martin and Rose (2008) give the news stories as a new genre type that evolved from story genres. As for the boundaries of genres, Martin and Rose (2008) posit that the confines of genres might be more visible in the analysis of macrogenres rather than sole analysis of single text types. The other criticism directed at the genre-based pedagogy of the Sydney School is that genres kill creativity. However, creativity in genres comes after the mastery of genres (Martin and Rose 2008, p. 258). In other words, students need to be competent in creating certain genres, before they become more creative. Another criticism argues that genres maintain hegemonic discourses or reproduce existing social values. Hegemonic discourses refer to the ways of meaning making that are promoted by the dominant values in societies. They are the “normal” ways of behaving in accordance with the existing norms or acceptable ways of meaning making. To address this criticism, Martin and Rose propose three counter arguments, the first being “genre derives from its power” (2008, p. 259). Thus, educational linguists are responsible for providing the disadvantaged with access to these powerful genres. Therefore, the explicit teaching of genres is not a limitation, but a productive strategy in empowering the disadvantaged. Moreover, genres are not constant concepts but everchanging ways of meaning making. That is, genres emerge and in time

186

Chapter Eight

they change and evolve to fulfil the demands of emerging social contexts. Martin et al. (1987) acknowledge the projects in which they developed the genre-based pedagogy in order to illustrate how much research had been conducted in the history of the genre-based pedagogy of the Sydney School.

Pedagogical implications The action research that this book reports on highlights the importance of the TLC (Rothery, 1994) in second language writing, the need for adapting the TLC to an online teaching/learning context, the significance of the level of text and of metalanguage in developing an approach to teach GM. The TLC provides a versatile tool for teachers to support second language users’ written language development. The deconstruction stage introduces model texts to students and those texts are broken down into stages and textual components such as beginnings, middles and ends. The next stage, joint construction, is based on the dialogue between the teacher and the students where the teacher creates the same genre being explored with students. Finally, the last stage, independent construction, provides students with opportunities to create texts without teachers’ support. The idea is based on working within the ZPD of students (Vygotsky, 1978). Furthermore, deconstruction and joint construction of texts is considered a visible pedagogy (Bernstein, 1975). Therefore, Sydney School’s genrebased pedagogy offers appliable resources for teaching and learning. Moreover, the findings from the research project show that the intervention to teach GM based on information flow at the genre level and using simple metalanguage resulted in more instances of GM feedback in Phase 3. The tutors’ training and students’ frontloading during Phase 2 focused on how GM is used in relation to the thematic structure of the clause. In other words, the examples used during the training sessions in Phase 2 presented instances of GM in clauses. Also, the metalanguage used by tutors and students in Phase 2 was GM as metalanguage. On the other hand, the information flow adopted during Phase 3 was at the genre level. The examples the tutors and the students were provided with showed how instances of GM were deployed at genre level. Furthermore, the metalanguage by tutors and students was limited to “nominalization”, “theme” and “cause verb”. Therefore, the students were able to respond positively to feedback instances that were framed more implicitly.

The Research, Implications, Limitations and Future Directions

187

It was also observed that the feedback topology introduced in Chapter 7 was helpful in categorizing feedback instances based on the level of explicitness, provision of rationale and use of metalanguage. The feedback topology introduced in Chapter 7 can be used in other tertiary level academic writing courses. Teachers of academic communication skills at university level can be trained in using the topology in order to provide feedback more effectively. Furthermore, students need to be aware of the feedback procedure as well as the metalanguage used. Related to the point above, language teachers should also be trained in providing feedback that takes into account students’ language proficiency. I observed that when a tutor provided feedback within the ZPD of a student, the feedback instances were responded to positively. On the other hand, feedback instances of the free climbing category did not result in text revision when they were provided to less proficient writers. However, proficient writers were able to understand what was suggested although the free climbing feedback category was the most implicit type, with no rationale provided. This highlights that tutors need to adjust the level of explicitness, provision of rationale and the use of metalanguage to the proficiency level of students.

Future directions The role of joint construction was not investigated in this book due to the limitations of the online medium. Throughout this book, the focus was on the independent construction stage, where students were provided with open comments on their drafts. That is, the research did not focus on the role of “joint construction” in developing an approach to teach GM. This was due to the nature of the SLATE project where creating texts with students in an online medium posed challenges. However, the role of “joint construction” in developing an approach to teach GM in an online teaching/learning context requires further investigation. A second future research direction is the role of reading in the development of GM. The action research project reported in this book developed an approach to teach GM through frontloading students with background knowledge and through tutor training. The training and frontloading provided the participants with examples of GM use, which was based on writing. However, reading as a language skill has also huge effects on one’s writing development. Therefore, the effect of reading on

188

Chapter Eight

the development of GM remains an area for further investigation (M.A,K. Halliday, personal communication, October 12, 2008). The feedback topology introduced in Chapter 7 needs to be further investigated in various other contexts. In this book, I have focused on GM feedback only. I have also looked at feedback targeting content, genre, register, discourse semantics, lexicogrammar, graphology, and punctuation (see Devrim, 2014). It was possible to use the topology to categorize various feedback instances. However, the feedback topology needs to be explored in various other contexts to ensure validity and reliability.

