T1 112010002 Full text
TEACHERS’ POLITENESS STRATEGY IN CRITICIZING
CLASSROOM PRESENTATION
Elvira Victorina
Abstract
The act of criticizing students‟ performance have higher tendency to threat students‟
faces. Though criticism is aimed at giving positive input, the way it is delivered may give
different result. The present study investigates teacher‟s politeness strategy in giving
certain criticism and its reason to perform it by observing and interviewing six
participants. The results were analyzed based on Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) theory of
politeness strategy and Nguyen‟s (2008) classification of criticism strategies. The result
indicates that teachers mostly tend to state the problem when criticizing student‟s
performance and use bald on record politeness strategy. The main reason is because the
teachers mostly focus on the form of criticism rather than student‟s face or other reason.
The result of the study can be used to help teachers and student-teachers develop their
awareness to save their student‟s face by choosing the most appropriate politeness
strategy when criticizing students.
Key words: Criticism, Face, Politeness strategies
INTRODUCTION
“Feedback is the key to the formative assessment. It can be defined as the
information that is given or is being given on how an action is being developed in terms
of its quality of success (Sandler in Santos & Pinto, 2006).” However, little concern has
been given enough to the effect of how they deliver the feedback especially criticism in
feedback. According to Trees, Kerssen-Grip and Hess (2009), “Although we
communicated feedback that does indeed offer participants an array of positive outcomes,
there are many ways that teachers‟ attempts to convey feedback can be ineffective, or
worse, counter-productive.” Smith and King (2004) also state similarly that the manner in
delivering feedback remains unclear. Therefore, criticism as feedback could serve as an
6
act of threatening student‟s face. Dannels, Gaffey & Martin (2011) also argues that
criticism as the central part of education may suggest a situation of pressure, fear and
harsh criticism. Cohen & Lotan as cited in Rex & Schiller (2009, p.50) explained that the
power of teacher is substantial. Since higher social statuses will give more powerful
threat over the hearer, teachers who have higher social status in classroom may threat
students‟ face. That is why students and colleagues become silent and stop showing off
(Rex & Schiller 2009, p.50). Hence, it can be concluded that criticism as feedback even
said for the sake of students‟ learning process may be very depending on the way it
delivered.
As some teachers tend to threaten students‟ face, the others try to save students‟ face
as their strategy in learning process. Rex & Schiller (2009) stated, “To build a learning
community requires the conscious exercise of face saving to mitigate face-threatening
acts (p.45).” Therefore, it is interesting to find out why some teachers try to save
students‟ face while the other try to threat students‟ face and in which criticism strategy
FTA often occurred.
Previous study by Jiang (2010) on Teacher‟s politeness in EFL class (a case study of
Chinese EFL learners) concludes that politeness does exist in EFL classroom and it does
contribute to both teaching and learning. Politeness in classroom contributes to the
effective relationship, create friendly and lively atmosphere and will affects the mutual
understanding and the relationship between student and teacher. The other study
conducted by Peng, Cai, and Tan (2012) on teacher‟s politeness strategies in EFL
classroom claims that teachers in EFL classroom are highly aware of politeness strategies
7
and often used negative politeness and positive politeness as their strategies in classroom.
They prefer to use positive politeness as it helps the students to develop their self image.
Those previous studies are emphasizing more on communication in classroom. However,
feedback is also play an important role in classroom interaction but less attention was
given in the previous study. Therefore, this study will focus to investigate the politeness
strategy used by teachers in giving feedback (criticism).
The investigation of this study was guided with three questions below.
1. What kinds of criticism are used by participants in criticizing student‟s oral
presentation?
2. What politeness strategies are used by participants in criticizing students‟ oral
presentation?
3. What are the participants‟ considerations in using these politeness strategies in
criticizing?
The study is aimed to investigate the politeness strategy which is used by the teachers
in giving criticism by also looking at the intention. The result of this study can be used
for teachers to reflect their methods in criticizing their students and also as a media for
student – teachers to develop their awareness to save their students‟ face by choosing the
appropriate politeness strategy when criticizing students. By developing awareness,
teachers can help bridge the gap between teachers and students, also to create a relaxing
and friendly atmosphere (Peng, Cai, Tan, 2012). If teachers are able to develop their
awareness, hopefully it will help the students to receive more positive results (Rex and
Schiller, 2008)
8
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Politeness
Jiang (2010) found, for the last two decades or so, many researchers try to
develop politeness theory. In this study, Brown and Levinson‟s politeness theory will be
used as the main politeness theory since the theory could be considered as the most
influential theory with many critiques, modifications, and reactions towards the theory
(Eelen, 2001). To note, the main focus of Brown and Levinson‟s politeness theory was
the notion of face. They mentioned that „face refers to, “the public self image that every
member wants to claim for himself (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.61)”.
There are two kinds of face based on Brown and Levinson‟s theory. The first is
positive face which refers to the desire to be approved or appreciated. The other is
negative face which means someone‟s freedom (Brown and Levinson, 1987). In some
situation, the speaker may threaten hearer‟s face. The act to threaten hearer‟s face
(conscious or unconsciously) is called Face Threatening Act (FTA) . It is an act where the
speaker tends to speak in ways that runs contrary to the face wants of the hearer in an
interaction either an act to threaten positive or negative face wants (Franch & Conejos,
2003).
To reduce the tendency of threatening hearer‟s face, the speaker can use some
strategies. The speaker may choose to perform FTA or choose to not perform FTA. The
choice that the speaker makes will influence the level of FTA. The speaker may choose to
9
perform FTA in either low or high level to threat speaker. Table 2.1 will present some
possible strategies for doing FTAs.
Diagram 2.1 “Possible strategies for doing FTAs” (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.60)
Less
Do the
FTA
Estimation
of risk of
face loss
Greater
On record
Without redressive action, baldly
With redressive action
Positive politeness
Off record
Negative politeness
Don’t do
the FTA
Speaker‟s decisions to perform a particular strategy will affect the hearer‟s face.
When the speaker decides not to say anything as the strategy to avoid performing FTA,
the speaker actually performing „Don‟t do FTA‟ strategy. It indicates that the speaker is
able to measure the level of the hearer‟s face. Here, the speaker is aware that there are
some certain situations when something is so face threatening to say. Even so, there are
also many situations where the speakers have to perform FTA or unconsciously perform
FTA. When the speaker chooses to perform FTA, there are four strategies that can be
chosen. Those strategies are off record, with redressive action (bald on record), positive
politeness and negative politeness.
The first strategy to perform FTA is off record. It is a strategy to be indirect and
ambiguous by using metaphor, irony, rhetorical questions, or by giving many hints.
Thomas and Jenny (1995) add other characteristic of this strategy which is ambiguous or
vague. Here, the hearer have to conclude what the speaker means since it is not clearly
stated. Thomas and Jenny states that, “These strategy include give hints, use metaphors,
be ambiguous or vague (Thomas and Jenny, 1995, p.173).”
10
On the contrary, when someone or a speaker chooses to performs on record, the
speaker intends to speak directly and clearly. By choosing to perform this strategy, the
speaker tries to avoid being ambiguous. There are two ways to perform this strategy. The
speaker can perform it without redressive action or with redressive action.
„Without redressive action (bald on record)‟ is a strategy where the speaker
speaks in maximum efficiency, very direct, concise and unambiguous. It is a strategy that
is usually used in an emergency situation or when the speaker has greater power over the
hearer, where the tendency to perform FTA is very small. On the other hand, when the
speaker chooses to perform redressive action, it means that the speaker recognizes the
hearer‟s face wants and tries not to threaten hearer‟s face by adding or reduce the threat
in a conversation. Here, both sides want to fulfill the need of face wants. There are two
forms of redressive action, positive politeness and negative politeness.
Positive politeness is an action where the speaker has an orientation to make the
hearer gives positive face. The possibility of face threat is minimized by performing this
strategy, as the speaker assume that in general the speaker‟s wants is at least some of
hearer‟s wants. Thus, the hearer‟s face is very important for the speaker when the strategy
is performed. The second form is negative politeness. It is more to hearer‟s basic wants
and self – determination. The speaker will not (or at least minimize) interfere the hearer‟s
freedom of action.
11
Table 2.2 summary of politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987)
Politeness
Characteristics
Strategies
Don‟t do FTA
When speaker decides not to say anything as the strategy to
avoid perform FTA.
Off record
Indirect and ambiguous by using metaphor, irony, rhetorical
questions or by giving many hints.
Bald on record
Very direct, concise and unambiguous. Usually used in an
emergency situation or when speaker has greater power over
the hearer where the tendency to perform FTA is very small.
Negative
More to hearer‟s basic wants and self – determination. The
politeness
speaker will not (or at least minimize) interfere the hearer‟s
freedom of action.
Positive politeness
When the speaker has an orientation to make the hearer give
positive face. The possibility of face threat is minimized by
perform this strategy, as the speaker assume that in general the
speaker‟s want is at least some of hearer‟s wants.
Criticism
Giving a criticism as teacher‟s feedback can be very helpful for the students in
teaching learning process. However, no one could ensure that every teacher know how to
deliver their criticism correctly. Tracy et al as cited in Nguyen (2008) defines criticism
as, “The act of finding fault which involves giving a negative evaluation of a person or an
act for which he or she is deemed responsible.”
