Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

OFFICE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROGRAMS
Home > English Language Programs Teaching Pragmatics > What Do You Think?

What Do You Think?

Requesting Responses from Professors

Donald Weasenforth
George Washington University, United States

Level: Intermediate university students

Time: 50 minutes

Resources: Survey (see Teacher Resource) and e-mail access

Goals: To learn to make appropriate e-mail requests for feedback from professors on course assignments


Description
As part of a larger unit on the differences between direct and indirect communication in English, this set of activities focuses on student e-mail requests for professors' responses to written assignments. The first activity asks students to consider factors involved in professors' impressions of such requests. Students are organized in small groups and provided a list of activities related to student-professor e-mail communication, including communicating with students by e-mail, accepting students' work by e-mail (in-text addenda), accepting students' work as e-mail attachments, given deadlines by students, and helping students edit their papers. Students discuss whether they believe professors would find these activities appropriate. This part of the lesson takes approximately ten minutes.

After the students have completed their small group discussions, a 5- to 7-minute class discussion follows in which the instructor helps students synthesize the information from the small groups, also prompting a discussion of the levels of imposition created by the various activities. This discussion may be extended by asking about other possible factors, including cultural variations in student-to-professor requests for response.
Once students have a clear understanding of the contextual issues, a list of actual student requests for response are distributed in the form of a survey, which also provides a brief description of the context (See Teacher Resource). The students are asked to rate the requests as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" or to indicate that they are not sure. Students complete the survey individually, then compare and discuss their ratings in small groups, applying the principles discussed in the earlier discussion.

A synthesis of the small group discussions is prompted in a class discussion. In addition to discussing students' ratings and reasons for their ratings, students are asked to provide more appropriate request forms for those they found inappropriate or questionable. Students may also provide additional forms for the appropriate requests. It is important, also, to ask the students what they think professors' responses might be to the requests, especially the inappropriate ones, and to discuss how a student who receives a negative response from a professor for sending an inappropriate request might repair the situation.

To provide an opportunity for production, students are assigned a short writing assignment (perhaps a summary/response to this lesson) which they should e-mail to their ESL/EFL instructor. The message should include two requests for response to the assignment, one that they believe is appropriate and one that they believe is inappropriate. The instructor responds to each message and prompts students to repair the situation caused by the student's inappropriate request. Encouraging students to produce inappropriate responses provides them with the opportunity to receive an authentic response in an instructional environment. As repairs seem to be an inevitable part of communication, especially over e-mail, this provides valuable practice for learners.

Procedure

1. Discussion of contextual factors determining forms of requests for response

a. Provision of list of factors for small group discussion

Communicating with students by e-mail

Accepting students' work by e-mail (in-text addenda)

Accepting students' work as e-mail attachments

Given deadlines by students

Helping students edit their papers

b. Small group discussion of factors

c. Class discussion

Synthesis of small group discussions

Discussion of relative levels of imposition of factors

2. Ratings of actual requests

a. Distribution of survey

b. Individual completion of ratings

c. Group discussion

Comparison of ratings

Discussion of reasons for ratings

d. Class discussion

Synthesis of small group discussions

Identification of various forms of requests

Discussion of exchanges prompted by request

3. Production

a. Assignment of short writing assignment

b. Assignment of e-mail requests for response

c. Instructor response to both requests

d. Student repair of situation prompted by inappropriate request

Rationale
This lesson is important for three reasons: students do request responses from professors via e-mail, professors expect such requests, and students do not always use pragmatically appropriate forms of requests for response as exemplified by the examples listed in the survey. Student-to-professor requests for response have become commonplace with the use of e-mail in many classes and as distance learning courses, in which e-mail is often the primary medium of communication between students and professors, has grown . The possible results of not using appropriate forms of requests underscore the importance of the lesson. As noted by Bardovi-Harlig andHartford (1990) and Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig (1996), by using pragmatically inappropriate requests, students risk denial of their requests and they jeopardize their relationships with professors.

The lesson incorporates essential elements of communicative exercises as identified by Bardovi-Harlig (1996). It provides opportunities for students to investigate the pragmatic determinants of language usage, such as the levels of imposition created in sending attachments, setting time deadlines for professors, and requesting editing help. There is also opportunity for students to identify variations in request forms and to associate these variations with various levels of imposition as a way to understand the appropriateness of forms. Student production of requests is also an explicit part of the lesson.

The student requests used in this lesson and the basis for discussing the appropriateness of the requests from professors' perspectives come from an empirical study in which student-to-professor requests for response were collected and rated by NS academic professors. Weasenforth & Biesenbach-Lucas (2000) collected over 100 requests for response from both NS and NNS students. A sample of the requests, including those used in this lesson, were rated for appropriateness by 13 NS professors.

Alternatives and Caveats
University students need to become familiar with general expectations and forms of address that will be necessary for appropriate communication with professors. In their English classes, students can share their knowledge and experience and raise cross cultural differences (e.g., in class participation).

Teacher Resource

Survey

(General results from Weasenforth and Biesenbach-Lucas (2000) are noted in parentheses under each request.)

Direct & Indirect Communication: E-mail Messages to Professors

Directions: You are submitting a piece of written work by e-mail to your professor for him/her to read and you want to ask him/her to provide feedback. Which of the requests below would you use in your e-mail? Which ones are appropriate? Which ones are inappropriate? Why do you think that they are inappropriate?

References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. Bouton (Ed.) Pragmatics and language learning. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. and B.S. Hartford. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40, 467-501.

Hartford, B. S., and Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). "At your earliest convenience": Written student requests to faculty. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Vol. 7, pp. 55-69). University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Weasenforth, D. and S. Biesenbach-Lucas. (2000). "Please help me": L1/L2 variations in solicitations in electronic conferences. Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum 2000. Madison, Wisconsin.

Back to the top