REFERENCES

Adam, C., & Artemava, N. (2002). Writing instruction in English for academic purposes classes: Introducing second language learners to the academic community. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 179-196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483. Bazerman, C. (2002). Rhetorical research for reflective practice: A multilayered narrative. In C. Candlin (Ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse (pp. 79-93). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. Bernstein B.B. (1975). Class, codes and control. III. Towards a theory of educational transmissions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (Primary Socialisation, Language and Education). Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258. Bonanno, H. & Jones, J. (2007). Measuring the academic skills of university students: The MASUS procedure. Sydney: Learning Centre, University of Sydney. Brumfit, C. & Mitchell, R. (1989). The language classroom as a focus for research. In C. Brumfit & R. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in the language classroom, ELT Documents 133 (pp. 3-15). London: Modern English Publications and The British Council. Burns, A. (2010). Action research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 80-97). London: Continuum. Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20, 50–66. Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. London: Temple Smith.

190

References

Christie, F. & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school . London: Cassell. Coe, R. M. (2002). The new rhetoric of genre: writing political briefs. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 195–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Coffin, C. Painter, C. and Hewings, A. (2005). Argumentation in a multiparty asynchronous computer mediated conference: a generic analysis. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series, 19, 41-63. Colombi, M. C. (2006). Grammatical metaphor: Academic language development in Latino students of Spanish. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 147–163). London: Continuum. Derewianka, B. (2003a). Grammatical metaphor in the transition to adolescence. In A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Tavernier, & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics, (pp. 185–219). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Derewianka, B. (2003b). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal, 34(2), 133-154. Devrim, D. Y. (2014). Theorizing written feedback as a mediation tool within the Sydney School's genre pedagogy: a focus on ZPD and scaffolding. Functional Linguistics 2:8 Dreyfus, S. & Macnaught, L. (2012). Joint construction in the SLATE project. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 7(1-3), 77-100. Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A., and Martin, J. (forthcoming). Genre pedagogy in higher education: The SLATE Project. London: Palgrave. Drury, H. (1991). The use of systemic linguistics to describe student summaries at university level. In E. Ventola, (Ed.), Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp. 431-456). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis in ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219 -28). London: Routledge. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and un-focused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371. Evans, S. (2008). Classroom language use in Hong Kong’s reformed English-medium stream. Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29(6), 483-498.

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

191

Evans, S. (2009). The medium of instruction in Hong Kong revisited: policy and practice in the reformed Chinese and English streams. Research Papers in Education 24(2), 287-309. Evans, S. & Morrison, B, (2011a). Meeting the challenges of Englishmedium higher education: The first year experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 30, 198-208. Evans, S. & Morrison, B. (2011b). The student experience of Englishmedium higher education in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 25(2), 147-162. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and Practical Applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201. Firkins, A., Forey, G. & Sengupta, S. (2007). Teaching writing to low proficiency EFL students. ELT Journal, 61(4), 341-352. Flowerdew, J., Miller, L. and Li, D.C.S. (2000). Chinese lecturers’ perceptions, problems and strategies in lecturing in English to Chinesespeaking students. RELC Journal 31(1), 116-138. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage Press. Freedman, A. (1987b). Learning to write again. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 4, 95-116. Freedman, A. (1994). Do as I say: The relationship between Teaching and Learning New Genres. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and New Rhetoric (pp. 191-210). London: Taylor & Francis. Green, B. & Lee, A. (1994). Writing geography lessons: Literacy, identity and schooling. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Learning and Teaching Genre. (207Ȭ224). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook (Heinemann). Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.

192

References

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985a). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1988). On the language of physical science. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.) Registers of written English. London: Pinter. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116. Halliday, M.A.K. (1998) Things and relations: regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge in J.R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of science (pp. 185-235). London: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K. (2006b). Some theoretical considerations underlying the teaching of English in China. The Journal of English Studies (Sichuan International Studies University), 4, 7–20. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press. Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (1999) Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell. Hewings, A. & Coffin, C. (2006). Formative interaction in electronic written exchanges: Fostering feedback dialogue. In Hyland, K. (Ed.) Feedback in second language writing (pp. 225-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hood, S. (2009). Texturing interpersonal meanings in academic argument; pulses and prosodies of value In G. Forey & G. Thompson (Eds.) Test type and texture (pp. 214-233). London: Equinox. Humphrey, S., Martin, J. R., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). The 3x3: Setting up a linguistic toolkit for teaching academic writing. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Appliable Linguistics (pp. 185-200). London: Continuum. Humphrey, S. & Hao, J. (2012). Deconstructing written genres in undergraduate Biology. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 7(1-3), 29-54. Hyland, F. (2001a). Providing effective support: investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning, 16(3), 233–247. Hyland, K. (2002a). Genre: Language, context and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113–135. Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