12
There are some characteristics of good and bad criticism. A research by Tracy et
al cited in Nguyen (2008) about „good‟ and „bad‟ criticism divides five major
characteristics of criticism. The first one, a „good‟ criticism will be performed in positive
language and manner. Second, „good‟ criticism must show specific changes and the
critique must be used to help. Next, it has to have good and clear reasons. It also needs to
provide something good or useful in a positive message. Lastly, it has to be accurate and
does not violate the relationship between the speaker and the hearer. The other criticism
characteristic was defined by Wajnryb as cited in Nguyen (2008) that effective criticism
should be simple yet specific. The aim is to help the students to develop and gain
experience. The way it is delivered also needs to be soften by „measuring words‟, „soft
pedaling‟, and „using negotiating language‟. The other way, to save student‟s face,
teacher can give their critique either indirect or implied via third person.
In the present study, criticism by teacher in classroom will be used as the situation
or condition to investigate the reason behind politeness strategies chosen by teachers
when criticizing students‟ presentation. It is very important for the teachers to reflect their
methods in criticizing students orally (whether it is possible to minimize the level of FTA
towards the students or not). Moreover, it can be used as the media for student-teacher to
learn how to give oral criticism in classroom by minimizing threats to student‟s face.
In this study, the criticism theory that is mainly used is the adaptation of criticism
theory by Nguyen (2008). The criticism theory by Nguyen (2008) is used because the
theory classifies characteristic of criticism very specific and clear. In this theory, there are
13
five kinds of direct criticism and seven kinds of indirect criticism as can be seen in table
2.3.
Table 2.3 the taxonomy of criticism that adapted from Nguyen (2008)
Type
1. Direct Criticism
a. Negative
evaluation
b. Disapproval
c. Statement of the
problem
d. Statement of
difficulty
e. Consequences
2. Indirect Criticism
a. Correction
b. Indicating
Standard
c. Demand for
change
d. Request for
change
e. Suggestion for
change
f. Expression of
uncertainty
g. Asking/
Presupposing
Characteristics
Explicitly pointing out the problem with the hearer‟s choice/
actions/work/products, etc.
Usually expressed via evaluative adjectives with negative
meaning or evaluative adjective with positive meaning plus
negation.
Describing speaker‟s attitude towards hearer‟s choice.
Starting errors or problems found with hearer‟s choice, etc.
Usually expressed by means of such structures as “I find it
difficult to understand…” “It‟s difficult to understand…”
Warning about negative consequences or negative effects of
hearer‟s choice, etc.
Implying the problems with hearer‟s
choice/actions/work/products, etc. by correcting hearer,
indicating rules and standard, giving advice, suggesting or
even requesting or even requesting and demanding changes
to hearer‟s work/choice, and by means of different kinds of
hints to raise hearer‟s awareness of the inappropriateness of
hearer‟s choice.
Including all utterances which have the purpose of fixing
errors by asserting specific alternatives to hearer‟s choice,
etc.
Usually stated as a collective obligation rather than an
obligation for hearer personally or a rule which speaker
thinks is commonly agreed upon and applied to all.
Usually expressed via such structures as “you have to”,
“you must”, “it is obligatory that” or “you have required” or
“you need”, “it‟s necessary”.
Usually expressed via such structures as “will you…?”,
“can you…”, “would you…?” or imperativeness or wantstatement.
Usually expressed via “I advise you…”, or structures as
“you can”, “it would be better if” or “why don‟t you” etc.
Usually expressing speaker‟s uncertainty to raise hearer‟s
choice, etc.
Rhetorical questions to raise hearer‟s awareness of the
inappropriateness of hearer‟s choice, etc.
14
THE STUDY
Context of the Study
The study was conducted at English Department (ED) of Satya Wacana Christian
University which is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. In all classes, ED
teachers were required to give oral feedback in English to their students. Thus, the
context is suitable, considering that the focus of this study is to investigate the politeness
strategy used by teacher in giving feedback. The main focus of the study is to determine
the domain of politeness strategy used by teachers in English Department when
criticizing students‟ presentation and its reason.
Participants
The participants for the study were six non native teachers of English Department
who teach at any courses that require the students to do presentations in English, and
gave oral feedback. The use of non-native teacher as the participants was because both
the teachers and the students were non native. Thus, they share the similar politeness
value with other non native speakers.
15
Method of Research
This study was a qualitative study. The participants tend to be in small number
which is six participants. The data display of the study that would be used is participants‟
words. The data display later would be presented descriptively.
Instrument and Data Collection
The observation was conducted to identify which politeness strategies used by the
teachers and to describe more about strategies that the teachers used in criticizing their
students. In doing the observation, the researcher acted as non-participant observer and
recorded the observation by using video recording. The focus of the observation was the
teacher‟s talk which includes topics such as the way teachers criticize their students and
politeness strategies used by the teachers when criticizing. Observational protocol would
be used to capture the observational data (table 3.1) which is event-sampling protocol to
give an accurate description about the event that happened in the classroom during the
observation.
The next step, the researcher gathered the data by interviewing teachers. The
interviews focused more on the reasons of giving criticism in that particular way.
unstructured interviews were conducted, because the researcher wanted the participants
to be more open to the reasons why they performed particular politeness strategies and
developed understanding on the participants‟ point of view. Besides, this kind of
16
interview offered great flexibility for both researcher and the participant to respond to the
question. Therefore, the main point of the interviews was not to compare one reason to
others, but to report reasons why participants performed those strategies. The further
reason of selecting this kind of interview is to gather richer data since the participant
could describe the situation or give any detailed information that might be missing from
the researcher‟s point of view. The interviews were done not more than three days after
the observation.
Table 3.1 An event-sampling protocol for teacher‟s politeness strategies in criticizing
student‟s presentation
Observational Protocol
Name of course:
Class time:
Class duration:
No Types of Criticism
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Data
Name of Instructor:
Topic:
Total number of students:
Strategy
Data Analysis
In analyzing the data, the observation recording was transcribed. Then, the data
were coded by highlighting the teacher‟s criticism using the taxonomy of criticism by
17
Nguyen (2008). In the third step, the politeness strategy that used by teacher was
classified based on Brown and Levinson theory.
The data on teacher‟s reason for giving that particular criticism, which was
gathered through interviews, were transcribed. Statements and explanations from the
teachers indicated the reasons why they gave certain kind of criticism by using some
particular politeness strategy. Later, the reasons from the participants would be used to
concluded the result of the study by making a conclusion based on the combination of the
analysis of politeness strategy that the teacher used when they giving criticism and its
reason.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In attempt to answer the research questions, the paper will elaborate, first, the
strategies of criticizing in giving feedback. Second, politeness strategies in criticizing is
discussed. Third the considerations of performing those strategies is presented based on
interviews with the participants.
EFL Teachers’ Criticism Strategy
One of the objectives of the study is to find the criticism strategy that is used by
the participants. In this study, the taxonomy of criticism by Nguyen (2008) is adopted to
define the kinds of criticism which has been done by observing six participants. Table 4.1
18
presents the result that has been analyzed by quantifying the number of criticism
feedback while observing the participants.
Table 4.1. Kinds of criticism that are performed by participants.
Kinds of criticism
Correction
Indicating standard
Demand for change
Request for change
Suggestion for change
Expression of uncertainty
Asking/presupposing
Negative evaluation
Disapproval
Statement of problem
Statement of difficulty
Consequences
Total
Number
6
4
12
1
2
2
13
7
8
25
1
11
Percentage
6.52%
4.35%
13.04%
1.09%
2.17%
2.17%
14.13%
7.61%
8.70%
27.17%
1.09%
11.96%
92
100%
The data indicates that the participants mostly used statement of problem (27.17%)
as their strategy to deliver criticism in classroom. Statement of problem is a strategy
where the speaker tends to state the errors or problems that teacher, as the speaker, thinks
require fixation. The way it is delivered is also very direct to the main problem(s) that the
student as the hearer should fix or consider.
Example of statement of problem
1. Criticism data: “Look at your audience! Eye contact!”
2. Criticism data: “I found that the slide is lack of pictures.”
The second strategy that is mostly used by participants is asking/presupposing. It is
used 13 times (14.13%) in total. Through this strategy, the teacher criticizes students
indirectly by asking questions to make the students aware of the inappropriateness. The
characteristic of asking/presupposing is the teacher tends to ask question to the students.
19
In the example, the teacher use asking/presupposing to raise a discussion about
inappropriateness that student made.
Example of asking/presupposing
1. Criticism Data: “Did you notice that the speaker have difficulties to put
his hand?”
2. Criticism Data: “Interlocutor. What is it? Why is it difficult?”
Next strategy, demand for change is used 12 times (13.04%) by the participants.
Demand for change is a strategy where the teacher not only asks but demand students to
change by using expressions such as “you have to”, “you must”, etc (see table 3.2).
Although the example do not use such words that clearly show that it is including in
demand for change, the teacher demands the student to change by using idiom “leave the
debaters somewhere in your pocket.”
Example of demand for change
1. Criticism Data: “I know you’re debater but please leave the debaters
somewhere in your pocket.”
2. Criticism Data: “You’re in control of the class so whether you want it or
not you have to show them that I’m in control.”
