Students' Perceptions about Course Evaluation: A Discourse Analysis from the Perspective of the Appraisal System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study is based on a pedagogical action regarding discursive strategies used by university students in evaluating a course in which they are enrolled. The objective is to identify linguistic items using instruments and categories based on theoretical frameworks from the systemic functional linguistics (SFL) perspective (Halliday, 1985; Halliday & Mathiessen, 2014): more specifically, carrying out a discourse analysis through the appraisal system elaborated by Martin and Rose (2003) and Martin and White (2005). The corpus of this research comprises responses to three open-ended evaluation questions to 24 participants. The discourse analysis of students’ evaluations focuses on the perceptions of these learners regarding the course’s positive and negative aspects. The researcher observed how, through lexicogrammatical choices, students characterize their perceptions of the course using the categories of appreciation and judgment, which are components of the subsystem of attitude, in the appraisal system, considering the types: reaction, composition and valuation and the subcategory capacity. Results indicated that the discourses were marked mainly by the subcategories of reaction quality and valuation relevance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".