علیرضا جلیلی فر

Delivering supervisory feedback to teachers is considered a challenge in teacher education and evaluation. This study analyzed the rhetorical features and effectiveness of the academic commentary that observers write at the end of observation forms. The study aimed to explore the qualitative section of an observation form that is filled out by observers during classroom observation and obtain an understanding of macro and micro features, and how they are perceived by observers and observees through a questionnaire. For this purpose and on account of the Swalesian approach (2004), we gleaned 200 commentaries written by different observers across the country, examined the recurring rhetorical patterns of structure, and subsequently developed a questionnaire to elicit the effectiveness of these features in academic commentaries. The result revealed that as a review genre the extracted framework enjoyed a rhetorical structure generically representative of a common practice in characterizing academic commentary in the Iranian context, and in terms of effectiveness, although there were discrepancies, the majority of observers and observees were found to have shared concepts of how to establish rapport, present evaluation, and finalize the academic commentary.  

Lexical bundles are recurrent multi-word sequences that play a crucial role in academic discourse. This article presents an analysis of lexical bundles in book reviews across the disciplines of human and natural sciences. Drawing from a corpus of 737 book reviews, the study investigates the functional roles and structural patterns of these recurrent linguistic units. The research aims to bridge a gap in the literature by exploring how lexical bundles vary across disciplines. Employing a quantitative-qualitative approach, the study first quantitatively identifies the most common 4-word lexical bundles and compares their distribution between the two disciplines. The researchers then qualitatively analyzed the context in which these bundles are used, observing that they often serve to refer to or evaluate the structure, content, audience, or scope of the book under review. Findings reveal that while both human and natural sciences book reviews share some lexical bundles, they exhibit variations in their distribution, structures, and functions. Notably, natural sciences book reviews employ a greater frequency of lexical bundles signaling an evaluative context, particularly contexts related to the assessment of a book. The study also uncovers differences in the structural preferences of lexical bundles between the two disciplines. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the genre-specific utilization of lexical bundles and underscores their role in conveying evaluative meaning in scholarly discourse. Furthermore, the study suggests avenues for further exploration, providing a foundation for future investigations into the intricate interplay between linguistic features and disciplinary preferences.