The last criticism strategy, consequences is used 11 times (11.96%) by the
participants. Consequences is a strategy where the teacher warns the students about the
negative effects of student‟s decision or act. In the data presented below, the participants
warn the students of the negative effects of student‟s act in a presentation.
Examples of consequences
1. Criticism Data: “So, when you talk that fast, your audience will lose
some information.”
20
2. Criticism Data: “Be careful with the spelling because you are the
teacher.”
Refers to the data presented, it can be conclude that the way teacher deliver their
criticism is vary and unequal. Indirect criticism is used 40 times (43.47%), while direct
criticism is used 52 times (56.53%). Therefore, direct criticism and indirect criticism are
almost equally used by the participants, while the number of each criticism strategy such
as correction, indicating standard, demand for change, etc is vary
Teachers’ Politeness Strategy in Criticizing Students and its Consideration
Trees, Kreshen-griep and Hess as cited in Rudick and Martin (2011) explained
that teachers have difficult task to correct students‟ performance while at the same time
also need to protect student‟s face. Even, teachers with professional role often threats
continually threats student‟s face by evaluating their actions and utterances, and
interrupting students. (Cazden as cited in Shing, 2012) Thus the researcher try to seek the
strategy that teachers use in giving their criticism, considering that criticism is an act of
finding fault and have higher possibility to threat student‟s face.
Six participants were observed and four out of five politeness strategies by Brown
and Levinson appeared. The only strategy that did not appear is don’t do the FTA, that
was intentionally removed because feedback is unavoidable. Brown and Levinson (1988)
also argue that there are no interesting linguistic that is reflected by this strategy.
Therefore, in this study don’t do FTA strategy will not be discussed further. The table 4.2
21
presents the result that has been analyzed by quantifying the number of politeness
strategies found in criticism feedback while observing the participants.
Table 4.2. Result of politeness strategies that are performed by participants.
Politeness Strategy
Criticism Strategy
Correction
Indicating Standard
Demand for Change
Request for Change
Suggestion for Change
Expression of
uncertainty
Asking/Presupposing
Negative Evaluation
Disapproval
Statement of problem
Statement of Difficulty
Consequences
Total
Bald – on –
record
Off record
Negative
Politeness
Positive
politeness
Num
%
Num
%
Num
%
Num
%
6
2
1
1
1
1
6.52%
2.17%
1.09%
1.09%
1.09%
1.09%
1
1
1
1.09%
1.09%
1.09%
1
-
1.09%
-
1
-
1.09%
-
5
6
24
1
10
5.43%
6.52%
26.09%
1.09%
10.87%
12
2
1
1
1
13.04%
2.17%
1.09%
1.09%
1.09%
1
1
1.09%
1.09%
-
-
-
-
68
73,91%
20
21.74%
3
3.26%
1
1.09%
Bald on Record Strategy
In criticizing by giving the statement of difficulty, the participants tend to use bald
on record as their strategy. It is because the way the speaker delivers the criticism very
direct and unambiguous, which is the characteristic of bald on record. Here is the data
displayed for statement of difficulty in bald on record.
Criticism data: “I’m confused when you say tem. So what
do you mean is theme?”
From the data, the researcher hooks the participants by asking the consideration why to
choose to deliver the criticism in that way, and the consideration is the participant wants
22
to emphasize that wrong pronunciation may confuse people. Based on the participant‟s
consideration, it can be concluded that the participant only focused on how the main
message of her criticism is understandable for her students.
According to the data displayed in table 4.2, bald on record strategy is also
mainly used in correction strategy. James as cited in Tomczyk (2013) defines correction
as “The improved version of what the first speaker aimed to say.” Therefore, it depends
on how the correction is delivered to the hearer. Here, the researcher found that all the
correction strategy is always delivered in concise and unambiguous way by the
participants. Below is the data displayed of correction.
Criticism data: “And then on the slide. Just this group you
say for celebrate is wrong. You say for celebrating or to
celebrate so choose either one.”
Through interview, participant explained that she give example because she wants to give
prove while giving criticism to them. Therefore, it can be conclude that the participants
only focused on the form or how the criticism is delivered in order to make the students
understand the main message of the criticism.
In table 4.2, it is interesting to note that participants always used bald on record
strategy in criticizing by using request for change. It is fascinating to note that the
participant as the speaker use bald on record to ask or request the hearer to change
something. Again, the classification is very depending on how the criticism strategy is
delivered. Here, the participant chooses to deliver the request in maximum efficiency,
23
very direct and concise. Below is the data display of request for change in bald on
record.
Criticism data: “So what I’m asking from you and all of you here is
intonation.”
In criticizing by using statement of problem, participants mainly use bald on
record to deliver criticism. It is probably because the way it is delivered mostly very
direct and unambiguous which is also the characteristic of bald on record. Below are
some data presented for statement of problem in bald on record.
1. Criticism data: “Well, I think all of the group is show
consistency in making classic mistakes.”
2. Criticism data: “Actually some of you are very complete
in socializing about the budget but some of you may be
forgot mention about it.”
3. Criticism data: “Almost all of you depend much on the
slide and that’s going back to the problem of preparation.
Not to mention the pronunciation.”
In the first example, the participant explained the consideration that he thinks
some people understand with flowery words, while some do not. Therefore, the
participants argued he needs to be direct in order to make the students understand. The
conclusion is the participant tends to threat students‟ face in purpose in order to achieve
his communication goal which is to make them understand.
While in second example, the participant stated that the consideration to deliver
criticism this way because the participant decide not to judge the students, but start with
24
something positive by mentioning some students are good while some missing. In this
criticism, the participant use certain words like the word some to make the criticism is
less direct. By looking at the reason, the participant is aware of the student‟s faces,
especially those who do not make the mistake. The way it is delivered is also in positive
way in order to prevent the participant from threatening the students‟ face. The
interesting part here is that even the participant does not have intention to hurt the
students‟ face, the criticism is delivered in bald on record strategy which has high
tendency to threat someone‟s face. It is probably because of the time efficiency factor
since the criticism is delivered at the end of the lesson.
In the third example, the participant admit that the main consideration to deliver
the criticism in bald in record is because the limited time he has. That is why he has to
deliver it as concise as possible. By trying to deliver it as concise as possible, the
tendency to do FTA is increase as in one criticism data, the participants can deliver some
problem that the students have.
The other criticism that often used by participants in bald on record strategy is
disapproval. Disapproval itself is a strategy where the teacher can express his/her attitude
towards students‟ choice. Therefore, deliver a criticism using this strategy in bald on
record may have high tendency to threat students‟ face. Below is the criticism data
presented.
Criticism data: “My first comment is your gesture. You
keep doing this as if your left hand was glued with this
white board.”
25
The participant stated that the consideration to deliver the criticism this way because of
the student‟s factor which it is only applicable to certain people that he know very well.
By looking at the consideration which is not only try to deliver the message and
considering student‟s face but also look deeper into one of the politeness factors which
are relationship‟s distance. In other words, the participant is highly aware that his
utterance may threat student‟s face, but still perform it. The main consideration
participant tends to do FTA in purpose because the participant know the student well and
probably think that by performing FTA to the students will not affect their relation.
Last criticism strategy that often used in bald on record is consequences.
Consequences is a criticism strategy where the teacher can warn the negative effects of
students‟ choice. Hence, deliver consequences in maximum efficiency and direct may
have high tendency to perform FTA. In the data presented below, the participant
mentioned the consideration is because this kind of situation was rarely happened in
classroom, however it was suitable with the topic. The interesting part here, the
participant give this kind of feedback not because the students make mistake in class, but
more to prevent the students to make this kind of mistake. In other words, it can be
conclude that the participant is totally unaware of the FTA and only focused on how the
main point of her criticism is understandable for the students.
Criticism data: “Even when you write down on the board,
some of the students may write the wrong answer.”
Bald on record is never used in asking/presupposing since the nature of
asking/presupposing is to raise hearer‟s awareness of something by using rhetorical
26
question. Hence, asking/ presupposing is never delivered in form of bald on record
because it is hard to raise hearer‟s awareness in a maximum efficiency and very concise
form (which is characteristic of bald on record).
Off Record Strategy
As the safest strategy according to Shing (2012), off record was not used as much
as bald on record which is known to have more tendency to threat hearer‟s face. To note,
off record was never used in statement of difficulty, request for change, and suggestion
for change. It can be because these kinds of criticism rarely delivered through hints, irony
or sarcasm.
According to table 4.2 off record is commonly used in asking/presupposing by
participants. Shing (2012) pointed out that off record is the safest strategy as the strategy
includes giving hints, being ironic and using rhetoric questions. Since the nature of
asking/presupposing is also using rhetorical questions, it is obvious when the participants
perform this criticism strategy mostly it will be in off record classification. Below are
some data displayed for asking/presupposing in off record.
1. Criticism data: “I think that’s a language use. Where’s the
difficulty?”
2. Criticism data: “Diction here related to pronunciation. I
guess its unconsciousness.”
In first example, is a common example of off record strategy that also has a
common reason which is to make the student think and aware. Here, the participant tends
27
to ask question to raise students‟ awareness and think about their mistake instead of
explicitly stated the error. By the consideration above, it can be concluded that the
participant only focus on how the students can understand their error.
