Teachers’ responses to students’ homework complaints in e-mailcommunication: A cross-cultural perspective


Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

While language teachers may assign additional homework based on their educational beliefs and institutional policies, learners’ responses, particularly complaints, are shaped by underlying cultural norms and expectations. The way teachers respond to such complaints reflects culture-specific styles of teacher-student interaction. This study aims to explore the lingua-cultural factors shaping teachers’ perspectives on homework, their complaint response strategies (CRSs), and the linguistic features of these strategies. Accordingly, this study examined the perspectives of 32 native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) and 54 Turkish non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) on homework, as well as their strategies for addressing student complaints about homework in the Turkish educational context. Data were collected using a survey and a discourse completion task. Results indicated that both groups valued homework for reinforcing learning and improving achievement. NESTs prioritized student autonomy and self-directed learning, while NNESTs favored structured, guided assignments tailored to student needs. In responding to complaints, NESTs often used commiseration strategies, whereas NNESTs employed authoritative approaches, using imperatives, passive voice, and modal verbs. Despite these differences, both groups relied on guidance and explanation as their primary strategy, promoting constructive dialogue and resolving concerns. Results highlight the significance of considering the diverse pedagogical approaches adopted by NESTs and NNESTs, as well as the distinct linguistic choices they make in complaint responses, which reflect underlying cultural interactional norms and have implications for intercultural communication in language classrooms. It is important to appreciate these differences in order to foster a collaborative and culturally sensitive educational environment.

Авторлар туралы

Tanju Deveci

Antalya Bilim University

Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: tanjudeveci@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5905-9793

Associate Professor in the Department of English Translation and Interpretation Studies at Antalya Bilim University, Antalya, Turkey. He has taught English for Academic Purposes at Bilkent and Sabancı Universities in Turkey, as well as at Khalifa University in Abu Dhabi, UAE. His research and teaching articles cover a wide range of topics, including pragmatics, andragogy, and learning styles.

