the ISFC39 Proceedings - International Systemic-Functional ...

to boldly proceed ...The content of the journals were then marked using the criteria given in Table 1 below(further criteria relating to presentation are not included here), with six criteria divided intotwo broad categories of theory and application. Students were awarded 1 mark for eachcriterion covered, and 0.5 for an incomplete or incorrect answer. A quantitative overview ofthe results gives some insight into how students reacted to the challenges of this course (NB:all percentages listed are out of the total number of students). We discuss the results brieflyright after the Table.CriteriaNumber ofstudents whoaddressedcriterion fullyNumber ofstudentswhoaddressedcriterionpartiallyTotalTheory a) key concepts included 35 (87.5%) 2 (5%) 37 (92.5%)b) explanations coherent 10 (25%) 4 (10%) 14 (35%)c) definitions explicit and accurate 2 (5%) 7 (17.5%) 9 (22.5%)Application d) good examples included 23 (57.5%) 5 (12.5%) 28 (70%)e) examples well discussed 3 (7.5%) 5 (12.5%) 8 (20%)f) analysis correct 14 (35%) 6 (15%) 20 (50%)Table 1: Marking criteria and student results for Reflective Journal assignmentTheory. (a) The overwhelming majority of students included one or more of the keyconcepts that had been introduced in the course: including concepts such as themetafunctions, register, genre, speech function, Theme, New, thematic progression, andmood type, as well as general topics such as the differences between spoken and writtenlanguage. (b) Only 35% demonstrated the ability to incorporate these concepts into a coherentdiscussion, showing an awareness of the theory as a complete framework; in some cases theyshowed a further metatheoretical awareness of how SFL related to other theoreticalframeworks. (c) Just less than a quarter (22.5%) of students understood the need to definetechnical terms; of these only 5% did so clearly and accurately, while a further 17.5%attempted definitions but did so unclearly or inaccurately.Application. (d) 70% of the students understood the need for appropriate examples, ofthese 57.5% provided examples that were relevant and able to be discussed, while a further12.5% provided examples that were not detailed enough, or which did not support theanalysis being put forward. (e) Only 20% of students incorporated their examples into theirdiscussion in a meaningful way, of these only 7.5% were able to use the examples to supporttheir case, while a further 12.5% did so in an incomplete or unsatisfactory manner. (f) Exactlyhalf (50%) of the students provided an analysis of their examples according to the guidelinesintroduced in class, of these 35% provided a correct analysis, and a further 15% an analysisthat was incorrect or incomplete in some way.96