Different from the first example, in the second example the participant stated that
she did not want to judge the student since there is a possibility that the student may
forget about how to pronounce certain words. In this example, the participant not only try
to deliver her message but also aware of the student‟s face and do not want to judge the
students. The participants also try to lessen threat the students‟ face by using the word
guess.
In criticizing by using demand for change, participants found to make use off
record strategy. Demand of change is a strategy where the speaker expressed an
obligation by using certain expression (See table 2.3). By looking at the criticism data,
the participant used sarcasm in his criticism which is can be classified in off record
strategy.
Criticism data: “So, if you think your language is rubbish,
sorry… Then you need to correct it.”
The word rubbish is the main question since the word rubbish can be considered as very
threatening for the students‟ face. However, the participant admits that it‟s only a
unconsciousness he made since the background of the participant is English British and
according to the participant it‟s commonly used and can be considered as soft swear
word.
28
The last criticism strategy that mainly used in off record strategy is expression of
uncertainty. Same as demand for change, this strategy only occurred once but represent
50% of the total data of its occurrence (see table 4.2). Expression of uncertainty is a
strategy where the teacher can express his/her uncertainty to raise the inappropriateness
of students‟ choice. Since the participant delivers it indirectly and use sarcasm, therefore
it classified as off record. The participant stated that he was curious whether his students
is copy and paste their work from a book. By looking at the data displayed below, the
researcher may conclude that the participants use this strategy to clarifying something to
the students.
Criticism data: “It is mostly like what you have in the
book in chapter 7. Did you take it from chapter 7?.”
Negative Politeness
The next politeness strategy to be discussed is negative politeness which occurred
in very small number in the table 4.2. Dunleavy et al (2008) argued that negative
politeness can be the second most threatening strategy. “They include being
conventionally indirect, questioning, hedging, being pessimistic, minimizing imposition,
giving deference and apologizing (Kitao as cited by Chiravate, 2011).” To note, negative
politeness only occur in asking/presupposing, disapproval and indicating standard.
Through observation, similarity between those three data were spotted. All of them are
showing the tendency to interfere the hearer‟s freedom of action implicitly or questioning
29
hearer‟s choice. The criticism data below will present one of the examples of negative
politeness in asking/presupposing strategy.
Criticism data: “This one is also, I think it’s the content
which is mistake. This should be celebrate woman’s day,
Krtini’s day, but it’s on April 22nd why? If Kartini’s day is
on April the 1st.”
The participant tends to interfere the hearer‟s freedom of action through the criticism as
the participant questioning something that should be the students‟ freedom of action. In
the interview session, the participant said that she would like to deliver the criticism
directly since the example is clear. By looking at the consideration, it can be conclude
that the participant just focus on the form to deliver the criticism and make the students
understand the criticism without considering other factors.
The next strategy that will be discussed further along with the reason from the
participants to perform is negative politeness in disapproval. Disapproval is a criticism
strategy where the teacher can describe his/her attitude towards students‟ choice. In this
strategy, there is only one participant and one data occurred in the observation.
Criticism data: “I remembered you Pratama was sitting
here and then I was asking a question to myself is
Pratama angry because the way… I mean his gesture look
like as if you’re angry. May be it’s a seriousness, but your
seriousness is angry to me.”
Through interview, the participants state his consideration to deliver his strategy this way
which is because for the participants the function of his criticism is to make a joke so he
30
could blend with the class. The participant also mentioned that he will only state the
name (choose to deliver the criticism personal) if only he know the student well.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the participant use negative politeness strategy in
order to reduce the distance between the participants and the students by make a joke
while deliver his criticism. The other thing that the participant also said is the way he
chooses to state the name which is also indicated the relation between the participants and
the student.
The last strategy to be discussed is negative politeness in indicating standard.
Indicating standard is a criticism strategy where the teacher a collective obligation which
is commonly agreed. Here is the example.
Criticism data: “Maybe it’s better when you say; okay, so
I’ll just find it out for you and then next week I’ll just come
with the word or names. As the teacher it’s okay if you
don’t know the word, then you can just say that or this
would be my homework and I’ll just try find it out for you
and I’ll give to you next week.”
The participant stated that the aim to deliver the criticism this way is because some of
the students tend to ignore some questions when they don‟t know the answer, while
the use of the word “if” is to show the students how to handle that kind of situation.
The participant tends to be very indirect in explaining the point of her criticism which
probably causes the students make a negative face. By looking at the reason, the
researcher conclude that the participant tend to focus on how she deliver the criticism
and make the students understand the point of her criticism.
31
Positive Politeness
The last politeness strategy to be discussed is positive politeness. This strategy
occurred only once in the data in suggestion for change. As the name, suggestion for
change is a strategy where the speaker suggests the hearer to do something. The used of
positive politeness in suggestion for change strategy signaling the speaker try to reduce
the FTA. Below is the display of criticism data in suggestion for change in positive
politeness.
Criticism data: “Sometimes the questions even from your
friends you can think oh well, why don’t we think about
this previously?”
The criticism data, a question about the aim to use certain word like the word sometimes
is used to hook the participant. However, the participant explains that the consideration to
use the word sometimes here is just choice of words in order to show the students that
they might be just aware about the topic. By looking at the consideration, the researcher
conclude that through this criticism the participant only focus on the way it‟s delivered to
make the students understand. The fascinating part here lays on the classification of the
data which is can be classified as positive politeness which can be considered as one of
the strategies where the speaker have high opportunities to lessen the FTA‟s tendency.
However, the participant uses the strategy unconsciously.
32
CONCLUSION
This study reported the findings about kinds of criticism used by teachers in
criticizing students‟ performance in their presentation and the politeness strategies that
are used in those criticisms along with its considerations. The study is conducted by
observing six participants followed by interviewing them. At the end, this study conclude
that teachers as the participants mostly tend to state the problem when criticizing their
students, while the politeness strategy that commonly used is bald on record although the
other strategies also used in varied number. There are various considerations to use
certain politeness strategy but most of the reason is because the participants are focusing
more on the form rather than the student‟s face or other reasons.
The only limitation of the study is the time availability of participants to do interview
session which was varied. Some participants could not do the interview session within
three days which is the maximum time to do observation. Moreover, the interview is done
through using unstructured interview which also need plenty of time to conduct. This
time limitation, affect the number of the data.
For further research, it is suggested to investigate more on teacher‟s intention to
say certain criticism based on speech act theory. Since speech act theory is a theory to
identify the meaning of the speaker‟s utterance (Intachakra, 2004). Besides, Nguyen
(2013) also argues that, “Literature on L2 learner‟s use on highly offensive speech acts
such as complaints, chastisements and criticism has been rather scarce.” Therefore, the
33
future study related to this may be very useful for both teacher and student - teacher to
reflect their methods in giving criticism and learn ways to criticize students.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First, I would like to thank to God Almighty for the favor and strength to finish this
study. I am also very grateful to my supervisor and the examiner for the guidance,
feedback and suggestion during this study. Finally, I would like to thank to my parents
for always cheer, support and inspire me during the process.
REFERENCES
Bou-Franch, P., & Conejos, P. (2003). Teaching linguistic politeness: A
methodological proposal. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, Vol. 41, pp.1-22.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chiravate, B. (2011). Perception of politeness in English request by Thai EFL learners.
The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, Vol. 17(2), pp.52-71.
Dannels, D. P., Housley-Gaffey, A. L., Martin, K. N. (2011). Students‟ talk about the
climate of feedback interventions in the critique. Communication Education, Vol.
60, pp.1-19.
Dunleavy, K. N., Martin, M. M., Brann, M., Booth-Butterfied, M., Myers, S. A., Weber,
K. (2008). Student nagging behavior in the college classroom. Communication
Education, Vol.57, pp.1-19.
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. United Kingdom: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Intachakra. S. (2004). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: apologies and
thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal, pp.37-62.
Jiang, X. (2010). A case study of teacher‟s politeness in EFL classroom. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, Vol.1, No.5, pp. 651-655.
34
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by
Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatic 5-1 (2008), pp.41-46.
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2013). An exploratory study of criticism realization strategies used by
native speaker and non native speaker of New Zealand English. Multilingua, Vol.
32(1), pp.103-130.
Peng, L., Cai, L., & Tan, X. (2012). Research on college teachers‟ politeness
strategies in EFL classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,Vol.3,
pp. 981-991.
Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2008). Using Discourse Analysis to Improve Classroom
Interaction. New York: Routledge.
Rudick, C. K., Martin, M. (2011). Students‟ perception of face threat from instructors‟
use of behavior alternation techniques. Texas Speech Communication Journal,
Vol. 36, pp. 13-23.
Santos, L., Pinto, J. (2006). The teacher‟s oral feedback & learning.
Shing. S. R. (2012). Politeness in mentor-mentee talk. International Journal of Human
Sciences, Vol.9.
Smith. C. D., King. P. E. (2004). Student feedback sensitivity and the efficiency of
feedback interventions in public speaking performance improvement.
Communication Education, Vol.53, pp.203-216. Retrieved April 1, 2014.
Tomczyk. E. (2013). Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback teachers vs
students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, pp. 924-931.
Trees, A. , Kerssen-Grip, J. , & Heiss, J. (2009). Earning influence by communicating
respect: Facework‟s contributions to effective instructional feedback.
