APPRAISAL as a framework for understanding multimodal electronic feedback: Positioning and purpose in screencast video and text feedback in ESL writing
Journal: Writing & Pedagogy
Given the multimodal nature of new modes of electronic feedback, such as screencasting, there is a need for the application of robust, theoretically grounded frameworks to capture linguistic and functional differences in feedback across modes. The present study argues that the appraisal framework, an outgrowth of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) that focuses on evaluative language and interpersonal meaning, can provide understanding of and discernment between technology-mediated modes of feedback. The study demonstrates this potential through an appraisal analysis of a small corpus of 16 screencast video and 16 text (MS Word comment) feedback files given to eight students over four assignments in an intermediate ESL writing class. The results suggest possible variation between the video and text feedback in reviewer positioning and feedback purpose. Specifically, video seems to position the reviewer as one of many possible perspectives with feedback focused on possibility and suggestion, while the text feedback seems to position the reviewer as authority with feedback focused on correctness. The findings suggest that appraisal can aid in the understanding of multimodal feedback and identifying differences between feedback modes.
Author: Kelly J. Cunningham
Adendorff, R., & Smith, J. (2014). The creation of an “imagined community” in readers' letters to the Daily Sun: An appraisal investigation. Text & Talk, 34(5). doi:10.1515/text-2014-0016
Barletta, N., Mizuno, J., & Mass, G. (2013). The use of appraisal resources in the construction of second language teacher-researcher identity. In G. O'Grady, T. Bartlett, & L. Fontaine (Eds.), Choice in language: Application in text analysis (pp. 86-108). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-99.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9-48. doi:10.2307/3588359
Borup, J., West, R., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161-184.
Caldwell, D. (2009). Working your words: Appraisal in the AFL post-match interview. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 13.11-13.17.
Cunningham, K. J. (2017). Modes of feedback in ESL writing: Implications of shifting from text to screencast. (Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics & Technology and Human Computer Interaction), Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Ducate, L., & Arnold, N. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback: Effectiveness and student perceptions of screen-casting software versus the comment function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (Vol. 10, pp. 31-56). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Edwards, K., Dujardin, A.-F., & Williams, N. (2012). Screencast feedback for essays on a distance learning MA in professional communication: An action research project. Journal of Academic Writing, 2(1), 95-126.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74. doi:10.1111/flan.12183
Ferguson, A. (2010). Appraisal in student–supervisor conferencing: A linguistic analysis. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(2), 215-229. doi:10.3109/13682820902929099
Gales, T. (2011). Identifying interpersonal stance in threatening discourse: An appraisal analysis. Discourse Studies, 13(1), 27-46. doi:10.1177/1461445610387735
Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). Spoken and written modes of meaning 1987. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar (pp. 323-351). New York, NY: Continuum. (Reprinted from: Comprehending Oral & Written Language, 1987. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp 55-82).
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2015). Using screencasts in the teaching of modern languages: Investigating the use of Jing® in feedback on written assignments. The Language Learning Journal, 1-18. doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.1061586
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland &
F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206-224). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kristjansson, C. (2010). Collaborating with a (non)collaborator: Interpersonal dynamics and constructions of identity in graduate online learning. In J.-r. Park & E. G. Abels (Eds.), Interpersonal relations and social patterns in communication technologies: Discourse norms, language structures and cultural variables (pp. 305-327). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Kristjansson, C. (2013). Inside, between, and beyond: Agency and identity in language learning. In J. Arnold & T. Murphey (Eds.), Meaningful action: Earl stevick's influence on language teaching (pp. 12-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text, 23(2), 285-312.
Mann, S. (2015). Using screen capture software to improve the value of feedback on academic assignments in teacher education. In T. S.
C. Farrell (Ed.), International perspectives on English language teacher education: Innovations from the field. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J. R. (2004). Mourning: How we get aligned. Discourse & Society, 15(2-3), 321-344. doi:10.1177/0957926504041022
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse. New York, NY: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation : Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Mirador, J. F. (2000). A move analysis of written feedback in higher education. RELC Journal, 31(1), 45-60.
Moore, N. S., & Filling, M. L. (2012). Ifeedback: Using video technology for improving student writing. Journal of College Literacy & Learning, 38, 3-14.
O’Malley, P. J. (2011). Combining screencasting and a tablet PC to deliver personalised student feedback. New Directions(7), 27-30. doi:10.11120/ndir.2011.00070027
Oakey, D. J. (2009). Fixed collocational patterns in isolexical and isotextual versions of a corpus. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics (pp. 142-160). London: Continuum.
Poulsen, J., & Hewson, K. (2015). Using webcasts or screencasts for powerful feedback. Paper presented at the SITE 2015, Las Vegas, NV.
Pounds, G. (2011). ''This property offers much character and charm'': Evaluation in the discourse of online property advertising. Text & Talk, 31(2), 195-220. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2011.009
Siegel, F. (2006). CCCC 2006 in review, C24 picture this...Visual literacies from zine to virtual responses: Scott Warnock, "using video capture software for asynchronous a/v writing feedback.". Across the Disciplines, 3. np.
Silva, M. L. (2012). Camtasia in the classroom: Student attitudes and preferences for video commentary or Microsoft Word comments during the revision process. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 1-22. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.12.001
Smith, J., & Adendorff, R. (2014). Re-thinking engagement: Dialogic strategies of alignment in letters to two South African newspapers. Language Matters, 45(2), 276-288.
Sommers, J. (2012). Response rethought…again: Exploring recorded comments and the teacher-student bond. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1). http://www.journalofwritingassessment.org/articletopdf.php?id_article=59
Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 53-86. doi:10.2307/1170726
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy.
Vincelette, E. J., & Bostic, T. (2013). Show and tell: Student and instructor perceptions of screencast assessment. Assessing Writing, 18(4), 257-277. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.08.001
Walter, N., Ortbach, K., & Niehaves, B. (2015). Designing electronic feedback – analyzing the effects of social presence on perceived feedback usefulness. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 76, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.001
White, P. R. R. (2012a). Exploring the axiological workings of ‘reporter voice’ news stories—attribution and attitudinal positioning. Discourse, Context & Media, 1(2-3), 57-67. doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004
White, P. R. R. (2012b, June 6, 2012). The language of attitude, arguability and interpersonal positioning: The appraisal website. Retrieved from http://grammatics.com/appraisal/index.html
White, P. R. R. (2015). Appraisal theory. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (first ed., pp. 1-7): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yelland, C. (2011). A genre and move analysis of written feedback in higher education. Language and Literature, 20(3), 218-235.