Empathy in Written Feedback to Graduate Students

Abstract

Empathy can play an essential role in improving formative feedback for learning in higher education. Formative feedback refers to "information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one's performance or understanding" (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81). It has been identified in the research of assessment as a useful tool that enhances student learning. However, a number of factors must be born in mind, like feedback quantity, quality, timing, linguistic style and empathy, as these can affect how feedback is perceived by students. A plethora of studies have investigated feedback quantity, quality, and timing. However, little attention has been given to both feedback linguistic style and empathy. This research in the Educational domain seeks to remedy particular significant omissions in formative assessment literature in two areas: 1) Linguistic style by using "register theory", which refers to field, tenor, and mode of discourse (e.g. Halliday, McIntosh, & Strevens, 1964) in Systemic Functional Linguistics to highlight the inadequately captured relationship between language structure and language function (Halliday, 1985) in connection with formative feedback, and 2) Empathy by using the three types of empathy: "cognitive", "affective", and "compassionate empathy" (Ekman, 2003) to highlight the missing role of empathy in connection with formative feedback. In the current study, field expressed through ideational meanings, tenor expressed through interpersonal meanings, and mode expressed through textual meanings are examined in relation to how empathy is reflected in written feedback provided to graduate students and how that written feedback is perceived by those students. A sample of seven students from a Faculty of Education is examined. The systemic coder (O'Donnell, 2023) is applied on participants' collected data. Results show that the linguistic style of a professor is found to affect students' perceived empathy of written feedback for learning provided on their assignments. The use of the ideational meanings of material processes, mental processes, verbal processes, nominalised imperfective clauses, verbal classifiers, derived verbal nouns, non-human participants, passive voice, and circumstances; the interpersonal meanings of declarative statements, yes/no questions, wh-questions, modalization (usuality), modulation (inclination) and vocatives (second person); the textual meanings of interpersonal Theme, textual Theme, lexical density, continuity, conjunction, cohesion and emphasis, clause complex, expansion (elaborating) and expansion (extending); and the appraisal meanings of positive force, positive focus, positive judgment, positive appreciation, positive emotion, proclamation, entertainment and attribution in written feedback provided to students are all found to help students perceive feedback as empathic. Thus, professors are suggested to increase the use of these language aspects when providing feedback to students. The reason is because of the hidden positive meanings these aspects can add to the feedback provided. This feedback is more likely to be perceived by students as reflecting empathy. However, the use of the ideational meanings of behavioural processes, existential processes, relational processes, underived verbal nouns, nominalised adjectives, abstractions, human participants, missing participants and active voice; the interpersonal meanings of imperative statements, not-full questions, modalization (probability), modulation (obligation), personal pronouns and vocatives (third person); the textual meanings of topical Theme, structural textual adjuncts, no cohesion, ranking clauses and grammatical intricacy; and the appraisal meanings of negative force, negative focus, negative judgment, negative appreciation, negative emotion and disclaim in written feedback to students are found to help student perceive feedback as reflecting no empathy. Hence, professors are advised to decrease the use of these aspects when providing feedback. This is because of the hidden negative and unintended meanings these aspects can add to the feedback provided. Additionally, results show that students perceive feedback as empathic when it cognitively meets student needs, affectively respects student feelings, and compassionately provides actions or solutions for improvement. Likewise, empathic feedback is found to result from healthy relationships among participants, professors and students in this case. These relationships could help participants build teamwork and enrich their experiences in learning. Besides, empathic feedback is found to be detailed and customized to the point in hand. Moreover, empathic feedback is found to be the responsibility of professors as they are feedback providers. Professors are recommended to accept that responsibility and overcome any potential barriers like class size and/or technology that may prevent them from providing empathic feedback. Failing to provide students with empathic feedback is found to reflect negative consequences on students. These consequences can confuse and overwhelm students and it can drive them to make unhealthy decisions, which may prevent them from succeeding in a learning episode. Decision-makers are also requested to help professors by reducing the number of accepted students in each class and the number of tasks required for each learning episode. Similarly, professors are advised to understand their students by building healthy communications with them. Lastly, professors are recommended to keep training themselves and to seize any opportunity that may improve their skills on how to provide empathic feedback.