193

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (3): 148-164. Hyland, K. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1 (1), 1-12. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693–722. Jarvis, G. (1983). Action research versus need research for the 1980s. In D. L. Lange (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Conference on Professional Priorities, (pp. 59-63). Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Materials Center. Johns, A. M. (2002). Genre in the Classroom: Applying theory and research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and applications. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press. Kregar, S. (2011). Relative effectiveness of corrective feedback types in computer-assisted language learning. Unpublished PhD thesis. The Florida State University. Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural Theory And L2: State of the Art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67-109. Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A MetaAnalysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. Li, Y., & Casanave, C. P. (2012). Two first year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or Plagiarism? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 165-180. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp. 413-486). New York: Academic Press. Long, M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Willams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

194

References

Mahboob, A., Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., & Martin, J. R. (2010). Appliable linguistics and English language teaching: the Scaffolding Literacy in Adult and Tertiary Environments (SLATE) project. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight, (Eds.), Appliable Linguistics (pp. 25-43). London: Continuum. Martin, J. R. (1984b) Language, register and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Children writing: reader (pp. 21-29). Geelong: Deakin University Press. Martin, J. R. (1992a). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martin, J. R. (1993b) Technology, bureaucracy and schooling: Discursive resources and control. Cultural Dynamics 6(1), 84-130. Martin, J. R. (2000). Mentoring semogenesis ‘genre-based’ literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness (pp. 123-155). London: Continuum. Martin, J. R. (2007c). Metadiscourse: designing interaction in genre-based literacy programs. In R. Whittaker, M. O’Donnell & A McCabe (Eds.), Language and Literacy: functional approaches (pp. 95-122). London: Continuum. Martin, J. R. (2009). Genres and language learning: a social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10-21. Martin, J. R. (2012). Genre based literacy programs: contextualising the SLATE project. Linguistics and Human Sciences, special SLATE issue 7(1-3), 5-27. Martin, J. R., Christie F., & Rothery J. (1987). Social processes in education: a reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In. I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London, New York: Continuum Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox. Mohan, B., & Beckett, G. H. (2001). A functional approach to research on content- based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 133–155. Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 133-164. Painter, C. (1984). Into the mother tongue: A case study of early language development. London: Pinter.

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

195

Painter, C. (1986). The role of interaction in learning to speak and learning to write. C. Painter & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing to mean: Teaching genres across the curriculum. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional Papers, 9, 62-97. Painter, C. (2003). The use of a metaphorical mode of meaning in early language development. In A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 151–167). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Poon, A. Y. K. (2009). A review of research in English language education in Hong Kong in the past 25 years: Reflections and the way forward. Educational Research Journal 24(1), 7-40. Reed, A. (1997-2010). Simple Concordance Program (software). Retrieved from http://download.cnet.com/Simple-Concordance-Program/30002279_4-10054263.html. Rose, D. & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write/reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox. Rothery, J. (1989). Learning about language in Hasan, R. & Martin, J. R. (Eds.), Language development: learning language, learning culture (pp.199-256). Norwood/New Jersey: Ablex Publishing. Rothery, J (1994). Exploring Literacy in School English (Write it Right Resources for Literacy and Learning). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program. Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: developing an educational linguistics. Hasan, R. & Williams, G. (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86-123). London/New York: Longman. Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ryshina–Pankova, M. (2010). Toward mastering the discourses of reasoning: use of grammatical metaphor at advanced levels of foreign language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 9(ii), 181-197. Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67– 100. Sawyer W. & Watson K. (1987). Questions of genre. In. I. Reid (Ed.), The Place of genre in learning. Geelong, Vic: Daekin University Press.

196

References

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized framework (pp. 173-189). New York: Continuum. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–83. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (2000). Languages for specific purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 59-76. Torr, J. & Simpson, A. (2003) The emergence of grammatical metaphor: Literacy- oriented expressions in the everyday speech of young children. In A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 169–183). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press. Wang, X. (2010). Grammatical metaphor and its difficulties in application. US- China Foreign Language, 8 (12), 29-37. Winter, R. (1987). Action-research and the nature of social inquiry. Aldershot: Gower Publishing. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing, TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79– 101. Ziv, N. (1984) The effects of teacher comments on the writing of four college freshmen, in: R. Beach & L.S. Bridwell (Eds.), New Directions in Composition Research. New York: Guilford Press.

APPENDICES  

Appendix A: How to Use Grammatical Metaphor The purpose of this document is to introduce a grammatical aspect called Grammatical Metaphor as well as provide examples from Assignment 1 where grammatical metaphor is used effectively and the potential places for the effective use of grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor provides atypical ways of meaning making that are highly valued in academic genres. In the following sections we will define different types of grammatical metaphor with regard to their roles and present examples. Before presenting examples with explanations and the role of grammatical metaphor, we would like to present the grammatical metaphor used by you in Assignment 1 and potential places from your assignments where grammatical metaphor can be used effectively.

