1. Factors Shaping Teachers' Evaluative Feedback on Student Work LiLin Choo, Guangwei Hu NIE, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Faces of English 2015 International Conference, CAES, University of Hong Kong 12 June 2015
Good afternoon, everyone. Today, I will be sharing with you findings from a paper I co-authored with my MA supervisor, Dr Hu.
Our study was conducted in a middle school in Singapore catering to high ability learners.
This study draws on APPRAISAL, a theoretical framework grounded in systemic functional linguistics, developed by James Martin and Peter White
and examines how teachers' disciplinary background and teaching experience may influence their use of evaluative language resources in their written feedback on students' projects.

2. Stance/attitude and evaluation: Are they the same thing?
Thompson and Hunston (2000) point to the wide range of terms used by different authors to refer to (more or less the same phenomenon).
Lyons (1977) uses the term connotation,
Halliday (1994) uses attitude,
Martin and White talk of appraisal,
Conrad and Biber (e.g., 2000); Englebretson (2007) talk of stance.
Thompson and Hunston’s definition:
Evaluation constitutes the expression of the speaker’s stance or attitude. Stance is a more abstract concept, and evaluation would be the actual verbal realisation or manifestation of stance.
On the topic of evaluation and evaluative language resources,
I would like to begin by raising the following question for consideration. When we talk about evaluation, what do we mean exactly?
Thompson and Hunston (2000) point to the wide range of terms used by different authors to refer to (more or less the same phenomenon).
For instance, Lyons (1977) uses the term connotation, Halliday (1994) uses attitude, Martin and White talk of appraisal, and Conrad and Biber (e.g., 2000) or Englebretson (2007) talk of stance.
In Thompson and Hunston’s definition, evaluation constitutes the expression of the speaker’s stance or attitude.
So Stance is seen a more abstract concept, and evaluation would then be the actual verbal realisation or manifestation of stance.

3. Different faces and phases of evaluation
The phonological level: intonation and pitch “I am sure he cares for you.” or “She is a good student indeed.” The morphological level (using evaluative prefixes and suffixes): E.g., “un” - unable, The lexical level: This is the most evident level at which we can see evaluation at work by, for instance, simply using words or expressions with an evaluative load: good, bad, etc. The semantic level: both the evaluative meaning that is inherent in words and expressions and can be therefore found in their semantic features as well as evaluation that is context-dependent: For instance, the word “fat” has an inherent evaluative content (i.e., a person/animal that is heavier than the norm) but, depending on the culture, the historical period or the person/animal it refers to, it may tend towards a negative or a positive evaluative polarity.
There are Different levels of evaluation: [Different faces]
At the phonological level, we look at intonation and pitch[which would be more relevant to spoken feedback]
*intonation and pitch could be used as markers of irony: Consider the following statements: I am sure he cares for you, She is a good student indeed. Intonation and pitch could very well change the intended evaluation.
At the morphological level (we have the use of evaluative prefixes or suffixes)
At the lexical level, which is the most evident level, and the level at which this study examines how evaluation is expressed in the teachers’ reports,
we can see evaluation at work by studying the words or expressions with an evaluative load:, good, bad, etc.
One level up, we have the semantic level: both the evaluative meaning that is inherent in words and expressions and can be therefore found in their semantic features as well as the (pragmatic) evaluation that is context-dependent at any level, and from the local co-text up to the cultural context.
For instance, the word “fat” has an inherent evaluative content (i.e., a person/animal that is heavier than the norm) but, depending on the culture, the historical period or the person/animal it refers to, it may tend towards a negative or a positive evaluative polarity. Similarly, what was once deemed acceptable in report book comments, may not be seen as a personal attack on a students’ character.
Thus, it is timely for us to look at how lexical choice contributes to evaluation in a cumulative fashion, within an evaluative report.

4. Evaluation as a dynamical system Alba-Juez & Thompson (2014)
Evaluation is a dynamical system – a dynamical subsystem of language , permeating all linguistic levels and involving the expression of the speaker’s or writer’s attitude or stance towards, viewpoint on, or feelings about the entities or propositions that s/he is talking about, which entails relational work including the (possible and prototypically expected and subsequent) response of the hearer or (potential) audience. This relational work is generally related to the speaker’s and/or hearer’s personal group, or cultural set of values.
Language of evaluation – being context dependent – also depends heavily on the text-type in which it is used.
Alba-Juez and Thompson (2014) came up with a refined and extended definition of evaluation: where they envisioned evaluation as a dynamical system.
With this in mind, let us consider the importance of teacher feedback and how it can motivate learners and support their learning.

