Since feelings and emotions intrinsically pervade conversations, the affective dimension of conferencing cannot be ignored (Chen, 2005, p. 19).

One of the fundamental principles of my personal teaching philosophy posits that teaching is not only a purely instructional treatment, but also an interpersonal relationship. Some of us may separate out teaching as a special (i.e., professional) activity, but in fact it is a natural extension of social life where interpersonal relationships play a crucial role. So both in my scholarly work and in my pedagogical endeavors, I strive to understand the social nature of teaching.

As a writing instructor, for example, I often wonder how my feedback is perceived by students. I am keenly aware of the fact that providing feedback on student performance inherently assumes evaluation, correction, suggestions for improvement, and even criticism; in other words, it includes face-threatening acts. These acts can certainly become an obstacle to the development of positive relationships between the teacher and student. Therefore, when I provide written feedback, I pay particular attention to how I articulate my remarks and suggestions, as I know that even the most delicately and tactfully formulated written comments can easily be taken the wrong way and be destructive to learner identity (Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011). I also try to remind myself that my goal is not passing judgment on students’ papers, but rather involving them into a collaborative process of revision.

I began to think even more deeply about the influence of one-on-one feedback sessions on teacher-student relationships when I started teaching introductory composition courses at Purdue University in 2012, where writing conferences were and are still part of the programmatic curriculum. Though conferences can be an incredibly effective way to respond to student writing, face-to-face feedback encounters are by no means emotionally neutral (Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011). Instead, they are potentially face-threatening and events “with important identity implications for students” (Trees, Kerssen-Griep, & Hess, 2009, p. 398). Thus, they can be harmful to the cultivation of positive teacher-student relationships. Reflecting on my conference interaction with my first-year composition students, I have realized that, as teachers, we have power to impact our message byhow we convey it.

In the literature, writing conferences are sometimes presented not only as purely instructional, but also as relationship-building venues. Wilcox (1997), for example, believes that the role of a writing teacher should not be purely instructional (text-oriented), but should also be nurturing (student-oriented):

For a writing teacher, the role of nurturer is more important than the role of instructor. Knowledge and ability in using the writing process are of little value unless the writer is growing along with the writing project and feels trust in his or her teacher. Thus, working with people must be a priority over working with papers. (p. 509)

Writing conferences therefore can be seen as both an academic and a relational venue, and conference interaction can be defined as “a hybrid kind of conversation that is both curricular and interpersonal” (Consalvo, 2011, p. 28). In this respect, the goal of writing conferences can be both responding to student writing and developing positive teacher-student relationships. Quite paradoxically, however, the instructional aim of writing conferences may appear to be contradictory to the achievement of its relational objective. Providing feedback on student writing is the primary conference activity from an institutional viewpoint, and from this perspective, the development of positive teacher-student relationships may be impeded due to the nature of feedback as an instructional phenomenon in which constructive feedback plays an important role.

What is the potentially damaging influence of feedback on teacher-student relationships? First, as a pedagogical practice, providing feedback encompasses power relations. Furthermore, as stated earlier, responding to student writing involves potentially face-threatening acts. This can all negatively influence conference atmosphere and even strain teacher-student relationships (Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011). In addition, Chen (2005) aptly stated that “feelings of being welcomed or rejected, encouraged or humiliated, valued or threatened remain strong in learners long after the conference is over” (p. 19). Therefore, writing instructors should pay particular attention to how conferences are conducted, how feedback is given, and how students may feel about this feedback.

So What Can Teacher Training Programs Do?

Taking these challenges into account, it is my hope that writing teacher training programs will raise teachers’ awareness of the relational nature of feedback and the important role of teachers’ interactional behavior in writing conferences, particularly in face-threatening moments of interaction. It is true that teacher education courses vary in length, content, and format; therefore, it is virtually impossible to provide general recommendations that would suit every program. Nevertheless, encouraging writing instructors to reflect on their own conference practices is a feasible task.

One way to encourage instructors to reflect on their embodied behavior is to ask them to video record (e.g., by using a camcorder, a digital photo camera with the video-recording option, or a smartphone) their interactions with students during writing conferences and keep reflective journals on these interactions as part of their ongoing professional development. Such reflective journals would not only help teachers become better aware of the interactional resources they use to respond to student written work during conferences, but they would also help teachers find possible mismatches between what teachers think they should do and what they actually do in real-life conference interactions. Sample questions may include the following:

• Do I maintain eye contact with my students when interacting with them?

• How often do I smile when interacting with my students? Why?

• What kinds of voice intonation do I use when providing feedback, especially critical feedback? What kinds of emotions do I communicate through my voice?

• What kinds of emotions do I communicate through my facial expressions?

• What kind of stance do I express through my gestures?

• Does my overall embodied behavior project a pleasant attitude?

• Do I appear friendly and supportive or critical and disappointed?

As teachers, we probably tend not to reflect on the use of our interactional embodied behavior, partly because it is deeply ingrained in our daily interaction, and thus it is subtle and mundane. Nevertheless, though teachers may intuitively perceive the importance of expressing affiliation (both verbally and nonverbally) with students when providing feedback during conferences, this may not reflect their actual performance. Therefore, through video-recording their conference interaction and writing honest reflections, teachers can align their feedback behavior with their beliefs.

Conclusion

As social actors, we are highly sensitive to each other’s interactional behavior, and teacher-student interaction is no exception. Therefore, I hope we will embrace the relational dimension of writing conference interaction and try to further develop our understanding of conferences as a place where writing teachers and students can coconstruct positive social interaction without deviating from the instructional goals of the meeting. To this end, teacher awareness of their interactional behavior is crucial, and video-recording of conference interaction followed by reflections will help to raise this awareness.

I do believe that during writing conferences, teachers can sensitively use affiliative interactional resources (including their talk and embodied behavior), thereby lessening the face-threatening potential of their feedback and maintaining positive teacher-student relationships. As Nguyen (2007) noted, the teacher can establish an environment “where real learning tasks are done and real social relationships are built through the authentic and natural employment of various interactional resources” (p. 299).

References

Chen, J. S. W. (2005). Interactional influences on writing conferences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

Consalvo, A. L. (2011). Writing conferences and relationships: Talking, teaching, and learning in high school English classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

Nguyen, H. (2007). Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Language and Education, 21(4), 284–303.

Trees, A. R., Kerssen-Griep, J., & Hess, J. A. (2009). Earning influence by communicating respect: Facework's contributions to effective instructional feedback. Communication Education, 58(3), 397–416.

Wilcox, B. (1997). Rapid research report: Two roles of a teacher during a writing conference. The Reading Teacher, 50(6), 508–510.

Witt, P. L., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2011). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework and immediacy on students' perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Education, 60(1), 75–94.

Elena Shvidko is an assistant professor at Utah State University. Her research interests include L2 writing, multimodal interaction, and interpersonal aspects of language teaching. She is also a TESOL blogger, focusing on L2 writing. Her work appears in Journal of Response to Writing, System, TESOL Journal, and TESOL’s New Ways series.