The Role of Grammatical Metaphor Grammatical metaphor is one of the most important aspects of technical/academic writing because they allow us to make meanings in incongruent ways resulting in more formal language. The appropriate use of grammatical metaphor allows writers to realize technicality and abstraction, create logical reasoning within clause, use authoritative language while giving opinions, and provide incongruent ways of text structuring (Schleppegrell, 2004, p. 186). Therefore, effective control on the use of grammatical metaphor empowers the writers of academic genres. There are two types of grammatical metaphor, namely, experiential and logical metaphor (Halliday, 1985a/1994; Martin, 1992). Each type of grammatical metaphor will be defined and exemplified with effective uses from Draft 1 of your Assignment 1. We will also look at some examples where the grammatical metaphor could have been used effectively to realize meanings in incongruent ways. By doing this, we are hoping to present an important element of academic writing in order to provide you with tools to realize meanings in other ways. The use of grammatical metaphor empowers the writers of the academic genres, but using

Appendices

198

grammatical metaphor ineffectively (e.g. overusing them, using them in places where they are not necessary) might distort the meaning being made. Thus, effective uses of grammatical metaphor are introduced in the following section.

Experiential Metaphor Experiential metaphor realizes actions/processes (verbs) & qualities of things (adjectives) as things (nouns). By using experiential metaphor, we can manage the technicality and abstraction in academic writing. There are two types of experiential metaphor: a. Experiential metaphor where actions/process (verbs) are realized as things (nouns) b. Experiential metaphor where qualities of things (adjectives) are realized as things (nouns). Some examples of effective use of experiential metaphor are underlined in the following examples. The examples are followed by a section in which we look at potential places where experiential metaphor can be used effectively. Example 1 The use of a transformer is to step down a 220V AC voltage from a power line to a lower AC voltage, with fuses to protect the circuit from burnout.

The instance of experiential metaphor in the above example is “use”. “Use” is used as a noun, although it is also possible to realize the same meaning through the verb form as in “We used a transformer”. The language becomes more abstract and technical if the noun forms are used instead of verb forms in academic writing. Example 2 With considering the mutual induction effect, the voltage of the secondary circuit is induced by the changing of magnetic field.

The instances of experiential metaphor in the above example are “considering” and “changing”. The words are used as nouns rather than verbs as in “When we consider the mutual induction effect… We changed the magnetic field.” This process allows writers to manage the abstract/ technical tone of academic genres. Example 3 In the process of rectification, the main component is P-N junction Diode.

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

199

The instance of experiential metaphor in the above example is “rectification”. The writer chose to use the noun form rather than the verb form as in “While it has been rectified”. This increases the abstract and technical characteristic of academic writing. Example 4 The AC voltage across the resistor produced is in the same polarity and a rectified full-wave can be produced.

The instance of experiential metaphor in the above example is “polarity”. Using adjectives as nouns is the second type of Experiential Metaphor. “Polarity” is used in this example as opposed to the adjective form “polar”. Abstraction/technicality of academic writing is realized by using the noun counterparts of adjectives. In the texts explored, there are some potential places where experiential metaphor can be used effectively. These potential places can be transformed into experiential metaphor instances as in the examples provided. However, ineffective use of grammatical metaphor might distort the meaning (i.e. overuse of grammatical metaphor), making it difficult to follow. Example 5 To complete the stabilized power supply project, a project kit is needed.

The above sentence can be realized more congruently by using experiential metaphor as in: “For the completion of the stabilized power supply project…” Although both sentences are similar in terms of formality, the use of experiential metaphor provides another option when the verb “to complete” is converted to the noun “completion.” Example 6 The LED will turn off when the fuse is blown and it allows the user to know whether the fuse needs to be replaced or not.

The above example can be realized in a more abstract way by changing the verb “replace” to its noun counterpart “replacement” as in: “… whether the fuse needs replacement”. This process increases the abstractness as well as technicality of the meaning made.

Appendices

200 Example 7

It is always a must, for safe, to turn off the switch when doing the connection on the component board.

The above sentence can be realized in a more abstract way when the adjective “safe” is converted to its noun counterpart “safety”. By doing this, it is possible for academic writers to manage the academic tone required.

Logical Metaphor Logical metaphor realizes logical relations between ideas within clause rather than between clauses. By using Logical metaphor, it is possible to have simple sentence structures with fewer words per clause as well as give logical reasoning within a clause rather than using conjunctions such as because, if… then. In order to give logical reasoning within a clause, we can use verbs such as result in, lead to, cause, enable, follow, precede as well as some prepositional phrases such as due to, because of. Two examples of effective use of Logical metaphor are underlined in the following examples. The examples are followed by a section in which we look at potential places where Logical metaphor can be used effectively. Example 8 Due to this property, a pair of diodes can be used to convert an AC voltage into a DC voltage.”

The logical relation is realized within clause (i.e. prepositional phrase) through the use of “due to”. The congruent version of the same sentence would be: “Because there is this property, a pair of...”. Using Logical metaphor allows writers of academic genres to realize logical relations within clause rather than between clauses. Example 9 The reason for using fuses is to protect the circuit.

The cause and effect relation is given through the use of “the reason for… is” in the above example. A congruent version of the same sentence would be: “Fuses are used because we want to protect the circuit.” By using the phrase above the writer manages to pack information into one clause rather than writing two clauses and realize the logical relation by using conjunctions such as “because”.

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

201

There are some potential places for the use of Logical metaphor in the assignments analysed. The potential places might be transformed into Logical metaphor as in the examples provided. However, it should not be forgotten that overuse of grammatical metaphor or the use of grammatical metaphor instances where they are not necessary might obscure the meaning. Example 10 Connecting four windings in series-opposing and series-aiding, different voltage can be drawn.