5. The Importance of Teacher Feedback
Feedback directs and facilitates learning and development
(see Adcroft, 2011; Guskey & Bailey, 2010; Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
With the increasing acceptance of student-centred instruction and alternative assessments:
Teacher feedback can motivate or demoralise students in their learning efforts.
Teacher feedback can improve students’ performance.
Teacher feedback provides the “information with which a learner can conform, add to, overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory, whether the information is domain knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, beliefs about self and tasks, or cognitive tactics and strategies”(Butler & Winne, 1995, p.275).
Before we delve into the theoretical framework, methodology and findings, let’s take a moment to consider the importance of teacher feedback.
In terms of education, the buzz words today include: student-centred instruction, alternative assessments and quality feedback.
With the increasing acceptance of student-centred instruction and an intensifying drive for alternative assessments (apart from the traditional pen-and-paper tests), research has shown the importance of complementing classroom instruction with quality feedback from teachers. And while previous research from the last two decades has recognised the need for teachers to write effective feedback reports, little attention has been given to what evaluative feedback language resources teachers actually use and how various evaluative resources can contribute to effective quality feedback.
Given that teacher feedback plays a big role in impacting students’ learning and that written feedback has the potential to live well beyond the teacher’s time with their students, it is imperative that teachers be able to give quality feedback that will benefit students and support their learning.

6. Research gaps Insufficient research attention has been paid to the
medium of teacher feedback, i.e., the language to
communicate teacher feedback (Brinko, 1993).
There is also a lack of research on how important teacher
factors such as disciplinary background and teaching
experience may influence teachers’ language use in their
feedback on student work and the effectiveness of the
feedback on student work.
Various aspects of teacher feedback such as: types of feedback, informational content of feedback; feedback effectiveness, timing of feedback and the relationship of feedback effectiveness to a variety of learner characteristics and task variables have been explored.
However, scant research attention has been paid to the
medium of teacher feedback, and how important teacher
factors such as disciplinary background and teaching
experience may influence teachers’ language use in their
feedback on student work, as well as the effectiveness of the feedback on student work.

7. Research Questions
1. Are there differences/similarities in the use of evaluative language between secondary teachers from the “hard” subject departments and their colleagues from the “soft” subject departments?
2. Are there differences/similarities in the use of evaluative language resources between beginning and experienced secondary teachers?
3. Do disciplinary background and teaching experience jointly influence secondary teachers’ use of evaluative language resources?
In response to the research gaps identified, our study focuses on linguistic choices of teacher feedback, specifically the use of evaluative language to mark attitudes in secondary school teachers’ written comments on students’ project work. Evaluative language merits research attention because it can shape the focus of teacher feedback, mediate the manner in which feedback is communicated intersubjectively, construe teachers’ attitudes and judgements, and affect students’ reception of and engagement with teacher feedback.
Thus, our focus on evaluative language allows teacher feedback to be understood as a social and socialising process that involves attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and values.
The study aims to investigate whether and how teachers’ disciplinary background and teaching experience may impact on their use of evaluative language in their written feedback. The research questions have been formulated to guide the study.
Runs through research questions
(Becher and Trowler’s 2001 dichotomy of hard and soft disciplines)

8. APPRAISAL Theory Model of APPRAISAL Martin and White (2005) Engagement
APPRAISAL Attitude
Graduation
The resources for the expression of feelings attitudes, evaluations and modality in a unified model.
Affect
Appreciation
Judgement
Our study draws on Appraisal theory.
Appraisal theory (Martin, 2000; Martin and White, 2005) developed within the systemic functional tradition, provides a comprehensive framework for the systemic investigation of those textual features which realise the interpersonal function of discourse, which combines the resources for the expression of feelings, attitudes, evaluations and modality in a unified model.

9. APPRAISAL Resources
The theory divides evaluative language resources into three semantic domains: engagement, attitude and graduation
1) Engagement comprises language resources for dialogistic positioning namely, resources (such as concession, modality, polarity and projection) that source propositions and position voices with respect to certain viewpoints or opinions in discourse.
2) Attitude is concerned with language resources that are used to construe “emotional reactions, judgements of behaviour and evaluation of things.”
3) Graduation is concerned with language resources for scaling interpersonal force of an evaluation or modulating the sharpness or boundaries between categories.

