27.4154, Review: App Ling; Disc Analysis; Lang Acq; Pragmatics: Ewald (2015)

The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Mon Oct 17 14:43:40 UTC 2016


LINGUIST List: Vol-27-4154. Mon Oct 17 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.4154, Review: App Ling; Disc Analysis; Lang Acq; Pragmatics: Ewald (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry,
                                   Robert Coté, Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:43:23
From: Nicholas Figueroa [Nfigueroa at albany.edu]
Subject: The Inbox

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36179617


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-744.html

AUTHOR: Jennifer D. Ewald
TITLE: The Inbox
SUBTITLE: Understanding and Maximizing Student-Instructor Email
PUBLISHER: Equinox Publishing Ltd
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Nicholas James Figueroa, University at Albany - SUNY

SUMMARY

This book, “The Inbox: Understanding and Maximizing Student-Instructor Email”,
by Jennifer D. Ewald, contributes to the study of e-mail communications that
occur within the student-teacher relationship.  As a common medium that
transpires in most academic settings, students implement several discourse
strategies for achieving their personal academic goals.  E-mail has evolved to
combine formal and informal discourse markers, which results in a plethora of
mixed messages.  This sets the stage for misunderstandings and
misinterpretations by instructors who categorize such emails as improper and
unprofessional.  This investigation explores emails from a group of 338
university students, studying Spanish or linguistics, to one instructor of the
same university.  

The goal of this study is to add to what is known concerning the reasons
students email teachers in the manner that they do and analyze the features
and language used as well as the resulting patterns, strategies or connections
between language selection, pragmatic functions and email “norms.”  The
approach is to examine elements of these emails with frameworks from past
investigations and study the application of oral and written features.  As
each of the ten chapters highlights a different pragmatic strategy (e.g.
request making, expressing gratitude, complaints, etc.), the author presents
different perspectives and examples that can be useful as pedagogical feedback
for instructors. By recognizing particular features teachers might avoid
labeling the email/student as disrespectful or unprofessional and become more
sensitive to alternate interpretations. This book concludes with suggestions
for future areas of research.

In Chapter 1,“Student-Teacher E-Mail: An Introduction” the author introduces
the fundamental characteristics of email interactions between a student and
his/her teacher.  As email is a hybrid between written and oral communication,
the author advises that issues may develop related to the academic and
interpersonal matters.  This fosters the need for sensitivity and
understanding to be expressed by the instructor through an analysis of the
patterns, contexts, motives and goals of students while considering their
individual experiences. The diverse quality of student emails complicate that
relationship by frustrating the instructor due to the grammatical or pragmatic
deliverance and misinterpretation.  The instructor’s expectancy of the
student’s “non-attentive” manner towards the norms of email protocol is what
the author hopes to address by showing that such emails reveal an essence of
etiquette and that the blame should not solely be placed upon students. 
Because of such a hybridity of formality and informality certain oral features
resonate within the emails of students, which may spark miscommunication.  The
author ends the chapter by mentioning previous research and offers a
categorization of functions for student emails (e.g. making requests, excuses,
complaints, apologies, etc.). Within social frameworks, the author hopes to
contextualize common interpretations by additionally offering large scale,
naturalistic data from foreign/second language contexts.  The author intends
to explore the L2 aspects within students’ emails and investigate the patterns
and beliefs of students’ understanding in hopes of establishing a better
resource for instructors for the cultivation of relationships.

In Chapter 2, “The Present Study: Research Design,” the investigator outlines
the research design of the investigation, which analyzed 1,403 emails written
by 338 university students.  These emails were written over a timeframe of 3.5
years to one instructor of both Spanish and Linguistics courses.  Students
enrolled in the Spanish courses (293) sent 1,193 message; those enrolled in
the Linguistics courses (39) sent 161 messages, and students in both courses
(6) sent 49 messages, a majority of which were initiated by the student. 
Although the investigation occurred without the informants’ consent, the
Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research
(IRB) and the investigator assured the identity protection of the informants
as the investigator and instructor were the same individual.  With a natural
collection of authentic communicative interactions, this provided data of the
students’ intentions within real-world situations as opposed to elicited data.
 After analyzing the data and the intent of the emails, the author compiled
the following list of content/function categories: requests, apologies,
“dropbox,” excuses, expressions of gratitude, complaints, and the students’
usage of their L1/L2.  The results of the author’s investigation can assist
educators and linguists in their interactions with students.