There are two clauses in the above example. The logical relation between these two clauses can be realized in just one clause if a verb like “enable” is used. In order to do this, the second clause should be packed through the use of an experiential metaphor, converting “drawn” into “withdrawal” as in: “Connecting (The connection of) four windings in series-opposing and series-aiding enables the withdrawal of different voltage.” Example 11 To complete the stabilized power supply project, a project kit is needed.

The logical relation in the above example can be realized more incongruently if a verb like “require” is used and the verb “complete” at the beginning of the sentence is converted into the noun form “completion”, providing an experiential metaphor instance. The following example is a suggestion how logical metaphor can be used effectively in order to make a more incongruent logical relation. “The completion of the stabilized power supply project requires a project kit.” This document aims to provide explanation and models regarding the effective uses of grammatical metaphor. By using grammatical metaphor effectively, the writers of the academic genres can realize meanings incongruently in order to reach the requirements of academic writing. However, ineffective use grammatical metaphor might result in the distortion of meaning.

Appendices

202

References Halliday, M.A.K. (1985/1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Martin, J.R. (1992) English text: system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: the role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: contextualized framework (pp. 173-189). New York: Continuum.

Appendix B: The Role of Grammatical Metaphor in Academic Writing Grammatical metaphor is one of the most important aspects of technical/academic writing because they allow us to make meanings in incongruent ways resulting in more formal language. The appropriate use of grammatical metaphor allows writers to realize technicality and abstraction, create logical reasoning within clause, use authoritative language while giving opinions, and provide incongruent ways of text structuring (Schleppegrell 2004, p. 186). There are two major types of grammatical metaphor and they will be explained below (Halliday, 1985a/1994; Martin, 1992a).

Experiential Metaphor Experiential metaphor realizes actions/processes (verbs) & qualities of things (adjectives) as things (nouns). By using experiential metaphor, we can manage the technicality and abstraction in academic writing. There are two types of experiential metaphor. Actions/process (verbs) realized as things (nouns). Qualities of things (adjectives) realized as things (nouns). Some instances of experiential metaphor are given below. Congruent

Metaphorical (from student essays)

We measured the values.

The measurement of the values…

The temperature shifts up and this is the most obvious problem.

The most obvious problem is the shifting up of temperature…





Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

203

We observed that the digit on the multimeters are not fluctuant.

Based on the observation during the experiment, the digit on the multimeters are not fluctuant.

Therefore, if we compare the data with the theory and check if the experimental results are accurate, this will be an important precaution for the experiment.

Therefore, comparing the data with the theory and checking the accuracy of the experimental results become an important precaution of the experiment.

Table 1a: Experiential Metaphor – Process as noun Note: Congruent ways are underlined and metaphorical ways are in boldface. Congruent

Metaphorical (from student essays)

Two values are different.

The difference between the two values…

Therefore, if we compare the data with the theory and check if the experimental results are accurate, this will be an important precaution for the experiment.

Therefore, comparing the data with the theory and checking the accuracy of the experimental results become an important precaution of the experiment.

Table 1b: Experiential Metaphor – Quality as noun Note: Congruent ways are underlined and metaphorical ways are in boldface.

Logical Metaphor Logical metaphor realizes logical relations between ideas within clause rather than between clauses. By using logical metaphor, it is possible to have longer sentences with more words per clause as well as give logical reasoning within clause rather than using conjunctions such as because, if… then. In order to give logical reasoning within clause, we use some verbs such as result in, lead to, cause, follow, precede as well as some prepositional phrases such as due to, because of. Some instances of logical metaphor are given below.





Appendices

204 Congruent

Metaphorical

I submitted my essay late, because my children were sick.

The late submission of my essay is due to the sickness of my children

(There are two clauses here and the logical relation between them is realized by “because”. However, we have another choice to make our essay more packed by using experiential metaphor together with logical metaphor.)

(I submitted my essay late ---- The late submission of my essay… My kids were sick. --- The sickness of my children.

Because the amplification responses fast(slow), the square wave distorts.

The response time of the amplification circuit caused the distortion of square wave.

(adapted from Eggins, 2004)

(from student essay) If we accelerate the torque angularly, then the torque becomes large.

The magnitude of the torque is related to the angular acceleration. (from student essay)

We have to calibrate the equipment before we start the experiment.

Calibration of the equipment is needed before the start of the experiment. (from student essay)

Table 2: Logical Metaphor Note: Congruent ways are underlined and metaphorical ways are in boldface.

References Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985/1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Martin, J.R. (1992a) English text: system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: the role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: contextualized framework (pp. 173-189). New York: Continuum.

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

205

Appendix C: What is Grammatical Metaphor in academic genres? The purpose of this document is to introduce a feature of language called grammatical metaphor as well as provide some examples from a student assignment (from a Laboratory report in the subject of Electronic Engineering) where grammatical metaphor is used effectively. Grammatical metaphor is metaphorical ways of meaning making that are highly valued in academic genres. In the following sections we will define different types of grammatical metaphor with regard to their roles and present examples.