10. Analytic framework: Attitude
Desire
Happiness
Security
Satisfaction
Positive
Negative
Affect
Normality
Capacity
Tenacity
Veracity
Propriety
Positive
Negative
Judgement
Because our study focuses exclusively on the resources for construing teachers’ attitudes in their feedback, the rest of this presentation outlines only the attitude component of appraisal theory.
In appraisal theory, attitude consists of 3 sub-systems:
Affect
Judgement
Appreciation
Affect is concerned with evaluative resources for registering positive and negative emotional reactions such as desire or disinclination; happiness or unhappiness; security or insecurity; satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Judgement deals with attitudes towards human behaviour and dispositions, “which we admire or criticise, praise or condemn” and encompasses 5 types of evaluation in relation to institutionalised norms.
Appreciation comprises positive and negative evaluations of objects, products, processes, states of affairs, entities rather than human behaviour. It can be further categorised into reaction, composition and valuation.
Reaction
Composition
Valuation
Appreciation
Positive
Negative

11. Instances of Affect from corpus of teacher feedback constructed for this study:
Table 3.5 The Coding Scheme Used to Identify Instances of AFFECT
Subcategory
Definition
Exemplar
DESIRE
Positive(+ve)
Negative (-ve)
Wishing for/Wanting [something]
Not wanting [something]
“They needed to be more focused"[H/E 24]
“the disconnect found in the introduction… is bizarre”[S/N10]
HAPPINESS
Positive (+ve)
Cheer, Affection
Misery, Antipathy
“An optimist…” [S/E 16]
No instances observed in reports
SECURITY
Confidence, Trust
Disquiet, Surprise
The following slides show instances of Affect, judgement and appreciation resources from the corpus of teacher feedback constructed for this study.
The corpus comprised 4 parallel subcorpora:
Experienced teachers from the hard disciplines
Experienced teachers from the soft disciplines
Novice (beginning) teachers from the hard disciplines
Novice teachers from the soft disciplines.
It is interesting to note that intuitively, teachers practise self censorship in their evaluation as evidenced by the absence of instances of “security” resources in their feedback to students.

12. SATISFACTION
Positive (+ve)
Negative (-ve)
Interest, Pleasure
Ennui, Displeasure
Team’s effort was laudable” [S/N 10]
“...the presence of many sentences which contained typographical errors was disturbing.” [S/N 10]

13. Instances of Judgement
Subcategory
Definition
Exemplar
NORMALITY
Positive (+ve)
Judgements of esteem
how unusual someone is
how lucky, fortunate, charmed, normal, natural, familiar, cool, stable, predictable someone is
“[the group] did not wish to be repetitive” [H/E 6]
Negative (-ve)
how unlucky, hapless, odd, peculiar, erratic, dated, obscure, unpredictable someone is
“the team’s diverse personalities, talents, abilities and personal commitments impeded progress” [H/E 4]
CAPACITY
how capable they are
how powerful, vigorous, robust, mature, experienced, witty, insightful, clever, gifted, expert, competent, accomplished someone is
“…was able to think outside the box” [S/E 16]
“was able to derive creative solutions [S/N 4]
“Able to identify relevant arguments” [H/E 10]
“The group used a great diversity of information” [ H/E 10]
how mild, weak, wimpy, immature, childish, naive, incompetent someone is
“The team started out with a slight misinterpretation of the problem.”
[H/E 24]
“The team took quite some time to arrive at the solution.” [S/E 1]

14. TENACITY
Positive (+ve)
Judgements of esteem
how resolute they are
how determined, how dependable,
how careful, thorough, meticulous, tireless, persevering,
resolute, reliable, dependable, flexible, adaptable, accommodating someone is
“a lot of thinking/effort went into this project” [S/E 16]
“...this level of commitment helped the team pull through their toughest moments.” [S/E 16]
“showed clear evidence of personal growth” [H/N 7]
Negative (-ve)
how rash, impatient, hasty, stubborn, obstinate, wilful, inconstant, undependable, unreliable someone is
“…demonstrated a lack of carefulness/lack of thoughtfulness on the project team’s part.” [S/N 10]
“Better management of time would have ensured … “ [H/E 10]
“Time management was an issue.” [S/E1]
VERACITY
Judgements of sanction
how truthful, honest,
credible, frank, candid, direct, discreet, diplomatic, tactful someone is
“The team’s reflections on the product, the processes and their roles were honest.” [H/N 7]
“The [team members] managed each other’s weaknesses with frankness, yet tact. [H/N 8]
how dishonest, deceitful, lying, deceptive, manipulative, devious, blunt someone is
No instances observed in reports

15. PROPRIETY
Positive (+ve)
Judgements of sanction
how ethical someone is,
how far beyond reproach someone is
how good, moral, ethical, law abiding, fair, just, sensitive, kind, caring, unassuming, modest, humble, polite, respectful someone is
“the group was consistently punctual in submitting work” [S/E20]
Negative (-ve)
how unfair, unjust, insensitive, mean, cruel, rude, discourteous, selfish someone is
“The team [failed to complete a task] despite repeated prompting.” [S/N 4]
“The group had to be pushed several times to meet deadlines” [S/N 9]
“The lack of rehearsals…” [S/N 12]

