Processes and patterns of classroom life : the dynamics of exchanging knowledge and values between teachers and learners in English language writing classrooms

Scott, Andrew and Unger, Johann and Philp, Jenefer (2023) Processes and patterns of classroom life : the dynamics of exchanging knowledge and values between teachers and learners in English language writing classrooms. PhD thesis, Lancaster University.

Text (2023scottphd)
2023scottphd.pdf - Published Version
Download (8MB)

Abstract

Classrooms are complex. This complexity emerges from the social practices and language uses that have developed in education. This thesis furthers our understanding of teacher feedback practices in pre-tertiary academic English writing classrooms. I examine curriculum enactment in context from three perspectives: that of classroom interactions between teacher and learners; feedback practices across four different classrooms; and the spheres of control of curriculum agents. Studies on teacher feedback in the Second Language Acquisition and TESOL literature have researched types of reified feedback and identified their importance in language development (Ellis, 2009). However, fewer studies have examined how teacher written feedback is incorporated into classroom discourse, an essential part of curriculum enactment and the achievement of lesson objectives. The study uses a synthesis of explanatory frameworks from Legitimation Code Theory (Maton, 2014) and pedagogic register analysis from the Martinian model of systemic functional linguistics (Martin, 1992; Martin & Rose, 2007; Rose, 2014; 2018; 2020) to analyse the knowledge and language of teacher feedback practices. The study draws four main conclusions. Firstly, agent alignment is essential to understanding curriculum enactment. Secondly, teachers use feedback to meet course objectives while also meeting learners’ needs, two targets that are not always in alignment. Thirdly, the study identifies semiotic resources employed in teacher feedback practices and establishes how these link to teaching choices in the classroom. Finally, the study suggests how to move the field beyond its current limits, namely the dichotomy of the written corrective feedback debate (Truscott, 1996; 1999, Ferris, 1999; 2004) and the limitations of cause-and-effect studies that attempt to identify the most effective forms of feedback (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). I recommend a model that conceptualizes feedback as a pedagogic tool used dynamically by experienced teachers to oscillate between interpretation and evaluation, from sense making to meaning making, in classroom activities.