What is Grammatical Metaphor? The notion of grammatical metaphor has been introduced by M.A.K. Halliday (1985a, p. 321) and he commences his discussion of grammatical metaphor by contrasting it with lexical metaphor, which refers to the expression of meaning via the use of meaning transfer in the lexis. Thus lexical metaphor is realized with different uses of content words (lexis). Grammatical metaphor, on the other hand, involves making a meaning by transference in the grammar. This requires an understanding of unmarkedness or congruency, which refers to the ‘typical ways of saying things’, as grammatical metaphor involves atypical or metaphorical ways of meaning making. Examples of grammatical metaphor come later.

The Role of Grammatical Metaphor Grammatical metaphor is one of the most important aspects of technical/academic writing because they allow us to make meanings in metaphorical ways resulting in more formal language. The appropriate use of grammatical metaphor enables writers to: realize technicality and abstraction, express logical reasoning through in-clause explanation, use authoritative language while giving opinions, and manage information flow through metaphorical ways of text structuring (adapted from Schleppegrell, 2004, p. 186). Therefore, effective control on the use of grammatical metaphor empowers writers of academic genres. There are two types of grammatical metaphor, namely, experiential metaphor, and logical metaphor (Halliday, 1985a/1994; Martin, 1992a; Martin & Rose, 2003). Experiential and logical metaphors are responsible for the ideational meaning.

206

Appendices

Each type of grammatical metaphor will be defined and exemplified with effective uses from Assignment 1 of Analogue Laboratory (Electronic Engineering – 2009) as well as with examples how some congruent ways of meaning making can be extended to metaphorical use. By doing this, we are hoping to present an important element of academic writing in order to provide you with tools to realize meanings in more formal ways. The use of grammatical metaphor empowers the writers of the academic genres, but using grammatical metaphor ineffectively (e.g. underusing or overusing them, using them in places where they are not necessary) might distort the meaning being made. Thus, effective uses of grammatical metaphor are introduced in the following section.

Experiential Metaphor Experiential metaphor, realize actions/processes (verbs), qualities of things (adjectives) and circumstances (adverbs) as things (nouns). By using experiential metaphor, we can manage the technicality and abstraction in academic writing. There are three types of experiential metaphor, which are frequently used, in academic genres: experiential metaphor where actions/process are realized as things, and experiential metaphor where qualities are realized as things. Some examples of effective use of experiential metaphor are given in the tables below. Some of the examples are taken from the assignments of LCC students from last year, the others are possible metaphorical choices in the English language. The congruent ways (verbs, adjectives and adverbs) are underlined in the left hand side column, whereas the metaphorical ways of meaning making (nouns) are in boldface. Congruent: actions/processes (verbs)

Metaphorical: things (nouns)

We measured the values.

The measurement of the values…

The temperature shifts up and this is the most obvious problem.

The most obvious problem is the shifting up of temperature.

We observed that the digit on the multimeters are not fluctuant.

Based on the observation during the experiment, the digit on the multimeters are not fluctuant.

Table 1.a: Actions/processes as things Note: Congruent ways are underlined and metaphorical ways are in boldface.

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor Congruent: qualities of things (adjectives)

207

Metaphorical: things (nouns)

Two values are different.

The difference between the two values…

Therefore, if we compare the data with the theory and check if the experimental results are accurate, this will be an important precaution for the experiment.

Therefore, comparing the data with the theory and checking the accuracy of the experimental results become an important precaution of the experiment.

Table 1.b: Qualities as things Note: Congruent ways are underlined and metaphorical ways are in boldface.

To sum up, the effects of using experiential metaphor are as follows: x Information is compacted into ‘things’, which can then be discussed. x Nominal groups are more complex yet sentence structures become simpler, as when the processes (verbs), qualities (adjectives) and circumstances (adverbs) are nominalized it is possible to combine two or more clauses into one. x Personal pronouns are removed, making the language more objective and formal. x The starting point of each sentence focuses on the topic at hand, rather than on a person. x The language becomes more technical and abstract. In certain genres, experiential metaphor works together with logical metaphor. Now, we will have a look at what logical metaphor is in the following section.

Logical Metaphor Logical metaphor realizes logical relations between ideas within a clause rather than between clauses. By using logical metaphor, it is possible to have simple sentence structures with fewer words per clause (as compared to spoken language) as well as give logical reasoning within clause rather than using conjunctions such as because, if… then and having multiple clauses. In order to give logical reasoning within a clause, we can use verbs such as result in, lead to, cause, enable, follow, precede, some prepositional phrases such as due to, because of as well as things as the

Appendices

208

cause of …, the result of …. As stated in the previous section, logical metaphor often requires the use of experiential metaphor. The following table provides more clarification with examples. The logical metaphor instances are in boldface and the experiential metaphor instances are italicized in the right hand side column. The conjunctions, i.e. congruent ways of giving logical relations, are underlined in the left hand side column. Congruent: conjunctions

Metaphorical: prep. clauses & process & things

I submitted my essay late, because my children were sick.

The late submission of my essay is due to the sickness of my children.