16. Instances of Appreciation
Subcategory
Definition
Exemplar
REACTION
Positive (+ve)
Mental process type: affection
Metafunction: Interpersonal (significance)
- Did it grab me?
- Did I like it?
E.g.: Arresting, fascinating, captivating, engaging, lively, dramatic, remarkable, notable, sensational
“Style and tone of writing were generally appropriate.” [H/E 6]
“The final report and oral presentation was good” [H/E 10]
“The portfolio was visually interesting.” [S/E 1]
Negative (-ve)
E.g.: Dull, boring, tedious, predictable, monotonous, unremarkable, uninviting
“[something could have been done] so that it would have been easier for the audience to distinguish between the two [terms] clearly.” [H/E 9]

17. COMPOSITION
Positive (+ve)
To do with our view of order
Did it hang together?
E.g.: balanced, harmonious, unified, consistent, logical
Was it easy to follow?
Simple, pure, elegant
Lucid, clear, precise, detailed, intricate, rich
“Main ideas were communicated in a logical sequence” [H/E 6]
“mostly smooth and appropriate transition of ideas” [H/ N 7]
Negative (-ve)
E.g.: Unbalanced, discordant, irregular, uneven, flawed, contradictory, disorganised
Unclear, woolly, simplistic
“The report also required a section on methodological limitations” [S/N 10]
“The project report was made up of disjointed parts” [S/N 10]

18. VALUATION
Positive (+ve)
To do with our considered opinions
Was it worthwhile?
E.g.: Penetrating, profound, deep, innovative, original, creative, timely, long awaited, genuine
“[The project] questioned certain prevailing assumptions on the topic.”[N/H 7]
“The script was creative.” [S/E 1]
Negative (-ve)
E.g.: Shallow, reductive, insignificant
Derivative, conventional, prosaic, dated, overdue, untimely, common
“preconceived notions” (H/E 25]
“the project did not contribute as much to the existing stock of knowledge” [H/N 7]
“The solution lacked sophistication.” [S/E 1]

19. Methodology Participants:
84 teachers from a secondary school in Singapore sampled according to two criteria: 1) teaching experience 2) disciplinary background
Beginning teachers (no more than 3 years of teaching experience)
Experienced teachers (had at least 5 years of teaching experience)
40 teachers from the “hard” disciplines (Math, Science, Physical Education) and 44 teachers from the “soft” disciplines (Aesthetics, Languages, Humanities, Philosophy)
Dataset:
84 written evaluative reports on students’ research projects. The research projects were conducted as part of the Research Studies component of the school’s curriculum.
Teacher advisor wrote an evaluative report which contains grades for and qualitative feedback on different aspects of the team’s performance and product.
*school catering to high ability learners ( 27 male and 57 female teachers)
Our study was conducted in a middle school in Singapore catering to high ability learners, where research studies is an important component of the curriculum.
In line with previous research (such as Fantilli and Mcdougall, 2009; Fenwick, 2011), beginning teachers refer to teachers with no more than 3 years of teaching experience and experienced teachers refer to those with at least 5 years of teaching experience.
In operationalising disciplinary background, we followed the widely adopted “hard” and “soft” disciplines namely the natural sciences vs. the humanities and social sciences.

20. Assessment Criteria
The average scores of all the RS reports were compared using a 2-way univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). The two independent variables were teaching experience and disciplinary background of the teachers.
The results show that the four groups of RS reports categorised by disciplinary background and teaching experience did not differ significantly in their overall quality. Thus, any difference in the use of ATTITUDE was not a result of the uneven quality of the students’ projects in the four groups, but could be due to differences in the teaching experience and disciplinary background of the teachers who evaluated the students’ projects.
[personal notes for clarification]
Of the criteria listed above, the process criteria under the categories of “Attitudes” and “Collaboration” were excluded for the purpose of establishing comparability in terms of the quality of the students’ research projects. The exclusion was done to minimise irrelevant variables. This is because while members in a project group received the same grades for the first 19 criteria (pertaining to analysis, evidence, presentation and abilities), they were also issued individualised grades on “Attitudes” and “Collaboration”, which were based on a teacher’s perception of an individual group member, and not the quality of the research product per se. As these individualised grades did not relate directly to the quality of the research projects, they were excluded from the analysis conducted to establish the comparability of the student projects graded by novice vs. experienced teachers and by hard vs. soft discipline teachers.