Antalya, Turkey

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Almahameed, Yazan Shaker, Khaleel Bader Al Bataineh & Raeda Mofid George Ammari. 2022. The use of passive voice in news reports for political purposes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 13 (6). 1196-1202. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1306.07
  2. Aporbo, Russel, Judy Marie C. Barabag, Bernadette U. Catig & Christine Maybelle P. Claveria. 2024. Face-threatening and face-saving speech acts of teachers: A discourse analysis of classroom interactions. World Journal of English Language 14 (3). 413-439. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n3p413
  3. Boxer, Diana. 1993. Complaints as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly 27 (2). 277-299. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587147
  4. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Chen, Yuan-shan, Chun-yin Doris Chen & Miao-Hsia Chang. 2011. American and Chinese complaints: Strategy use from a cross-cultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (2). 253-275. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.012
  6. Cupach, William R. & Christine L. Carson. 2002. Characteristics and consequences of interpersonal complaints associated with perceived face threat. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 19 (4). 443-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502019004047
  7. Dajem, Zenah Ayed. 2023. Patient complaints to the Saudi medical call center: Representative response strategies. Health Communication 27. 1-13. https://do.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2189997
  8. Deveci, Tanju. 2010. The use of complaints in the interlanguage of Turkish EFL learners, Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 12 (2). 25-42.
  9. Deveci, Tanju. 2015. The complaint speech act set produced by university students speaking English as a foreign language. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal 4 (1). [Special Issue]. 2161-2171. https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040. 2589.2015.0287
  10. Deveci, Tanju & Jessica Midraj. 2021. “Can we take a picture with you?” The realization of the refusal speech act with tourists by Emirati speakers. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25 (1). 68-88. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-68-88
  11. Deveci, Tanju, Jessica Midraj & Wael El-Sokkary. 2023. The speech act of compliment in student-teacher interaction: A case study of Emirati university students’ attitudes. Russian Journal of Linguistics 27 (1). 111-133. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30051
  12. El-Dakhs, Dina Abdel Salam & Mervat M. Ahmed. 2023. A pragmatic analysis of students’ complaints and professors’ responses to complaints: A case study of an Egyptian private university. Cogent Arts & Humanities 10 (1). 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2252634
  13. Eslami, Zohreh R. 2005. Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints: English and Persian. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (6). 911-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.010
  14. Eslami, Zohreh R., Tatiana Larina & Roya Pashmforoosh. 2023. Identity, politeness and discursive practices in a changing world. Russian Journal of Linguistics 27 (1). 7-38. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-34051
  15. Fang, Ming, Shi Zong, Jing Li, Xinyu Dai, Shujian Huang & Jiayun Chen. 2022. Analyzing the Intensity of Complaints on Social M edia. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.09366
  16. Hartford, Beverly S. & Kethleen Bardovi-Harlig. 1992. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning 3. 33-52.
  17. Kasper, Gabriele. 1997. Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught? (NetWork #6) Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/Can pragmatic competence be taught?
  18. Kowalski, Robin M. 1996. Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences. Psychol Bull 119 (2). 179-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.179 PMID: 8851274.
  19. Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
  20. Laforest, Marty. 2002. Scenes of family life. Complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10-11). 1595-1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00077-2
  21. Larina, Tatiana. 2020. ‘Sense of privacy’ and ‘sense of elbow’: English vs Russian values and communicative styles. In Helen Bromhead & Zhengdao Ye (eds.), Meaning, life and culture: In conversation with Anna Wierzbicka. Australian National University Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/mlc.2020.22
  22. Leech, Geoffrey & Jan Svartvik. 1994. A Communicative Grammar of English. Longman.
  23. Litvinova, Angela V. & Tatiana V. Larina. 2023. Mitigation tools and politeness strategies in invitation refusals: American and Russian communicative cultures. Training, Language and Culture 7 (1). 116-130. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2023-7-1-116-130
  24. Murphy, Beth & Joyce Neu. 1996. My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining. In Susan M. Gass & Joyce Neu (eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in second language, 191-216. Mouton de Gruyter.
  25. Nghiêm-Phú, Bình. 2018. Comment and comment response strategies-an analysis of gay hotel guests’ comments and managers’ responses. Tourism and Hospitality Management 24 (1). 133-149. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.24.1.10
  26. Olshtain, Elite & Liora Weinbach. 1987. Complaints: A study of speech acts in the Hebrew-speaking community in Israel. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 195-217. Oxford University Press.
  27. Olshtain, Elite & Liora Weinbach. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 108-122. Oxford University Press.
  28. Thongtong, Tiwahporn. 2022. Complaint responses in business emails: An interlanguage pragmatic study of Thai EFL learners. Education Quarterly Reviews 5 (3). 309-324. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.05.03.547
  29. Tsoumou, Jean Mathieu. 2024. Facework in teacher-student email interactions. Russian Journal of Linguistics 28 (2). 243-265. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-35650
  30. Van Swol, Lyn M., Erina L. Farrell & Andrew Prahl. 2017. Advise with permission?: The effects of advice solicitation on advice outcomes. Communication Studies 68 (4). 476-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1363795
  31. Wei, Ming. 2024. A contrastive study of Chinese and American online complaints: Speech act construction in relation to face management. Pragmatics and Society 15 (3). 376-399. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21059.wei
  32. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9 (2-3). 145-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90023-2