In Chapter 3, “E-mail Communication: Student Beliefs and Conventions,” the
author offers qualitative insights towards student beliefs and perspectives on
e-mail etiquette and norms.  
“The understanding of how university students view and use email with
professors might help faculty members accept, or at least better manage, email
interactions with their students” (Ewald, 19).  It focuses on the difficulties
faced during communication within cyberspace as a result of the language,
context, or norms.  The author finds that students reveal patterns and trends
regarding their beliefs and expectations in their e-mail practices.  This
chapter presents data concerning the content/function categories and provides
contextualized examples of each.  Of the emails, 828 were categorized as
“request” emails that sought information or permission from the instructor. 
The investigator grouped both “excuses” and “apologies” under the same
category: “repair work.”  This group included 250 emails categorized as
“excuse” emails and 17 “apology” emails.  An additional 68 emails were
categorized as “expressions of gratitude.”  A total of 19 were identified as
complaint emails.  The chapter concludes with the author advising that
instructors should disconnect themselves from the students emotionally and
take their time when analyzing and replying to a message without overreacting
or negatively internalizing a message.  This can lead to more effective ways
of communicating to the student and encouraging them to revisit their email
etiquette.

Within Chapter 4, “Students’ Use of the Dropbox,” student emails are addressed
related to the function category of “dropbox,” where students submit course
documents through the electronic medium.  In the author’s investigation, 78
emails were coded as “dropbox.”  The emails’ opening and closing statements,
forms of address and preclosing, and their intent were analyzed. Instructors
have at times responded negatively as a result of “impolite dropbox” emails
that lack salutations, greetings or closings.  The author offers examples of
different forms of address and closings and “dropbox” data on the percentages
of emails in her study and compares them with those of previous investigations
by Economidou-Kogetsidis (2011).  The author found that native speakers have
access to a broader range of lexical choices for closing remarks than
non-native speakers.  She suggests that future research provide instructors
with feedback and that they include instructor preferences for particular
forms of address and student use of forms.  Additionally, future research
should note the differences between “dropbox” and other forms of
communication.  

Chapter 5, entitled “Requests,” discusses 828 student emails categorized as
“requests.”  Some request emails asked the instructor for advice/help,
meetings, favors, letters of recommendation, grading reconsiderations or the
homework assignment.  Within these emails, students added lexical expressions
of gratitude, the usage of “please” and apology phrases to soften the strength
of their request.  The author offers examples of different “request” emails
and lexical patterns found across messages.  The chapter concludes with noting
the implications that often accompany “request” emails.  The author noted that
instructors should anticipate that such emails will revolve around the
student’s academic situation and include polite phrases, expressions of
gratitude and apologies.  Finally, the author suggests that instructors
separate themselves from any prior interpersonal experiences or preconceived
notions in their evaluation and response and take into account each student’s
situation.  The chapter concludes with the author’s recommendation for future
research concerning strategies teachers use to convey politeness in response
to such an interaction. 

Chapter 6 entitled “Repair Work: Apologies,” presents findings concerning
student emails that consist of repair work.  It analyzes 267 apology emails in
which students apologize for specific behaviors or problematic situations that
occurred.  With expressions of gratitude, accounts of the situation and
apologies, students try to repair their interpersonal relationship with the
student.  The author offers a framework of the most frequent reasons students
send apology emails: expressing an apology, explaining a situation,
acknowledging responsibility, offering a repair and promising forbearance. 
The author presents patterns of lexical phrases found in apology emails. 
Through apology emails, the student attempts to reconstruct their image by
positioning their explanation to be heartwarming; this is done in order to
bring about convergence.  It is a discourse strategy that combines an apology,
excuse and justification.  The author proposes that teachers recognize the
vulnerability of the student and the difference of power in the
teacher-student relationship.  The teacher should demonstrate sensitivity and
understand that students balance academic and non-academic commitments.  The
chapter concludes with suggestions for future research on discourse strategies
that may help educators understand their reactions and responses to apology
emails. 

Chapter 7, Repair Work: Excuses,” offers an analysis of emails labeled repair
work: “excuses.”  The data consisted of 250 “excuse emails” in which students
attempted to do repair work for previous or future actions or behaviors.  One
of the most frequent motivations behind an “excuse” email was the student not
attending a class, whether for medical or personal reasons.  With a
combination of “apology” and justification, the student acknowledges their
responsibility in hopes that the instructor will empathize.  The chapter
offers insight concerning instructor reactions towards these types of emails. 
The author advises instructors to become more sensitive to the situations
which might arise.  Suggestions were made for future research on instructor
reaction towards students and if they are more likely to respond negatively or
positively in online communication compared with face-to-face interactions.

In Chapter 8: Expressions of Gratitude, the author focuses on expressions of
gratitude which may occur as a result of the instructor writing a letter of
recommendation, providing course help, granting permission for course
registration, postponing an exam, answering a grading question, etc.  The
author offers data from her study that supports other investigations and
discusses common phrases found in the 68 emails under analysis and explains
strategies that students use to express appreciation.  The chapter concludes
with the author’s suggestion for future research comparing the naturalistic
data she presents with data taken from controlled investigations.  Such
research can result in teachers understanding and managing their relationships
with students in a more effective way. She advises that instructors should put
aside any natural suspicions towards these emails and try to cultivate
positive communication with students. 