21. Data Coding and Analysis
-UAM Corpus Tool (Version 2.8.7)
-Coding using analytic framework of attitude and the sub-systems presented earlier
-Establishing of inter-coder reliability [Kappa value obtained was .63, indicating good inter-rater reliability, according to Landis and Koch’s 1977 criteria]
To determine effects of disciplinary background and teaching experience on language use in teacher feedback, a series of 2 (hard vs. soft disciplinary background) x 2 (beginning vs. experienced teachers) ANOVAS were run on the incidence of the various types of evaluation represented in the attitude component of appraisal theory.
-Data was imported into the UAM corpus tool, a freely available web tool and coding was done using the analytic framework of attitude and the subsystems presented earlier.
- To control for the varying length of the reports, the raw frequencies were normalised by 1000 words. [on average each report was 200 plus words in length]
-Intercoding was carried out to ensure consistency in the coding of observed instances.
Personal notes
Because the frequencies for the several types of evaluation were too low to allow reliable statistical analyses, it was decided that an ANOVA would be run only when at least one group mean exceeded 1 per 1000 words.
The statistical analyses were conducted with IBM-SPSS (21.0) and the alpha was set at .05 (2-tailed) for all statistical tests.

22. Affect: Soft disciplines > Hard disciplines
The effects of Disciplinary Background on the Use of Target Evaluative Resources
Affect: Soft disciplines > Hard disciplines
Positive Judgement (tenacity): Hard disciplines > Soft disciplines
Regardless of teaching experience, our study found that teachers’ disciplinary background may influence their use of ATTITUDE in their written feedback on students’ project work. It has found that the teachers with a soft disciplinary background use AFFECT resources (concerned with expressing emotions) more frequently than teachers with a hard disciplinary background. The teachers from the hard disciplines, on the other hand, used positive judgement resources (in particular, positive tenacity) more frequently than the teachers with a soft disciplinary background. The differences suggest how distinctive features of each discipline (originating from the knowledge structures and the social characteristics of knowledge communities) create a conceptual framework within which teachers work.

23. Examples of Positive TENACITY (Excerpt from an experienced teacher, hard discipline)
The group displayed the ability to analyze [JUDGEMENT: positive CAPACITY] the problem given and break it down into its various components [JUDGEMENT: positive CAPACITY]. A variety of solutions was raised throughout the process [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY] and these were improved on at each stage based on feedback given [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY]. The group also showed creative thinking [JUDGEMENT: positive CAPACITY] and the ability [JUDGEMENT: positive CAPACITY] to adapt [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY] and improve on areas for development in the project [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY] [H/E 15]
The above excerpt is representative of how the teachers in the hard disciplines generally used positive TENACITY in combination with positive CAPACITY. In line with Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) study on feedback, which suggested that for feedback to be effective, it can focus on the student’s effort and ability and what more can be done to make better progress, the teachers in the hard disciplines tended to use positive TENACITY (to evaluate a student’s effort) and positive CAPACITY (to evaluate a student’s ability) in the evaluative reports.

24. Positive TENACITY (Excerpt from experienced teacher, soft discipline)
The group faced a challenge of a lack of material on this topic, but they were quite resourceful in unearthing what was available [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY], not just in Singapore, but also elsewhere [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY]. This compromised the progress of their project as they could have spent more time in analyzing and synthesizing the sources gathered [JUDGEMENT: negative CAPACITY] [S/E 23]
On the other hand, within the soft disciplines positive TENACITY was used to mitigate negative CAPACITY. This pattern of use was also observed in other reports by the teachers in the soft disciplines. Given that the soft disciplines are concerned with the ability to analyse the “particulars, qualities, complication(s), and place emphasis on the “personal” (Becher & Trowler, 2001, p.36), positive TENACITY (associated with being resolute and persevering), may not have been as indispensable as positive CAPACITY (to do with how capable the students are) in designing a satisfactory research study project. Hence, where positive TENACITY was indicated, it was used as a softener to indicate that effort was acknowledged where ability was found wanting (as in the case of S/E 23).

25. Comparing the use of positive TENACITY
Hard Disciplines
Teachers in the hard disciplines generally used positive TENACITY in combination with positive CAPACITY.
Soft Disciplines
Positive TENACITY was used to mitigate negative CAPACITY
The use of positive TENACITY by the teachers in the hard disciplines is arguably more suited to the “cumulative atomistic structure” (Neumann, Parry, & Becher, 2002, p.406) of the hard disciplines where knowledge has to be built up painstakingly over a period of time.
In the soft disciplines where the emphasis is on lateral thinking, fluent expression, critical thinking and originality of opinion (Neumann, Parry, & Becher, 2002, p.411), other evaluative resources such as CAPACITY and VALUATION may better serve the purpose of evaluative feedback.
Comparing the use of positive TENACITY by both the teachers from the hard and soft disciplines, the use of positive TENACITY by the teachers in the hard disciplines is arguably more suited to the “cumulative atomistic structure” (Neumann, Parry, & Becher, 2002, p.406) of the hard disciplines where knowledge has to be built up painstakingly over a period of time. In the soft disciplines where the emphasis is on lateral thinking, fluent expression, critical thinking and originality of opinion (Neumann, Parry, & Becher, 2002, p.411), other evaluative resources such as CAPACITY and VALUATION may better serve the purpose of evaluative feedback.