Communication Education Vol.58, No.3, pp. 397-416.
35
CLASSROOM PRESENTATION
Elvira Victorina
Abstract
The act of criticizing students‟ performance have higher tendency to threat students‟
faces. Though criticism is aimed at giving positive input, the way it is delivered may give
different result. The present study investigates teacher‟s politeness strategy in giving
certain criticism and its reason to perform it by observing and interviewing six
participants. The results were analyzed based on Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) theory of
politeness strategy and Nguyen‟s (2008) classification of criticism strategies. The result
indicates that teachers mostly tend to state the problem when criticizing student‟s
performance and use bald on record politeness strategy. The main reason is because the
teachers mostly focus on the form of criticism rather than student‟s face or other reason.
The result of the study can be used to help teachers and student-teachers develop their
awareness to save their student‟s face by choosing the most appropriate politeness
strategy when criticizing students.
Key words: Criticism, Face, Politeness strategies
INTRODUCTION
“Feedback is the key to the formative assessment. It can be defined as the
information that is given or is being given on how an action is being developed in terms
of its quality of success (Sandler in Santos & Pinto, 2006).” However, little concern has
been given enough to the effect of how they deliver the feedback especially criticism in
feedback. According to Trees, Kerssen-Grip and Hess (2009), “Although we
communicated feedback that does indeed offer participants an array of positive outcomes,
there are many ways that teachers‟ attempts to convey feedback can be ineffective, or
worse, counter-productive.” Smith and King (2004) also state similarly that the manner in
delivering feedback remains unclear. Therefore, criticism as feedback could serve as an
6
act of threatening student‟s face. Dannels, Gaffey & Martin (2011) also argues that
criticism as the central part of education may suggest a situation of pressure, fear and
harsh criticism. Cohen & Lotan as cited in Rex & Schiller (2009, p.50) explained that the
power of teacher is substantial. Since higher social statuses will give more powerful
threat over the hearer, teachers who have higher social status in classroom may threat
students‟ face. That is why students and colleagues become silent and stop showing off
(Rex & Schiller 2009, p.50). Hence, it can be concluded that criticism as feedback even
said for the sake of students‟ learning process may be very depending on the way it
delivered.
As some teachers tend to threaten students‟ face, the others try to save students‟ face
as their strategy in learning process. Rex & Schiller (2009) stated, “To build a learning
community requires the conscious exercise of face saving to mitigate face-threatening
acts (p.45).” Therefore, it is interesting to find out why some teachers try to save
students‟ face while the other try to threat students‟ face and in which criticism strategy
FTA often occurred.
Previous study by Jiang (2010) on Teacher‟s politeness in EFL class (a case study of
Chinese EFL learners) concludes that politeness does exist in EFL classroom and it does
contribute to both teaching and learning. Politeness in classroom contributes to the
effective relationship, create friendly and lively atmosphere and will affects the mutual
understanding and the relationship between student and teacher. The other study
conducted by Peng, Cai, and Tan (2012) on teacher‟s politeness strategies in EFL
classroom claims that teachers in EFL classroom are highly aware of politeness strategies
7
and often used negative politeness and positive politeness as their strategies in classroom.
They prefer to use positive politeness as it helps the students to develop their self image.
Those previous studies are emphasizing more on communication in classroom. However,
feedback is also play an important role in classroom interaction but less attention was
given in the previous study. Therefore, this study will focus to investigate the politeness
strategy used by teachers in giving feedback (criticism).
The investigation of this study was guided with three questions below.
1. What kinds of criticism are used by participants in criticizing student‟s oral
presentation?
2. What politeness strategies are used by participants in criticizing students‟ oral
presentation?
3. What are the participants‟ considerations in using these politeness strategies in
criticizing?
The study is aimed to investigate the politeness strategy which is used by the teachers
in giving criticism by also looking at the intention. The result of this study can be used
for teachers to reflect their methods in criticizing their students and also as a media for
student – teachers to develop their awareness to save their students‟ face by choosing the
appropriate politeness strategy when criticizing students. By developing awareness,
teachers can help bridge the gap between teachers and students, also to create a relaxing
and friendly atmosphere (Peng, Cai, Tan, 2012). If teachers are able to develop their
awareness, hopefully it will help the students to receive more positive results (Rex and
Schiller, 2008)
8
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Politeness
Jiang (2010) found, for the last two decades or so, many researchers try to
develop politeness theory. In this study, Brown and Levinson‟s politeness theory will be
used as the main politeness theory since the theory could be considered as the most
influential theory with many critiques, modifications, and reactions towards the theory
(Eelen, 2001). To note, the main focus of Brown and Levinson‟s politeness theory was
the notion of face. They mentioned that „face refers to, “the public self image that every
member wants to claim for himself (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.61)”.
There are two kinds of face based on Brown and Levinson‟s theory. The first is
positive face which refers to the desire to be approved or appreciated. The other is
negative face which means someone‟s freedom (Brown and Levinson, 1987). In some
situation, the speaker may threaten hearer‟s face. The act to threaten hearer‟s face
(conscious or unconsciously) is called Face Threatening Act (FTA) . It is an act where the
speaker tends to speak in ways that runs contrary to the face wants of the hearer in an
interaction either an act to threaten positive or negative face wants (Franch & Conejos,
2003).
To reduce the tendency of threatening hearer‟s face, the speaker can use some
strategies. The speaker may choose to perform FTA or choose to not perform FTA. The
choice that the speaker makes will influence the level of FTA. The speaker may choose to
9
perform FTA in either low or high level to threat speaker. Table 2.1 will present some
possible strategies for doing FTAs.
Diagram 2.1 “Possible strategies for doing FTAs” (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.60)
Less
Do the
FTA
Estimation
of risk of
face loss
Greater
On record
Without redressive action, baldly
With redressive action
Positive politeness
Off record
Negative politeness
Don’t do
the FTA
Speaker‟s decisions to perform a particular strategy will affect the hearer‟s face.
When the speaker decides not to say anything as the strategy to avoid performing FTA,
the speaker actually performing „Don‟t do FTA‟ strategy. It indicates that the speaker is
able to measure the level of the hearer‟s face. Here, the speaker is aware that there are
some certain situations when something is so face threatening to say. Even so, there are
also many situations where the speakers have to perform FTA or unconsciously perform
FTA. When the speaker chooses to perform FTA, there are four strategies that can be
chosen. Those strategies are off record, with redressive action (bald on record), positive
politeness and negative politeness.
The first strategy to perform FTA is off record. It is a strategy to be indirect and
ambiguous by using metaphor, irony, rhetorical questions, or by giving many hints.
Thomas and Jenny (1995) add other characteristic of this strategy which is ambiguous or
vague. Here, the hearer have to conclude what the speaker means since it is not clearly
stated. Thomas and Jenny states that, “These strategy include give hints, use metaphors,
be ambiguous or vague (Thomas and Jenny, 1995, p.173).”
10
On the contrary, when someone or a speaker chooses to performs on record, the
speaker intends to speak directly and clearly. By choosing to perform this strategy, the
speaker tries to avoid being ambiguous. There are two ways to perform this strategy. The
speaker can perform it without redressive action or with redressive action.
„Without redressive action (bald on record)‟ is a strategy where the speaker
speaks in maximum efficiency, very direct, concise and unambiguous. It is a strategy that
is usually used in an emergency situation or when the speaker has greater power over the
hearer, where the tendency to perform FTA is very small. On the other hand, when the
speaker chooses to perform redressive action, it means that the speaker recognizes the
hearer‟s face wants and tries not to threaten hearer‟s face by adding or reduce the threat
in a conversation. Here, both sides want to fulfill the need of face wants. There are two
forms of redressive action, positive politeness and negative politeness.
Positive politeness is an action where the speaker has an orientation to make the
hearer gives positive face. The possibility of face threat is minimized by performing this
strategy, as the speaker assume that in general the speaker‟s wants is at least some of
hearer‟s wants. Thus, the hearer‟s face is very important for the speaker when the strategy
is performed. The second form is negative politeness. It is more to hearer‟s basic wants
and self – determination. The speaker will not (or at least minimize) interfere the hearer‟s
freedom of action.
11
Table 2.2 summary of politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987)
Politeness
Characteristics
Strategies
Don‟t do FTA
When speaker decides not to say anything as the strategy to
avoid perform FTA.
Off record
Indirect and ambiguous by using metaphor, irony, rhetorical
questions or by giving many hints.
Bald on record
Very direct, concise and unambiguous. Usually used in an
emergency situation or when speaker has greater power over
the hearer where the tendency to perform FTA is very small.
Negative
More to hearer‟s basic wants and self – determination. The
politeness
speaker will not (or at least minimize) interfere the hearer‟s
freedom of action.
Positive politeness
When the speaker has an orientation to make the hearer give
positive face. The possibility of face threat is minimized by
perform this strategy, as the speaker assume that in general the
speaker‟s want is at least some of hearer‟s wants.
Criticism
Giving a criticism as teacher‟s feedback can be very helpful for the students in
teaching learning process. However, no one could ensure that every teacher know how to
deliver their criticism correctly. Tracy et al as cited in Nguyen (2008) defines criticism
as, “The act of finding fault which involves giving a negative evaluation of a person or an
act for which he or she is deemed responsible.”