(There are two clauses here and the logical relation between them is realized by “because”. However, we have another choice to make our essay more packed by using experiential metaphor together with logical metaphor.)

x x

I submitted my essay late ---- The late submission of my essay… My kids were sick. --- The sickness of my children…

Because the amplification responses fast(slow), the square wave distorts.

The response time of the amplification circuit caused the distortion of square wave.

If we compare these two data, then we can see that theoretical B-field is close to experimental B-field.

The comparison of these two data shows the closeness of theoretical Bfield to experimental B-field.

If we accelerate the torque angularly, then the torque becomes large.

The magnitude of the torque is related to the angular acceleration.

If you starve, then you will die.

Starvation causes death.

Many people can’t find jobs, so they leave the county.

The reason of unemployment.

If you starve, then you will die.

The cause of death is starvation.

immigration

Table 2: Logical metaphor Note: Congruent ways are underlined and metaphorical ways are in boldface.

is

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

209

As shown in the examples, it is possible to shunt between more congruent and metaphorical ways of meaning making. Although it is possible to realize logical relations through the use of conjunctions, it is also possible to realize these meanings inside the clause, resulting in a more formal academic register. Logical metaphor shows variations depending on the field and the genre. Thus, it is necessary to analyse logical metaphor before deciding on their effective use. Thus, the effects of using logical metaphor in text are: a more formal and sophisticated way of expressing cause (inside the clause) in combination with experiential metaphor, a more abstract and academic expression of meanings. This document aims to provide clarification regarding the effective use of grammatical metaphor, which is presented in relations to their types and functions. Also congruent and metaphorical ways of meaning making are illustrated in tables with impetus of providing further explanation. By using grammatical metaphor effectively, the writers of the academic genres can realize meanings metaphorically in order to achieve the required register of academic writing. However, ineffective use grammatical metaphor might result in the distortion of meaning. Having covered the types of functions of grammatical metaphor, we’ll now move into some activities designed for awareness raising on identifying grammatical metaphor as well as providing language support to help students use them effectively.

References Halliday, M.A.K. (1985a/1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Martin, J.R. (1992a) English text: system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: meaning beyond clause. London: Continuum. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: the role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: contextualized framework (pp. 173-189). New York: Continuum.

210

Appendices

Activities Activity I: Identification of logical and experiential metaphors at paragraph level. Please read the following paragraph taken from the essay titled “Reasons for Population Movements in Australia”, adapted from Subject Notes for ELL 161, topic 7-6. University of Wollongong 2003, and then underline instance of experiential metaphor and circle instances of logical metaphor. A third reason for people moving is urban renewal. During the 1970s there was a trend towards building larger houses in the suburbs rather than living closer to the city itself. This led to an expansion of the suburbs, which often required large areas of land. This urban sprawl resulted in many problems, including lack of public transport, pollution and lack of basic services. In the late 1980s the government has tried to attract people to move back closer to the city centres. They have therefore encouraged medium and high-density housing. As a result more town houses and units have been built in many areas. Activity II: Grammatical Metaphor in relation to textual organization Please read the following text and then compose a thesis statement and topic sentences using experiential and logical metaphors. Reasons for population movements in Australia 1 In Australia large numbers of people move from one place to another to live. While the majority of moves occur within the same town or city, many people move from the rural areas to the cities and others move out of cities to suburban areas or towns. ……………………………………………………………………………… ……………… ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………..In many rural areas of Australia recession and drought have caused severe hardships in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As a result many farmers are making losses, not profits. This has led to an increase in unemployment as many services in rural areas have been closed down. Consequently, many people are leaving the rural areas and moving to larger towns or cities in search of work.

 1

Adapted from Subject Notes for ELL 161, topic 7-6. University of Wollongong 2003

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

211

………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… In recent years more and more higher-income people are moving into the inner-city areas of many Australian cities and renovating the older houses. As the houses are renovated, their value increases. This caused an increase in the house values and land rates of other houses in the area. Consequently, some of the older low-income residents can no longer afford to live there. They are therefore forced to sell their houses and move elsewhere. ………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………….During the 1970s there was a trend towards building larger houses in the suburbs rather than living closer to the city itself. This led to an expansion of the suburbs, which often required large areas of land. This urban sprawl resulted in many problems, including lack of public transport, pollution and lack of basic services. In the late 1980s the government has tried to attract people to move back closer to the city centres. They have therefore encouraged medium and high-density housing. As a result more town houses and units have been built in many areas. While the above are not the sole reasons for population movement, they do account for significant migration, to both rural and urban areas. This movement has great impacts on those who are moving, the places they leave and the places they move to. Activity III: Identification of experiential and logical metaphors at whole text level. Please read the model answer text and underline instances of experiential metaphor and circle instances of logical metaphor. Model answer for CTL2230 Assignment 2 – Nominalization Nominalization means a type of derivational morphology where nouns are formed from other word classes such as verbs, adjectives and conjunctions. The process of nominalization has numerous effects/impacts on language, and these include the compacting of information, more logical/better organization of information, a more formal and academic style of writing and the removal of people from the text. This essay will explain these effects/impacts in detail using examples from two texts on the same topic, Texts A & B. Text A is a more spoken version, whereas Text B is more written in style.