26. Appreciation (valuation):
The Effects of Teaching Experience on the Use of Target Evaluative Resources:
Negative Capacity and negative propriety:
Beginning teachers> Experienced teachers
Experienced teachers used positive tenacity to mitigate instances of negative capacity:
For example,
The group faced a challenge of a lack of material on this topic, but they were quite resourceful in unearthing what was available [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY], not just in Singapore, but also elsewhere [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY]. This compromised the progress of their project as they could have spent more time in analyzing and synthesizing the sources gathered [JUDGEMENT: negative CAPACITY] [S/E 23]
Appreciation (valuation):
Experienced teachers> Beginning teachers
In addition, in examining how teaching experience may influence teachers’ use of attitude resources in their written feedback to students, this study has found that the experienced teachers used positive valuation more frequently than the beginning teachers, regardless of disciplinary background. The differences suggest that the experienced teachers are more confident of what is deemed worthwhile or innovative in their field as compared to novice teachers. The experienced teachers were also more encouraging in their comments. For instance, experienced teachers were observed to use positive tenacity to mitigate instances of negative capacity.

27. Positive VALUATION (Excerpt from experienced teacher, soft discipline)
Evidence
The resources selected were appropriate to the area of study [APPRECIATION: positive VALUATION]. The overall organization was good [APPRECIATION: positive COMPOSITION]. Coherence was maintained [APPRECIATION: positive COMPOSITION] though there were occasional lapses [APPRECIATION: negative COMPOSITION]. The transition of ideas was generally smooth [APPRECIATION: positive COMPOSITION] though the area of study was not new. [APPRECIATION: negative VALUATION].
Presentation
Style and tone of writing was generally appropriate [APPRECIATION: positive REACTION]. Main ideas were clearly communicated [JUDGEMENT: positive CAPACITY] and presented in point form [APPRECIATION: positive COMPOSITION]. Some appropriate graphics and illustrations enhanced the quality of presentation [APPRECIATION: positive VALUATION]. The presentation was consistent with a presumed audience’s level of maturity, interest and level of understanding [APPRECIATION: positive COMPOSITION] [S/E 22]
The following two texts illustrate how the experienced and the novice teachers differed in their use of positive VALUATION. The first is an excerpt from the “Evidence” and “Presentation” sections of a report written by an experienced teacher from a soft discipline.
Positive VALUATION was indicated towards the selection of resources and the use of graphics and illustrations. In general, the text by the experienced teacher is oriented towards the use of APPRECIATION.

28. Positive VALUATION (Excerpt from novice teacher, soft discipline)
EVIDENCE
The group’s proposed idea and project was well-developed in a focused direction [APPRECIATION: positive VALUATION]. The group was generally well-organized [JUDGEMENT: positive CAPACITY] and used a fair diversity [JUDGEMENT: positive TENACITY] of resources.
PRESENTATION
The presentation of both the final report and oral presentation was neatly done [APPRECIATION: positive COMPOSITION] in an organized manner [APPRECIATION: positive COMPOSITION]. Tone and audience awareness were appropriate [APPRECIATION: positive REACTION], rendering the project an enjoyable read [APPRECIATION: positive SATISFACTION]. Presentation skills could be improved [JUDGEMENT: negative CAPACITY] in the area of time management [S/N 17]
This text is an excerpt from the “Evidence” and “Presentation” sections of a report written by a novice teacher from the soft disciplines:
In comparison to the excerpt by the experienced teacher, the excerpt by the novice teacher used positive VALUATION only in the “Evidence” section and not at all in the section on “Presentation”. This may be explained by the more frequent use of JUDGEMENT by the novice teacher, where the novice teacher geared the evaluation towards the group’s behaviour and actions in places (e.g.: The group was generally well-organized and used a fair diversity of resources) instead of focusing on the product (e.g.: The overall organization was good), as evident in the evaluation report by the experienced teacher.