12
There are some characteristics of good and bad criticism. A research by Tracy et
al cited in Nguyen (2008) about „good‟ and „bad‟ criticism divides five major
characteristics of criticism. The first one, a „good‟ criticism will be performed in positive
language and manner. Second, „good‟ criticism must show specific changes and the
critique must be used to help. Next, it has to have good and clear reasons. It also needs to
provide something good or useful in a positive message. Lastly, it has to be accurate and
does not violate the relationship between the speaker and the hearer. The other criticism
characteristic was defined by Wajnryb as cited in Nguyen (2008) that effective criticism
should be simple yet specific. The aim is to help the students to develop and gain
experience. The way it is delivered also needs to be soften by „measuring words‟, „soft
pedaling‟, and „using negotiating language‟. The other way, to save student‟s face,
teacher can give their critique either indirect or implied via third person.
In the present study, criticism by teacher in classroom will be used as the situation
or condition to investigate the reason behind politeness strategies chosen by teachers
when criticizing students‟ presentation. It is very important for the teachers to reflect their
methods in criticizing students orally (whether it is possible to minimize the level of FTA
towards the students or not). Moreover, it can be used as the media for student-teacher to
learn how to give oral criticism in classroom by minimizing threats to student‟s face.
In this study, the criticism theory that is mainly used is the adaptation of criticism
theory by Nguyen (2008). The criticism theory by Nguyen (2008) is used because the
theory classifies characteristic of criticism very specific and clear. In this theory, there are
13
five kinds of direct criticism and seven kinds of indirect criticism as can be seen in table
2.3.
Table 2.3 the taxonomy of criticism that adapted from Nguyen (2008)
Type
1. Direct Criticism
a. Negative
evaluation
b. Disapproval
c. Statement of the
problem
d. Statement of
difficulty
e. Consequences
2. Indirect Criticism
a. Correction
b. Indicating
Standard
c. Demand for
change
d. Request for
change
e. Suggestion for
change
f. Expression of
uncertainty
g. Asking/
Presupposing
Characteristics
Explicitly pointing out the problem with the hearer‟s choice/
actions/work/products, etc.
Usually expressed via evaluative adjectives with negative
meaning or evaluative adjective with positive meaning plus
negation.
Describing speaker‟s attitude towards hearer‟s choice.
Starting errors or problems found with hearer‟s choice, etc.
Usually expressed by means of such structures as “I find it
difficult to understand…” “It‟s difficult to understand…”
Warning about negative consequences or negative effects of
hearer‟s choice, etc.
Implying the problems with hearer‟s
choice/actions/work/products, etc. by correcting hearer,
indicating rules and standard, giving advice, suggesting or
even requesting or even requesting and demanding changes
to hearer‟s work/choice, and by means of different kinds of
hints to raise hearer‟s awareness of the inappropriateness of
hearer‟s choice.
Including all utterances which have the purpose of fixing
errors by asserting specific alternatives to hearer‟s choice,
etc.
Usually stated as a collective obligation rather than an
obligation for hearer personally or a rule which speaker
thinks is commonly agreed upon and applied to all.
Usually expressed via such structures as “you have to”,
“you must”, “it is obligatory that” or “you have required” or
“you need”, “it‟s necessary”.
Usually expressed via such structures as “will you…?”,
“can you…”, “would you…?” or imperativeness or wantstatement.
Usually expressed via “I advise you…”, or structures as
“you can”, “it would be better if” or “why don‟t you” etc.
Usually expressing speaker‟s uncertainty to raise hearer‟s
choice, etc.
Rhetorical questions to raise hearer‟s awareness of the
inappropriateness of hearer‟s choice, etc.
14
THE STUDY
Context of the Study
The study was conducted at English Department (ED) of Satya Wacana Christian
University which is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. In all classes, ED
teachers were required to give oral feedback in English to their students. Thus, the
context is suitable, considering that the focus of this study is to investigate the politeness
strategy used by teacher in giving feedback. The main focus of the study is to determine
the domain of politeness strategy used by teachers in English Department when
criticizing students‟ presentation and its reason.
Participants
The participants for the study were six non native teachers of English Department
who teach at any courses that require the students to do presentations in English, and
gave oral feedback. The use of non-native teacher as the participants was because both
the teachers and the students were non native. Thus, they share the similar politeness
value with other non native speakers.
15
Method of Research
This study was a qualitative study. The participants tend to be in small number
which is six participants. The data display of the study that would be used is participants‟
words. The data display later would be presented descriptively.
Instrument and Data Collection
The observation was conducted to identify which politeness strategies used by the
teachers and to describe more about strategies that the teachers used in criticizing their
students. In doing the observation, the researcher acted as non-participant observer and
recorded the observation by using video recording. The focus of the observation was the
teacher‟s talk which includes topics such as the way teachers criticize their students and
politeness strategies used by the teachers when criticizing. Observational protocol would
be used to capture the observational data (table 3.1) which is event-sampling protocol to
give an accurate description about the event that happened in the classroom during the
observation.
The next step, the researcher gathered the data by interviewing teachers. The
interviews focused more on the reasons of giving criticism in that particular way.
unstructured interviews were conducted, because the researcher wanted the participants
to be more open to the reasons why they performed particular politeness strategies and
developed understanding on the participants‟ point of view. Besides, this kind of
16
interview offered great flexibility for both researcher and the participant to respond to the
question. Therefore, the main point of the interviews was not to compare one reason to
others, but to report reasons why participants performed those strategies. The further
reason of selecting this kind of interview is to gather richer data since the participant
could describe the situation or give any detailed information that might be missing from
the researcher‟s point of view. The interviews were done not more than three days after
the observation.
Table 3.1 An event-sampling protocol for teacher‟s politeness strategies in criticizing
student‟s presentation
Observational Protocol
Name of course:
Class time:
Class duration:
No Types of Criticism
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Data
Name of Instructor:
Topic:
Total number of students:
Strategy
Data Analysis
In analyzing the data, the observation recording was transcribed. Then, the data
were coded by highlighting the teacher‟s criticism using the taxonomy of criticism by
17
Nguyen (2008). In the third step, the politeness strategy that used by teacher was
classified based on Brown and Levinson theory.
The data on teacher‟s reason for giving that particular criticism, which was
gathered through interviews, were transcribed. Statements and explanations from the
teachers indicated the reasons why they gave certain kind of criticism by using some
particular politeness strategy. Later, the reasons from the participants would be used to
concluded the result of the study by making a conclusion based on the combination of the
analysis of politeness strategy that the teacher used when they giving criticism and its
reason.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In attempt to answer the research questions, the paper will elaborate, first, the
strategies of criticizing in giving feedback. Second, politeness strategies in criticizing is
discussed. Third the considerations of performing those strategies is presented based on
interviews with the participants.
EFL Teachers’ Criticism Strategy
One of the objectives of the study is to find the criticism strategy that is used by
the participants. In this study, the taxonomy of criticism by Nguyen (2008) is adopted to
define the kinds of criticism which has been done by observing six participants. Table 4.1
18
presents the result that has been analyzed by quantifying the number of criticism
feedback while observing the participants.
Table 4.1. Kinds of criticism that are performed by participants.
Kinds of criticism
Correction
Indicating standard
Demand for change
Request for change
Suggestion for change
Expression of uncertainty
Asking/presupposing
Negative evaluation
Disapproval
Statement of problem
Statement of difficulty
Consequences
Total
Number
6
4
12
1
2
2
13
7
8
25
1
11
Percentage
6.52%
4.35%
13.04%
1.09%
2.17%
2.17%
14.13%
7.61%
8.70%
27.17%
1.09%
11.96%
92
100%
The data indicates that the participants mostly used statement of problem (27.17%)
as their strategy to deliver criticism in classroom. Statement of problem is a strategy
where the speaker tends to state the errors or problems that teacher, as the speaker, thinks
require fixation. The way it is delivered is also very direct to the main problem(s) that the
student as the hearer should fix or consider.
Example of statement of problem
1. Criticism data: “Look at your audience! Eye contact!”
2. Criticism data: “I found that the slide is lack of pictures.”
The second strategy that is mostly used by participants is asking/presupposing. It is
used 13 times (14.13%) in total. Through this strategy, the teacher criticizes students
indirectly by asking questions to make the students aware of the inappropriateness. The
characteristic of asking/presupposing is the teacher tends to ask question to the students.
19
In the example, the teacher use asking/presupposing to raise a discussion about
inappropriateness that student made.
Example of asking/presupposing
1. Criticism Data: “Did you notice that the speaker have difficulties to put
his hand?”
2. Criticism Data: “Interlocutor. What is it? Why is it difficult?”
Next strategy, demand for change is used 12 times (13.04%) by the participants.
Demand for change is a strategy where the teacher not only asks but demand students to
change by using expressions such as “you have to”, “you must”, etc (see table 3.2).
Although the example do not use such words that clearly show that it is including in
demand for change, the teacher demands the student to change by using idiom “leave the
debaters somewhere in your pocket.”
Example of demand for change
1. Criticism Data: “I know you’re debater but please leave the debaters
somewhere in your pocket.”
2. Criticism Data: “You’re in control of the class so whether you want it or
not you have to show them that I’m in control.”