  33. Zbenovich, Claudia, Tatiana V. Larina & Vladimir Ozyumenko. 2024. Culture and identity in critical remarks: A case study of Russian and Israeli academic classroom discourse. Pragmatics and Society 15 (3). 351-375. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20064.zbe
  34. Zhou, Qing & Tatiana V. Larina. 2024. Power and solidarity in pronominal forms of address: A case study of Chinese and Russian teacher-student interactions. Training, Language and Culture 8 (1). 87-100. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
  35. Zhou, Qing, Souhila Laiche & Tatiana V. Larina. 2023. Emotional effect of teachers’ discourse in a multicultural classroom. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie 22 (1). 123-137. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.1.10
  36. Brueggeman, Amanda. 2022. Student-centered Mentoring: Keeping Students at the Heart of New Teachers’ Learning. Corwin Press.
  37. Cooper, Harris. 1989. Homework. Longman.
  38. Deveci, Tanju. 2019. Homework vs. home-learning: A lifelong learning perspective and student perceptions. English Scholarship Beyond Borders 5 (1). 57-80
  39. Fitria, Tira Nur. 2023. The issue of native and non-native English-speaking teachers: Which is the ideal English teacher? IALLTEACH (Issues in Applied Linguistics & Language Teaching) 5 (1). 48-58. https://doi.org/1045.133/iallteach.v5i1.7800
  40. Hassan, Aminuddin & Nur Syuhada Jamaludin. 2010. Approaches & values in two gigantic educational philosophies: East and west. Online Educational Research Journal 1 (2). 1-15.
  41. Hong, Eunsook & Roberta M. Milgram. 2000. Homework: Motivation and Learning Preference. Bergin & Garvey.
  42. Hwang, Wei-Chin. 2016. Culturally adapting psychotherapy for Asian heritage populations: An evidence-based approach. Academic Press.
  43. Ilaltdinova, Elena Yu, Svetlana V. Frolova & Irina V. Lebedeva. 2017. Top qualities of greater teachers: National and universal. International conference on linguistic and cultural studies. 44-52. Springer International Publishing.
  44. Juvonen, Sara & Auli Toom. 2023. Teachers’ expectations and expectations of teachers: Understanding teachers’ societal role. In Martin Thrupp, Piia Seppänen, Jaakko Kauko & Sonja Kosunen (eds.), Finland’s famous education system: Unvarnished insights into Finnish schooling, 121-135. Springer.
  45. Kahveci, Hakki. 2023. The positive and negative effects of teacher attitudes and behaviors on student progress. Journal of Pedagogical Research 7 (1). 290-306. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202319128
  46. Kartal, Galip & Cem Balçikanli. 2019. Tracking the culture of learning and readiness for learner autonomy in a Turkish context. TEFLIN Journal: A publication on the teaching and learning of English 30 (1). 22-46. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v30i1/22-46
  47. Li, Yongmei. 2018. Teacher-student relationships, student engagement, and academic achievement for non-Latino and Latino youth. Adolescent Research Review 3 (4). 375-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0069-9
  48. Marbach-Ad, Gili & Phillip Sokolove. 2001. Creating direct channels of communication: Fostering interaction with e-mail and in-class notes. Journal of College Science Teaching 13 (1). 178-182.
  49. Martínez, Lorea. 2016. Teachers’ voices on social emotional learning: Identifying the conditions that make implementation possible. The International Journal of Emotional Education 8 (2). 6-24.
  50. Noble, Risk Nelson, Nancy Heath, Amanda Krause & Maria Rogers. 2021. Teacher-student relationships and high school drop-out: Applying a working alliance framework. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 36 (3). 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520972558
  51. Ogur, Erol, Sukru Bastürk & Ersin Sahin. 2022. Turkish as a foreign language instructors’ perception towards homework. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies 10 (2). 155-162. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.10n.2p.155
  52. Omosehin, Omolaso & Andrew P. Smith. 2019. Do cultural differences play a role in the relationship between time pressure, workload and student well-being? In Luca Longo & Maria Chiara Leva (eds.), Human mental workload: Models and applications. H-WORKLOAD. Communications in computer and information science, 186-204. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32423-0_12
  53. Qi, Shu. 2024. Analysis of the effects of cultural differences on teaching and learning styles and the impact on teaching and learning in China. International Journal of Education and Humanities 12 (2). 40-43.
  54. Sayers, Judy, Joran Petersson, Gosia Marschall & Paul Andrews. 2022. Teachers’ perspectives on homework: Manifestations of culturally situated common sense. Educational Review 74 (5). 905-926. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1806786
  55. Scarlett, W. George, Ponte Iris Chin & Jay P. Singh. 2009. Approaches to Behavior and Classroom Management: Integrating Discipline and Care. SAGE. https://doi.org/ 10.4135/9781452274737
  56. Turanli, Adem Sultan. 2009. Students’ and parents’ perceptions about homework. Education and Science 34 (153). 61-73.
  57. Walkinshaw, Ian & Oanh Thi Hoang Duong. 2014. Native- and non-native speaking English teachers in Vietnam: Weighing the benefits. Sage Open 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014534451
  58. Yıldız, Vahit Aga & Durmuş Kılıç. 2020. An investigation on the viewpoints of students, teachers, and parents about homework in primary schools. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching 7 (4).1572-1583.
  59. Zhang, Qixin & Daniel Solarz. 2022. Advantages and disadvantages of native and nonnative English-speaking teachers. Journal of Student Research 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v11i2.2624
  60. Morales, Gustavo. 2019, December 19. Students complain about too much homework. Wolfpack Times. URL: https://wolfpacktimes.net/858/opinion/students-complain-about-too-much-homework/ (accessed 9 June 2024)
  61. Sabir, Fizza. 2015. Teacher approachability in higher education: Determining its characteristics and their connection with teacher attachment styles, wellbeing and spirituality [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Adelaide, Australia].
  62. Sulastri, Endang. 2014. Complaint responses used by Indonesian EFL learners [Undergraduate thesis, Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta].
  63. Ziro, Lawi A. 2019. Online customer complaint response strategies and customer satisfaction: Case study of Kenyan telecommunications companies [Doctoral dissertation, Strathmore University].

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML

© Deveci T., 2025

Creative Commons License
Бұл мақала лицензия бойынша қол жетімді Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».