29. Comparing the use of Positive VALUATION
Experienced Teachers
Beginning/ Novice Teachers
Positive VALUATION was indicated towards the selection of resources and the use of graphics and illustrations. In general, the text by the experienced teacher is oriented towards the use of APPRECIATION.
In comparison to the excerpt by the experienced teacher, the excerpt by the novice teacher used positive VALUATION only in the “Evidence” section and not at all in the section on “Presentation”. This may be explained by the more frequent use of JUDGEMENT by the novice teacher, where the novice teacher geared the evaluation towards the group’s behaviour and actions in places (e.g.: The group was generally well-organized and used a fair diversity of resources) instead of focusing on the product (e.g.: The overall organization was good), as evident in the evaluation report by the experienced teacher.
Previous research on effective feedback has shown that feedback related to the performance and task is more effective (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Focusing mainly on human behaviour (realised as JUDGMENT) in the “Evidence” and “Presentation” sections may not be an effective approach. In the event that the feedback is largely negative, it critiques the student’s behaviour directly and may impact the student’s self-esteem (see Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Evaluating the product without focusing too much on the student’s behaviour may result in more effective and less threatening feedback that may more likely be accepted and acted upon by the student in his/her future endeavours as evidenced by how experienced teachers evaluate student work.

30. Joint effects:
While teachers in the soft disciplines used more instances of positive satisfaction than teachers in the hard disciplines who refrained from using positive satisfaction totally, the joint effects of disciplinary background and teaching experience on positive satisfaction further indicate that with more teaching experience, teachers are better able to give feedback that contains learning-related information rather than feedback that merely shows their pleasure or displeasure towards a student’s work.

31. Conclusion and Implications
Our findings suggest that teacher feedback and language use are disciplinarily and experientially situated, reflecting discourses of particular disciplines and shaped by evolving teaching expertise.
More research is needed to map out disciplinary and experience-based differences in teacher feedback in general and the use of evaluative language resources in particular.
Teacher training programmes need to give attention to the linguistic dimension of teacher feedback and foster student teachers’ literacy in evaluative language (esp wrt using discipline-appropriate language in teacher feedback).
In conclusion,
Our findings suggest that teacher feedback and language use are disciplinarily and experientially situated, reflecting discourses of particular disciplines and shaped by evolving teaching expertise.
More research is needed to map out disciplinary and experience-based differences in teacher feedback in general and the use of evaluative language resources in particular.
Teacher training programmes need to give attention to the linguistic dimension of teacher feedback and foster student teachers’ literacy in evaluative language (esp wrt using discipline-appropriate language in teacher feedback).
After all, discipline-appropriate use of language in teacher feedback is crucial in sensitising students to the norms, core knowledge, valued dispositions and
meaning-making practice that characterises each discipline.

32. Thank you!

33. References:
Adcroft, A. (2011). The mythology of feedback. Higher Education Research and Development, 30,
Allen, J.D., & Lambating, J. (2001). Validity and reliability in assessment and grading: Perspectives of preservice and inservice teachers and teacher education professors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Artstein, R., & Poesio, M. (2008). Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics, 34, 555–596.
Baldwin, R., & Blackburn, R. (1981). The academic career as a developmental process: Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 598–614.
Barton, E. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745–69.
Beach, R., & Anson, C. (1992). Stance and intertexuality in written discourse. Linguistics and Education, 4, 335–57.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Bernstein, B. (1972). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education (pp. 47–69). New York: Collier Macmillan.
Biber, D., & Finnegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1–34.
Biber, D., & Finnegan E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93–124.
Biberman, S., Sabbagh, C., Resh, N., & Kramarski, B. (2011). Grading styles and disciplinary expertise: The mediating role of the teacher’s perception of the subject matter. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 831–840.
Brinko, K.(1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? The Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574–593.
Brock, M. (1995). Resistance and change: Hong Kong students and the process approach. Perspectives, 7(2), 53–69.
Brookhart, S. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 279–301.
Brown, H.D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Butler, D.L., & Winne, PH. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65,
Caldwell, D. (2009). Working your words: APPRAISAL in the AFL post-match interview. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 (2), 13.1–13.17.

34.  Casanave, C. P. (2003). Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship (but should it be called ‘‘post-process’’?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 85–102.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe W & J. Nichols (Eds.) Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Channel, J. (2000). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 38–55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corcoran, E. (1981). Transition shock: The beginning teacher’s paradox. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 19–23.
Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2005). Finding the global groove: Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus, and a concordancer. Critical Discourse Studies, 2, 143–163.
Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2006). The role of appraisal and corpora in detecting covert evaluation. Functions of Language, 13, 77–110.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000) Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–180.
Crow, G. M., & Pounder, D. G. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 216–245.
Cumming, A. (1985). Teachers’ procedures for responding to the writing of students of a second language. In M. Maguire & A. Par (Eds.), Patterns of development (pp ), Montreal, Canada: Canadian Council of Teachers of English.
Curtis, A. (2001). Hong Kong student teachers’ responses to peer group process writing. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11, 129–143.
Dann, R. (2002). Promoting assessment as learning: Improving the learning process. London: Routledge.
Douglas. A. (2009). How school departments contribute to beginning teachers’ learning. In H. Daniels, H. Lauder. & J. Porter (Eds.) Knowledge, values and educational policy – a critical perspective (263–272). London: Routledge.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter.
Ertekin, E., Dilmac, B., Yazici, E., & Peker, M. (2010). The relationship between epistemological beliefs and teaching anxiety in mathematics. Educational Research and Review, 5, 631–636.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
Fuoli, M. (2012). Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of appraisal in BP’s and IKEA’s social reports. Discourse & Communication, 6, 55–81.
Goldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63–80.