Appendices

212

The first effect of nominalization on language is the compacting of information. This means nominalization allows you to say the same thing in fewer words. For example, in Text A, the first part of the first sentence is: If you write something down, it can last a long time… With nominalization, this part of the sentence gets compacted into a noun group in Text B: The relative permanence of written language… Thus the eleven words in two clauses in Text A becomes one noun group with only six words in Text B, due to nominalization. The second impact of nominalization is the organization of language. This is due to the fact that by nominalizing and compacting the meanings contained in clauses into noun groups, the noun groups can then become the topic. For example in Text B, nominalizations are used as the focus of the topic sentences that begin the paragraphs of the body of the text. These noun groups with their nominalizations (underlined) are: The relative permanence of written language… The immediacy of speech… for memorisation and learning tasks…These nominalizations allow the point of the paragraph to be clarified in the beginning so that the rest of the paragraph can elaborate the points identified by the noun groups containing the nominalizations. Thirdly, nominalization results in formality and abstraction because to nominalize means to make abstract ideas. For example, the three noun groups with nominalizations in the topic sentences of Text B: permanence, immediacy and memorization are abstractions of sentences in Text A. The table below shows the abstraction from Text B matched with the more concrete sentence from Text A: Text B

Text A

The relative permanence of written language

If you write something down, it can last a long time,

The immediacy of speech

Because we speak to people directly with no time-lag

for memorisation and learning tasks

if you want to remember something or if you want to learn something

Table 1. Nominalizations from Text B with their equivalent spoken examples from Text A The fourth impact of nominalization, which is the removal of people, can be seen from the examples in the above table. In the examples from

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

213

Text B, the nominalizations have no people in them, whereas in the examples from Text A, the nominalizations have people, and the people are the focus or starting point of the sentences. In the nominalized examples, the nominalizations are the starting points. To conclude, nominalization causes numerous changes in language. It helps make language more academic and formal by creating abstractions and removing the people, as well as contributing to the logical organization of language. Activity IV: Providing language support on experiential and logical metaphors The text below is a more spoken version of the model answer text. Please provide open comments on this text and help the text become more formal and academic. You can concentrate on the thesis statement and topic sentences to do this. Also, you might focus on the pronoun “we” to provide feedback on experiential metaphor and conjunctions (e.g. so, because) for logical metaphor. Nominalization – Spoken version When we change word classes such as verbs, adjectives and conjunctions to nouns, we call this process nominalization. If we change verbs, adjectives and conjunctions to nouns we can manage many changes in language; we can compact information, we can organize information in more logical way, we can make the style of writing more academic and formal and remove people from the text. In this essay, we will explain how nominalization affects how we use language and we will do it by using examples from two texts on the same topic. There are two example texts, Text A is more spoken version but Text B is more written style. When we nominalize we can compact information. When we do this, we can say the same thing and we can use fewer words at the same time. If we look at the first sentence in Text A, you can see that the first part of the sentence is: If you write something down, it lasts a long time… When we nominalize, we can compact the first part of the sentence and have a noun group rather than two clauses. Let’s have a look at the first sentence in Text B: The relative permanence of written language. There are eleven words in two clauses in the example from Text A, but there are six words in the example clause from Text B. There are fewer words in the second example because we nominalized.

Appendices

214

When we nominalize verbs, adjectives and conjunctions we can organize our text better. When we do this, we compact meanings in clauses into noun groups. So, we can make the noun groups the topic of sentences. If we look at how nominalizations are used in Text B, we can see that nominalizations highlight the beginning of topic sentences and we use topic sentences at the beginnings of the body paragraphs. We show the nouns groups below and please pay attention we underlined nominalizations. The relative permanence of written language…The immediacy of speech…… for memorization of learning tasks…When we nominalize at the beginning of paragraphs, we clarify the topic of paragraphs at the beginning. By doing this, we can go into more detail in the rest of the paragraphs and we do it because we explain nominalizations in the rest of the paragraphs. When we use nominalizations, we might make our texts more formal and academic in style. Because when we nominalize we can form abstract ideas. If we look at the topic sentences in Text B, we can see the nominalizations in the topic sentences are abstract ideas taken from Text A. We can illustrate this in the table below. We matched abstract ideas in Text B with more concrete sentences in Text A. Text B

Text A

The relative permanence of written language

If you write something down, it can last a long time.

The immediacy of speech

Because we speak to people directly with no time-lag

… for memorization and learning

If you want to remember something or if you want to learn something

Table 1. Nominalizations from Text B with their equivalent spoken examples from Text A When we nominalize, we can remove people from texts and you can see some examples of this in the table above. You cannot see any people in the examples from Text B but you can see there are people in the examples from Text A. You can also see that people in the examples from Text A are the centre of attention and the starting point of the sentences but you can see that nominalizations are the starting points in the examples from Text B.

Teaching Grammatical Metaphor

215

So, we can make many changes in texts if use nominalizations. When we create abstract ideas we can make language more formal and academic, we can remove people from texts and also we can organize language in a better way.