the ISFC39 Proceedings - International Systemic-Functional ...

to boldly proceed ...As shown in Table 2, the frequency of technical terms, experiential and logical metaphorsincreased by .4, .3 and 3.2 per 1000 words respectively. When compared with Phase 1, thechange in the frequency of technical terms and experiential metaphor was smaller. However,the frequency of logical metaphors increased by 3.2. The comparison between Phase 1 andPhase 2 helped us design the last phase of the research where the students were provided withknowledge about GM at the whole text level.4.3 Development of GM use in Phase 3: January – April, 2010Phase 3 focused on the consequential explanation composed by students from the Departmentof Linguistics. The students were enrolled in the Introduction to Linguistics unit. Eightstudents were selected to investigate whether the frequency of GM increased due to theinformation provided to the students. The following table shows the frequency of technicalterms and GMs.TechnicaltermsExperientialmetaphorLogicalmetaphorInterpersonalmetaphorAssignment 2draft 1 –Assignment 2final –1 28.1 14.7 -1.5 32.2 21.5 -Change in ‰ .5 4.1 6.8 -Table 3: Frequency of GM and technical terms in Phase 3As Table 3 illustrates, the students used experiential and logical metaphors frequently.However, there was no instance of interpersonal metaphor and technical terms were notfrequently used. The frequency of experiential metaphor increased by 4.1 per 1000 words,and the frequency of logical metaphor increased by 6.8 per 1000 words throughout Phase 3.In comparison to Phase2, the frequency of GM in draft 1 was much higher and increase in thefrequency of GM was also higher.5 How do tutors support their students’ GM use?The tutors who participated in the research also provided feedback targeting students’ GMuse. As discussed earlier, the tutors did not receive any training regarding GM identificationand feedback provision during Phase 1. The tutors who participated in Phase 2 and Phase 3were provided with training on GM. The training in Phase 2 concentrated on the clause levelwhere the tutors were presented with example sentences that included GMs. Congruentagnates were created for the example sentences to show tutors how meanings might beextended through GM use. The training during Phase 3, on the other hand, focused on theoccurrence of GM instances within their context in relation to the whole text. The tutors werepresented with explanation texts without thesis statements and topic sentences and wereasked to fill in the blanks using experiential and logical metaphors.The feedback instances were categorized based on the degree of explicitness and theamount of rationale provided by tutors (Ahmar & Devrim, forthcoming). The degree ofexplicitness refers to the directness level of the feedback: whether tutors provided studentswith GM or whether they elicited or required students to revise their text implicitly. Theamount of rationale refers to whether a tutor told their students what is problematic with aparticular text and why.48