35. Greenwalt, K. (2006). Through the camera’s eye: A phenomenological analysis of teacher subjectivity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 387–399.
Grossman, P., & Stodolsky, S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24, 511–523.
Guskey, T., & Bailey, J. (2010). Developing standards-based report cards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed). London: Edward Arnold.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers' perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 811–826.
Havnes, A. (2009). Talk, planning and decision-making in interdisciplinary teacher teams: A case study. Teachers and Teaching, 15, 155–176.
Heynes, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. New York: Academic Press.
Helstad, K., & Lund, A. (2012). Teachers’ talk on students’ writing: Negotiating students’ texts in interdisciplinary teacher teams. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 599–608.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English.
Hoey, M. (2000). Persuasive rhetoric in linguistics: A stylistic study of some features of the language of Noam Chomsky. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 28–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9, 20–44.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp.191– 218). London: Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Sinclair, J. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.74–101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S. (2004). Counting the uncountable: Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In A. Partington, J. Morley, & L. Haarman L (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp. 157–188). New York: Peter Lang.
Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in scientific research articles. In Written Communication, 13, 251–81.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.

36. Johnson, S. (2006). BCQ. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 103–104.
Kinsey, G. (2006). Understanding the dynamics of no child left behind: Teacher efficacy and support for beginning teachers. Educational Leadership and Administration, 18, 147–162.
Kluger, A., & Denisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.
Kulhavy, R., White, M., Topp, B., Chan, A., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 285–291.
Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 43–70). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33,159–174.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 69–85.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57– 68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Lortie, D. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Luft, J. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11. Retrieved 20 August from:
Margolinas, C., Coulange, L., & Bessot, A. (2005). What can the teacher learn in the classroom? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 205–234.
Martin, J. (1995) Reading positions/positioning readers: Judgment in English. Prospect, 10, 27–37.
Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.142–175). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ministry of Education. (2012). Integrated programmes. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from
Muller-Fohrbrodt, G., Cloetta, B., & Dann, H. (1978). Reality shock of young teachers. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett.
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 405–417.
Nilson, L. (1998). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Ng, J. (2012, June 8). Teachers feel more heat from parents. Today, p.1.

37. O’ Donnell, M. (2007). UAM Corpus Tool (Version 2. 8. 7)
O’ Donnell, M. (2007). UAM Corpus Tool (Version 2.8.7). Retrieved from
Ochs, E. (1989). The pragmatics of affect. Text, 9, 69–92.
Pataniczek, D., & Isaacson, N. (1981). The relationship of socialization and the concerns of beginning secondary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 14–17.
Pil, F. K., & Leana, C. (2009). Applying organizational research to public school reform: The effects of teacher human and social capital on student performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1101–1124.
Pollio, H. (1996). The two cultures of pedagogy: Teaching and learning in the natural sciences and the humanities. Teaching and Learning Issues, 75, 3–33.
Power, B., & Chandler, K. (1998). Well-chosen words. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Robbins, S. (2005). Organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schafner, W. (1991). Essential assessment skills in professional education of teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 3–6.
Schwab, J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education (pp. 229–272). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Semke, H. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Shirran, A. (2006). Evaluating students: How teachers justify and defend their marks to parents, students and principals. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers.
Singh, S. (2010, November 30). Teachers, our sandwich class. The New Paper, pp. 4–5.
Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2000). Lifelines to the classroom: Designing support for beginning teachers. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from
Svedberg, L. (2009). Whatever the problem, learning is the answer? Nordic Studies in Education, 2, 175–184.
Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. (2011). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and university Teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Swain, E. (2010). Getting engaged: Dialogistic positioning in novice academic discussion writing. In E.Swain (Ed.). Thresholds and potentialities of systemic functional linguistics: Multilingual, multimodal and other specialised discourses (pp. 291–319). Trieste, Italy: Edizioni Universita di Trieste.
Thompson, G., & Alba-Juez, L. (2014). Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143–178.
Wallace, C., & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936–960.
Wassermann, S. (2004). This teaching life: How I taught myself to teach. New York: Teachers College Press.
Weeden, P., Winter, J., & Broadfoot, P. (2002). Assessment: What’s in it for schools? London: RoutledgeFalmer.
White, P. (2001) An introductory tour through Appraisal theory. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697–715.