ABSTRACT

When is a word not just a word? Can it be expected that using an everyday word or phrase when providing feedback means that it will be understood in the same way by different students at various stages of their academic journey? No matter how well intended feedback is, if a student is unable to correctly interpret the language used, it will prove to be of little use. This research considers the dissonance between the intended message of written feedback on written assessments provided by law academics and the understanding of the recipient. The authors used the survey method to obtain free text comments which identified common words and phrases used in legal academic feedback, along with academics’ experiences and opinions of the effectiveness and purpose of feedback. The common words and phrases identified through this process were then incorporated into surveys undertaken by students at three of four levels of study. This stage of the research was completed by examining the qualitative data gathered, paying particular attention to the language of feedback itself. This was completed in the context of examining existing literature surrounding the general language of feedback, but focusing on specific legal language. The authors encountered some unexpected misinterpretations and some surprising synergy.

摘要

什么时候一个词不只是一个词？是否可以期望在提供反馈时使用日常单词或短语意味着不同学生在学术旅程的不同阶段会以相同的方式理解？无论预期的反馈多么好，如果学生无法正确解释所使用的语言，那将证明它没有多大用处。本研究考虑了法律学者提供的书面评估书面反馈的预期信息与接收者的理解之间的不一致。作者使用调查方法获得自由文本评论，其中确定了法律学术反馈中使用的常用词和短语，以及学者对反馈有效性和目的的经验和意见。通过这个过程确定的常用单词和短语然后被纳入四个级别中的三个级别的学生进行的调查中。这一阶段的研究是通过检查收集的定性数据完成的，特别注意反馈本身的语言。这是在检查围绕一般反馈语言的现有文献的背景下完成的，但重点是特定的法律语言。作者遇到了一些意想不到的误解和一些令人惊讶的协同作用。这是在检查围绕一般反馈语言的现有文献的背景下完成的，但重点是特定的法律语言。作者遇到了一些意想不到的误解和一些令人惊讶的协同作用。这是在检查围绕一般反馈语言的现有文献的背景下完成的，但重点是特定的法律语言。作者遇到了一些意想不到的误解和一些令人惊讶的协同作用。