The last criticism strategy, consequences is used 11 times (11.96%) by the
participants. Consequences is a strategy where the teacher warns the students about the
negative effects of student‟s decision or act. In the data presented below, the participants
warn the students of the negative effects of student‟s act in a presentation.
Examples of consequences
1. Criticism Data: “So, when you talk that fast, your audience will lose
some information.”
20
2. Criticism Data: “Be careful with the spelling because you are the
teacher.”
Refers to the data presented, it can be conclude that the way teacher deliver their
criticism is vary and unequal. Indirect criticism is used 40 times (43.47%), while direct
criticism is used 52 times (56.53%). Therefore, direct criticism and indirect criticism are
almost equally used by the participants, while the number of each criticism strategy such
as correction, indicating standard, demand for change, etc is vary
Teachers’ Politeness Strategy in Criticizing Students and its Consideration
Trees, Kreshen-griep and Hess as cited in Rudick and Martin (2011) explained
that teachers have difficult task to correct students‟ performance while at the same time
also need to protect student‟s face. Even, teachers with professional role often threats
continually threats student‟s face by evaluating their actions and utterances, and
interrupting students. (Cazden as cited in Shing, 2012) Thus the researcher try to seek the
strategy that teachers use in giving their criticism, considering that criticism is an act of
finding fault and have higher possibility to threat student‟s face.
Six participants were observed and four out of five politeness strategies by Brown
and Levinson appeared. The only strategy that did not appear is don’t do the FTA, that
was intentionally removed because feedback is unavoidable. Brown and Levinson (1988)
also argue that there are no interesting linguistic that is reflected by this strategy.
Therefore, in this study don’t do FTA strategy will not be discussed further. The table 4.2
21
presents the result that has been analyzed by quantifying the number of politeness
strategies found in criticism feedback while observing the participants.
Table 4.2. Result of politeness strategies that are performed by participants.
Politeness Strategy
Criticism Strategy
Correction
Indicating Standard
Demand for Change
Request for Change
Suggestion for Change
Expression of
uncertainty
Asking/Presupposing
Negative Evaluation
Disapproval
Statement of problem
Statement of Difficulty
Consequences
Total
Bald – on –
record
Off record
Negative
Politeness
Positive
politeness
Num
%
Num
%
Num
%
Num
%
6
2
1
1
1
1
6.52%
2.17%
1.09%
1.09%
1.09%
1.09%
1
1
1
1.09%
1.09%
1.09%
1
-
1.09%
-
1
-
1.09%
-
5
6
24
1
10
5.43%
6.52%
26.09%
1.09%
10.87%
12
2
1
1
1
13.04%
2.17%
1.09%
1.09%
1.09%
1
1
1.09%
1.09%
-
-
-
-
68
73,91%
20
21.74%
3
3.26%
1
1.09%
Bald on Record Strategy
In criticizing by giving the statement of difficulty, the participants tend to use bald
on record as their strategy. It is because the way the speaker delivers the criticism very
direct and unambiguous, which is the characteristic of bald on record. Here is the data
displayed for statement of difficulty in bald on record.
Criticism data: “I’m confused when you say tem. So what
do you mean is theme?”
From the data, the researcher hooks the participants by asking the consideration why to
choose to deliver the criticism in that way, and the consideration is the participant wants
22
to emphasize that wrong pronunciation may confuse people. Based on the participant‟s
consideration, it can be concluded that the participant only focused on how the main
message of her criticism is understandable for her students.
According to the data displayed in table 4.2, bald on record strategy is also
mainly used in correction strategy. James as cited in Tomczyk (2013) defines correction
as “The improved version of what the first speaker aimed to say.” Therefore, it depends
on how the correction is delivered to the hearer. Here, the researcher found that all the
correction strategy is always delivered in concise and unambiguous way by the
participants. Below is the data displayed of correction.
Criticism data: “And then on the slide. Just this group you
say for celebrate is wrong. You say for celebrating or to
celebrate so choose either one.”
Through interview, participant explained that she give example because she wants to give
prove while giving criticism to them. Therefore, it can be conclude that the participants
only focused on the form or how the criticism is delivered in order to make the students
understand the main message of the criticism.
In table 4.2, it is interesting to note that participants always used bald on record
strategy in criticizing by using request for change. It is fascinating to note that the
participant as the speaker use bald on record to ask or request the hearer to change
something. Again, the classification is very depending on how the criticism strategy is
delivered. Here, the participant chooses to deliver the request in maximum efficiency,
23
very direct and concise. Below is the data display of request for change in bald on
record.
Criticism data: “So what I’m asking from you and all of you here is
intonation.”
In criticizing by using statement of problem, participants mainly use bald on
record to deliver criticism. It is probably because the way it is delivered mostly very
direct and unambiguous which is also the characteristic of bald on record. Below are
some data presented for statement of problem in bald on record.
1. Criticism data: “Well, I think all of the group is show
consistency in making classic mistakes.”
2. Criticism data: “Actually some of you are very complete
in socializing about the budget but some of you may be
forgot mention about it.”
3. Criticism data: “Almost all of you depend much on the
slide and that’s going back to the problem of preparation.
Not to mention the pronunciation.”
In the first example, the participant explained the consideration that he thinks
some people understand with flowery words, while some do not. Therefore, the
participants argued he needs to be direct in order to make the students understand. The
conclusion is the participant tends to threat students‟ face in purpose in order to achieve
his communication goal which is to make them understand.
While in second example, the participant stated that the consideration to deliver
criticism this way because the participant decide not to judge the students, but start with
24
something positive by mentioning some students are good while some missing. In this
criticism, the participant use certain words like the word some to make the criticism is
less direct. By looking at the reason, the participant is aware of the student‟s faces,
especially those who do not make the mistake. The way it is delivered is also in positive
way in order to prevent the participant from threatening the students‟ face. The
interesting part here is that even the participant does not have intention to hurt the
students‟ face, the criticism is delivered in bald on record strategy which has high
tendency to threat someone‟s face. It is probably because of the time efficiency factor
since the criticism is delivered at the end of the lesson.
In the third example, the participant admit that the main consideration to deliver
the criticism in bald in record is because the limited time he has. That is why he has to
deliver it as concise as possible. By trying to deliver it as concise as possible, the
tendency to do FTA is increase as in one criticism data, the participants can deliver some
problem that the students have.
The other criticism that often used by participants in bald on record strategy is
disapproval. Disapproval itself is a strategy where the teacher can express his/her attitude
towards students‟ choice. Therefore, deliver a criticism using this strategy in bald on
record may have high tendency to threat students‟ face. Below is the criticism data
presented.
Criticism data: “My first comment is your gesture. You
keep doing this as if your left hand was glued with this
white board.”
25
The participant stated that the consideration to deliver the criticism this way because of
the student‟s factor which it is only applicable to certain people that he know very well.
By looking at the consideration which is not only try to deliver the message and
considering student‟s face but also look deeper into one of the politeness factors which
are relationship‟s distance. In other words, the participant is highly aware that his
utterance may threat student‟s face, but still perform it. The main consideration
participant tends to do FTA in purpose because the participant know the student well and
probably think that by performing FTA to the students will not affect their relation.
Last criticism strategy that often used in bald on record is consequences.
Consequences is a criticism strategy where the teacher can warn the negative effects of
students‟ choice. Hence, deliver consequences in maximum efficiency and direct may
have high tendency to perform FTA. In the data presented below, the participant
mentioned the consideration is because this kind of situation was rarely happened in
classroom, however it was suitable with the topic. The interesting part here, the
participant give this kind of feedback not because the students make mistake in class, but
more to prevent the students to make this kind of mistake. In other words, it can be
conclude that the participant is totally unaware of the FTA and only focused on how the
main point of her criticism is understandable for the students.
Criticism data: “Even when you write down on the board,
some of the students may write the wrong answer.”
Bald on record is never used in asking/presupposing since the nature of
asking/presupposing is to raise hearer‟s awareness of something by using rhetorical
26
question. Hence, asking/ presupposing is never delivered in form of bald on record
because it is hard to raise hearer‟s awareness in a maximum efficiency and very concise
form (which is characteristic of bald on record).
Off Record Strategy
As the safest strategy according to Shing (2012), off record was not used as much
as bald on record which is known to have more tendency to threat hearer‟s face. To note,
off record was never used in statement of difficulty, request for change, and suggestion
for change. It can be because these kinds of criticism rarely delivered through hints, irony
or sarcasm.
According to table 4.2 off record is commonly used in asking/presupposing by
participants. Shing (2012) pointed out that off record is the safest strategy as the strategy
includes giving hints, being ironic and using rhetoric questions. Since the nature of
asking/presupposing is also using rhetorical questions, it is obvious when the participants
perform this criticism strategy mostly it will be in off record classification. Below are
some data displayed for asking/presupposing in off record.
1. Criticism data: “I think that’s a language use. Where’s the
difficulty?”
2. Criticism data: “Diction here related to pronunciation. I
guess its unconsciousness.”
In first example, is a common example of off record strategy that also has a
common reason which is to make the student think and aware. Here, the participant tends
27
to ask question to raise students‟ awareness and think about their mistake instead of
explicitly stated the error. By the consideration above, it can be concluded that the
participant only focus on how the students can understand their error.