Throughout Chapter 9 entitled “Complaints,” the author analyzes “complaint”
emails where the student is dissatisfied with an action, behavior or
expectation of the teacher.  Complaints are interpreted as a threat to the
student-teacher relationship, as the instructor may emotionally internalize
and misinterpret the complaint.  The author’s data included only 19 complaint
emails sent towards the end of the semester and which involved a student
grade, the amount of work due, or the instructor’s refusal to write a letter
of recommendation.  Instructors often misinterpret “complaint” emails as
“request” or “excuse” emails, depending on when the email was sent.  She
compares her findings with data from other investigators and notes similar
ways in which students allude to what had occurred, their ways of expressing
discontent and requests, patterns of linguistic features, and tone.  The
author suggests future research on thoroughly understanding the student
complaints.  Teachers should evaluate each email they receive in order to
understand the type of email involved and how they might respond.  Such
caution may protect the student-teacher relationship and prevent further
negative interactions.

Chapter 10, “Student Use of L1/L2,” focuses on the role of student use of
their L1 (native language) and L2 (target language) within emails sent to
their Spanish instructor, focusing on the L2 (Spanish) that is present.  A
total of 63 emails were written entirely in Spanish, and 1,340 emails
contained some Spanish phrases, such as opening and closing statements.  Such
emails varied in terms of student motive.  The author notes the importance of
understanding why students convey a specific message in one language or
another. Student inclusion of the L2 can additionally allow instructors to
understand and assess the linguistic needs of students. The author suggests
that teachers should be understanding of the amount of L2 used and encourage
it in spite of student grammatical, linguistic, and pragmatic errors.

In Chapter 11, the final chapter entitled “A Few Final Thoughts: Where to Go
>From Here,”
the author offers thoughts concerning her study and its results. She mentions
the need for more research including emails from students to multiple teachers
or which involve use of multiple languages.  An improved understanding of the
nature of different emails and email etiquette can strengthen the
communicative relationship between student and teacher.  The author’s data
allows instructors to become aware of patterns within student emails and
assist them in making constructive and positive solutions responses.  The
author concludes by mentioning that it is important for the instructor to
identify and modify their response to encourage students to maintain their
academic relationship.  

EVALUATION

This book serves as an excellent aid in recognizing and elaborating on the
patterns found within email communication between students and instructors. 
It is beneficial to linguists and the academic field as it enhances knowledge
concerning the discourse strategies used by students.  The author does an
excellent job of presenting her collected natural data, analyzing the
different function categories, identifying patterns and offering explanations.
At times, an instructor may receive many emails with similar motives, and the
instructor may unproductively reference past experiences and respond
negatively.  

This book’s investigation targets an audience of instructors and challenges
them to become more understanding of the situations and email etiquette of
students, and to practice different methods and strategies in addressing them.
 Through an analysis of the author’s data and the frameworks of similar
investigations, the author does an excellent job of determining what features
correlate to different email functions, of categorizing the most frequent
characteristics of student emails, and of understanding the linguistic
strategies and choices students make. The author encourages her audience to be
open to offering positive feedback and suggests strategies to that end.

The goal of the author was to analyze such emails and elicit a stronger
student-teacher relationship and create an awareness for the processes that
occur.  This book would be beneficial in university pedagogy courses that
educate young and aspiring instructors to become more knowledgeable,
insightful and effective.  The contents of this book can easily be understood,
and is pertinent in particular to foreign language instructors.  Each
chapter’s focus and examples are relevant and can help instructors and
educators understand the difficulties faced by students.  Every chapter ends
with a summary of themes, pedagogical implications and suggestions for future
research and builds upon the previous chapter in an efficient manner. The book
provides a new perspective regarding the academic field of student-teacher
electronic communication and the issues each faces in their linguistic and
communicative interpretation and strategies.  

REFERENCES

Economidou-Kogetsidis  , M. (2011).  ‘Please answer me as soon as possible’:
pragmatic
    Failure in non-native speaker’s email requests to faculty.  Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(13),
    3193-3215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.006
 
Ewald, Jennifer D.  The Inbox: Understanding and Maximizing Student-Instructor
Email.  Bristol, CT: Equinox, 2016.  Print.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Nicholas James Figueroa is a PhD student at the State University of New York
at Albany in the Hispanic and Italian Studies Program. He is currently
conducting research on the neutralization of Spanish liquid consonants in
syllable final positions in the speech of U.S.-born Puerto Rican and Dominican
heritage Spanish language speakers. His primary research interests are in
Caribbean dialectology, sociolinguistics, bilingualism, language contact,
phonology and Latin American/Caribbean Studies.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

        Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-4154	
----------------------------------------------------------







More information about the LINGUIST mailing list