Appraisal in student-supervisor conferencing: a linguistic analysis.

BACKGROUND

Student-supervisor conferencing involves a pivotal moment for teaching and learning, involving clinical educators in directing the students' work with clients, promoting the students' learning and self-evaluation, and in providing feedback to students about their progress. Previous research in the area of student-supervisor conferencing has focused on broad categories of behavioural aspects of this clinical education process, but less is known about how educators and students use their linguistic resources to manage the interpersonal aspects of communication involved in these learning partnerships.

AIMS

This paper presents a descriptive study of the way language was used by clinical educators and students in student-supervisor conferences. The main aim of the study was to describe some aspects of the linguistic resources used by clinical educators and students to evaluate their work and learning in routine discussions, outside the framework of a formal assessment of student progress. Within the inherent limits of descriptive research, the study also considered the extent to which selected aspects of language use reflected individual communicative style or varied across partners and over time.

METHODS & PROCEDURES: The study was descriptive, using case studies as well as grouped data. Audio recordings of ten authentic student-supervisor interactions were provided voluntarily for the study by four clinical educators and their six speech-language pathology students. After transcription, linguistic analysis described the resources used for Appraisal (Affect, Judgement and Appreciation), from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Educators used proportionally more resources to express Judgement in contrast with students who used proportionally more resources to express evaluation of Affect. Most Judgements were expressed positively and directly, whereas negative Judgements tended to be expressed implicitly. Comparison of clinical educators' language across repeated occasions indicated use of a range of linguistic resources, rather than the use of these interpersonal resources being associated with particular styles for supervision.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The findings provide directions for clinical educators seeking to reflect on supervisory practice, and also highlight the need for further longitudinal research, and for further research into the interactive learning processes involved in current models of clinical education.