Different from the first example, in the second example the participant stated that
she did not want to judge the student since there is a possibility that the student may
forget about how to pronounce certain words. In this example, the participant not only try
to deliver her message but also aware of the student‟s face and do not want to judge the
students. The participants also try to lessen threat the students‟ face by using the word
guess.
In criticizing by using demand for change, participants found to make use off
record strategy. Demand of change is a strategy where the speaker expressed an
obligation by using certain expression (See table 2.3). By looking at the criticism data,
the participant used sarcasm in his criticism which is can be classified in off record
strategy.
Criticism data: “So, if you think your language is rubbish,
sorry… Then you need to correct it.”
The word rubbish is the main question since the word rubbish can be considered as very
threatening for the students‟ face. However, the participant admits that it‟s only a
unconsciousness he made since the background of the participant is English British and
according to the participant it‟s commonly used and can be considered as soft swear
word.
28
The last criticism strategy that mainly used in off record strategy is expression of
uncertainty. Same as demand for change, this strategy only occurred once but represent
50% of the total data of its occurrence (see table 4.2). Expression of uncertainty is a
strategy where the teacher can express his/her uncertainty to raise the inappropriateness
of students‟ choice. Since the participant delivers it indirectly and use sarcasm, therefore
it classified as off record. The participant stated that he was curious whether his students
is copy and paste their work from a book. By looking at the data displayed below, the
researcher may conclude that the participants use this strategy to clarifying something to
the students.
Criticism data: “It is mostly like what you have in the
book in chapter 7. Did you take it from chapter 7?.”
Negative Politeness
The next politeness strategy to be discussed is negative politeness which occurred
in very small number in the table 4.2. Dunleavy et al (2008) argued that negative
politeness can be the second most threatening strategy. “They include being
conventionally indirect, questioning, hedging, being pessimistic, minimizing imposition,
giving deference and apologizing (Kitao as cited by Chiravate, 2011).” To note, negative
politeness only occur in asking/presupposing, disapproval and indicating standard.
Through observation, similarity between those three data were spotted. All of them are
showing the tendency to interfere the hearer‟s freedom of action implicitly or questioning
29
hearer‟s choice. The criticism data below will present one of the examples of negative
politeness in asking/presupposing strategy.
Criticism data: “This one is also, I think it’s the content
which is mistake. This should be celebrate woman’s day,
Krtini’s day, but it’s on April 22nd why? If Kartini’s day is
on April the 1st.”
The participant tends to interfere the hearer‟s freedom of action through the criticism as
the participant questioning something that should be the students‟ freedom of action. In
the interview session, the participant said that she would like to deliver the criticism
directly since the example is clear. By looking at the consideration, it can be conclude
that the participant just focus on the form to deliver the criticism and make the students
understand the criticism without considering other factors.
The next strategy that will be discussed further along with the reason from the
participants to perform is negative politeness in disapproval. Disapproval is a criticism
strategy where the teacher can describe his/her attitude towards students‟ choice. In this
strategy, there is only one participant and one data occurred in the observation.
Criticism data: “I remembered you Pratama was sitting
here and then I was asking a question to myself is
Pratama angry because the way… I mean his gesture look
like as if you’re angry. May be it’s a seriousness, but your
seriousness is angry to me.”
Through interview, the participants state his consideration to deliver his strategy this way
which is because for the participants the function of his criticism is to make a joke so he
30
could blend with the class. The participant also mentioned that he will only state the
name (choose to deliver the criticism personal) if only he know the student well.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the participant use negative politeness strategy in
order to reduce the distance between the participants and the students by make a joke
while deliver his criticism. The other thing that the participant also said is the way he
chooses to state the name which is also indicated the relation between the participants and
the student.
The last strategy to be discussed is negative politeness in indicating standard.
Indicating standard is a criticism strategy where the teacher a collective obligation which
is commonly agreed. Here is the example.
Criticism data: “Maybe it’s better when you say; okay, so
I’ll just find it out for you and then next week I’ll just come
with the word or names. As the teacher it’s okay if you
don’t know the word, then you can just say that or this
would be my homework and I’ll just try find it out for you
and I’ll give to you next week.”
The participant stated that the aim to deliver the criticism this way is because some of
the students tend to ignore some questions when they don‟t know the answer, while
the use of the word “if” is to show the students how to handle that kind of situation.
The participant tends to be very indirect in explaining the point of her criticism which
probably causes the students make a negative face. By looking at the reason, the
researcher conclude that the participant tend to focus on how she deliver the criticism
and make the students understand the point of her criticism.
31
Positive Politeness
The last politeness strategy to be discussed is positive politeness. This strategy
occurred only once in the data in suggestion for change. As the name, suggestion for
change is a strategy where the speaker suggests the hearer to do something. The used of
positive politeness in suggestion for change strategy signaling the speaker try to reduce
the FTA. Below is the display of criticism data in suggestion for change in positive
politeness.
Criticism data: “Sometimes the questions even from your
friends you can think oh well, why don’t we think about
this previously?”
The criticism data, a question about the aim to use certain word like the word sometimes
is used to hook the participant. However, the participant explains that the consideration to
use the word sometimes here is just choice of words in order to show the students that
they might be just aware about the topic. By looking at the consideration, the researcher
conclude that through this criticism the participant only focus on the way it‟s delivered to
make the students understand. The fascinating part here lays on the classification of the
data which is can be classified as positive politeness which can be considered as one of
the strategies where the speaker have high opportunities to lessen the FTA‟s tendency.
However, the participant uses the strategy unconsciously.
32
CONCLUSION
This study reported the findings about kinds of criticism used by teachers in
criticizing students‟ performance in their presentation and the politeness strategies that
are used in those criticisms along with its considerations. The study is conducted by
observing six participants followed by interviewing them. At the end, this study conclude
that teachers as the participants mostly tend to state the problem when criticizing their
students, while the politeness strategy that commonly used is bald on record although the
other strategies also used in varied number. There are various considerations to use
certain politeness strategy but most of the reason is because the participants are focusing
more on the form rather than the student‟s face or other reasons.
The only limitation of the study is the time availability of participants to do interview
session which was varied. Some participants could not do the interview session within
three days which is the maximum time to do observation. Moreover, the interview is done
through using unstructured interview which also need plenty of time to conduct. This
time limitation, affect the number of the data.
For further research, it is suggested to investigate more on teacher‟s intention to
say certain criticism based on speech act theory. Since speech act theory is a theory to
identify the meaning of the speaker‟s utterance (Intachakra, 2004). Besides, Nguyen
(2013) also argues that, “Literature on L2 learner‟s use on highly offensive speech acts
such as complaints, chastisements and criticism has been rather scarce.” Therefore, the
33
future study related to this may be very useful for both teacher and student - teacher to
reflect their methods in giving criticism and learn ways to criticize students.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First, I would like to thank to God Almighty for the favor and strength to finish this
study. I am also very grateful to my supervisor and the examiner for the guidance,
feedback and suggestion during this study. Finally, I would like to thank to my parents
for always cheer, support and inspire me during the process.
REFERENCES
Bou-Franch, P., & Conejos, P. (2003). Teaching linguistic politeness: A
methodological proposal. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, Vol. 41, pp.1-22.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chiravate, B. (2011). Perception of politeness in English request by Thai EFL learners.
The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, Vol. 17(2), pp.52-71.
Dannels, D. P., Housley-Gaffey, A. L., Martin, K. N. (2011). Students‟ talk about the
climate of feedback interventions in the critique. Communication Education, Vol.
60, pp.1-19.
Dunleavy, K. N., Martin, M. M., Brann, M., Booth-Butterfied, M., Myers, S. A., Weber,
K. (2008). Student nagging behavior in the college classroom. Communication
Education, Vol.57, pp.1-19.
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. United Kingdom: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Intachakra. S. (2004). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: apologies and
thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal, pp.37-62.
Jiang, X. (2010). A case study of teacher‟s politeness in EFL classroom. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, Vol.1, No.5, pp. 651-655.
34
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by
Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatic 5-1 (2008), pp.41-46.
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2013). An exploratory study of criticism realization strategies used by
native speaker and non native speaker of New Zealand English. Multilingua, Vol.
32(1), pp.103-130.
Peng, L., Cai, L., & Tan, X. (2012). Research on college teachers‟ politeness
strategies in EFL classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,Vol.3,
pp. 981-991.
Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2008). Using Discourse Analysis to Improve Classroom
Interaction. New York: Routledge.
Rudick, C. K., Martin, M. (2011). Students‟ perception of face threat from instructors‟
use of behavior alternation techniques. Texas Speech Communication Journal,
Vol. 36, pp. 13-23.
Santos, L., Pinto, J. (2006). The teacher‟s oral feedback & learning.
Shing. S. R. (2012). Politeness in mentor-mentee talk. International Journal of Human
Sciences, Vol.9.
Smith. C. D., King. P. E. (2004). Student feedback sensitivity and the efficiency of
feedback interventions in public speaking performance improvement.
Communication Education, Vol.53, pp.203-216. Retrieved April 1, 2014.
Tomczyk. E. (2013). Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback teachers vs
students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, pp. 924-931.
Trees, A. , Kerssen-Grip, J. , & Heiss, J. (2009). Earning influence by communicating
respect: Facework‟s contributions to effective instructional feedback.
Communication Education Vol.58, No.3, pp. 397-416.
35