Introduction.

The couplet by Anna Akhmatova, the epigraph of the paper, reflects the main idea of ​​this study: in the process of writing and voicing a review on the student's research paper, the scientific supervisor highlights the strengths of the student's research activities and notes those aspects that need correction and refinement. It is the supervisor who knows all the aspects of the student's work: s/he has a complete understanding of the development of the student, since, in most cases, the supervisor appointed in the first year continues to work with the student until the end of the 4th year (bachelor's degree) and until the 2nd year (master’s degree). In this regard, both positive and, if necessary, negative assessment of certain aspects of the graduate's work are beneficial, since these verbally expressed assessments, whatever they may be, are aimed at improving the student’s standing as a member of the academic discourse, the academic community.

It is worth mentioning that nowadays linguists actively study the ontological characteristics of academic discourse (Another in academic discourse [1]; subject of academic discourse [2]; cognitive foundations of academic discourse [3], etc.). Research advisors’ reviews as a genre of academic discourse and their evaluative components have not yet been studied.

_______________________

© Vodyanitskaya A.A., 2020

The object of this study is evaluative statements that reflect a research advisor’s opinion on the work of a master's or bachelor's degree student.

The subject of the research is the evaluative strategies and tactics the research advisors resort to in the process of writing a review.

The purpose of the study is to identify how the supervisor characterizeы research skills and the result of the graduate's and to analyze how, through feedback, even at this final stage, the research advisor forms the student's discursive personality.

Research Methodology.

Currently, research in the field of teacher assessment is becoming more and more relevant, which can be explained, for example, following M.K. Fadden and K.E. Williams [4], by the fact that the modern view of the teacher involves considering him/her not only as a person transferring knowledge to students, but also as a researcher of his own activities, as a participant in academic discourse assessing the situation in the classroom, successes and failures. In this regard, the evaluation, according to the researchers, is a subcategory, a kind of integral part of the analysis of the teacher's activities. The significance of evaluation in the teacher's activity was studied from the point of view of the various roles that the research advisor performs in the process of guiding the student's research activities [5] and in this case, the teacher acts as an evaluating actant directing the student's activities in an academically relevant direction. It was revealed that at different stages of guiding students’ research projects, the supervisors assume the roles of editors, reviewers, psychologists, representatives of academic discourse etc. We argue that in this case, the research advisor evaluates the activities of another participant in the academic discourse, while the teacher can also act as an actant evaluating his own activities, since “ evaluation is a unique lens that aims ultimately to result in a judgment about the value of a particular approach” [4]. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that we view evaluation as a broad term, "the systematic assessment of an object's merit, worth, probity, feasibility, safety, significance, and / or equity” [7, p. 14]. This approach to evaluation is to some extent applicable to the analysis of the evaluative nature of reviews.

The empirical basis for the study was 15 reviews of master’s degree papers and 28 reviews of the research papers of bachelors (which corresponds to the number of graduate students).

The research methods are: comparative method aimed at identifying common and different strategies and tactics of research advisors; the method of contextual analysis; a method of semantic analysis aimed at identifying the typological characteristics of evaluative tools used by research advisors.

The study of the evaluative nature of the research advisors reviews took place in several stages. At the first stage, a corpus of feedback texts was collected, written by the supervisors of the Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies of the Institute of Foreign Languages ​​of the Moscow City Pedagogical University.

At the next stage, the structural and content characteristics of the reviews were analyzed. As the analysis showed, from the point of view of the form, all reviews are identical and consist of the following structural elements: Compliance of the results of the final qualifying work with the set goals and objectives; The level of the student's research and professional competencies; Ability to work with scientific, methodological, reference literature and electronic information resources; Personal qualities of the student and Checking for Antiplagiarism. It is worth mentioning that these structural elements act as a macro-object of assessment, while the actant of assessment is the author of the review, i.e. research advisor of the student. The evaluation structure is discussed in detail in the works by E.M. Wolf [8]. Due to the fact that each of these elements expresses the evaluative attitude of the author of the review to the work of a student or master's degree student on the final qualifying work, at the next stage, we analyzed the evaluation tools used by teachers when characterizing each of the structural elements.

At the final stage, the evaluative nature of the oral presentations of research advisers was studied during the defense of the final qualifying work, since they expanded and supplemented the content of the review.

Academic discourse is understood in this study, following I.P. Khutyz as a culturally specific system for constructing and transmitting knowledge, as well as an institutional type of communication [9]. Evaluation is considered as "the value attitude of the subject of speech to one of the properties of what is designated" [10, p. 54]. The researchers distinguish three evaluation functions: 1) “expression of the author's opinion in order to determine the value system of the author of the assessment and the community to which s/he belongs; 2) building and maintaining a relationship between the sender of the assessment (speaker or writer) and its recipient (listener or reader); 3) the organization of discourse” [11, p. 6].

The reviews analyzed in this study refer to the evaluative speech genres [1 *], therefore, it is relevant to take into account “social and age distance between the author and the addressee”, while “the significance of the evaluative genre depends on who is its author” [1 * , p. 403]. The author of the review (research advisor), with the help of this evaluative speech genre, emphasizes the significant characteristics of the student's work, revealing his attitude towards it. It is with the help of a verbally expressed assessment that the organization of the discourse is carried out, since the supervisor seeks, with the help of his feedback, not only to assess the work already completed, but also seeks to form a discursive personality that shares the values ​​of academic discourse [12], which is manifested, for example, in oral wishes to the graduate that research advisors supplement their feedback with.

It should be noted that within the framework of academic discourse, the evaluative activity of a supervisor is not aimed at stating the fact that the work is "good" or "bad": it is concentrated around the categories of reliability / unreliability, compliance / inconsistency of work results; developed / developing research skills, etc. In fact, these aspects are reflected in the titles of the sections of the review.

Research results.

The analysis of the empirical base of the research showed that in the sections Correspondence of the results of the final qualifying work to the set goals and objectives and the Ability to work with scientific, methodological, reference literature and electronic information resources, research advisors briefly highlight the presence of the necessary research skill or talk about the degree of compliance of the results with the assigned tasks. Below are the examples in which we have identified lexemes and phrases that are value-significant from the point of view of participants in academic discourse, since achieving the research goal is undoubtedly significant for the research process:

The content and structure of the final qualifying work is fully consistent with the goals and objectives; Fully compliant; As a result of the work, all tasks have been solved, the goal has been achieved; The researcher has solved all the goals and objectives.

It is worth mentioning that from the point of view of the traditional view of the assessment, these statements are descriptive in nature: they only state the fact of achievement. At the same time, it is obvious that the teleological component, which can be traced in these statements, emphasizes the value of the student's work. Let us single out in such characteristics the conditional metric component used to highlight the degree of compliance with scientific tasks: fully / completely. With the help of these adverbs, both the scale and completeness of the study are emphasized. About 50% of the analyzed reviews in the section Compliance of the results of the final qualifying work with the set goals and objectives are descriptive, while the other 50% contain more detailed descriptions in which the assessment is expressed explicitly. Consider a fragment of the review: the final qualification work is a complete independent large-scale scientific research that has a certain relevance and has prospects for further development. It should be noted that with one given statement the author of the review “covers” the entire research process, emphasizing the completeness of the research, its scale, relevance and research prospects. In this statement, there is a direct characteristic of the student's research skills, expressed by the adjective independent. For participants in academic discourse, the independence of the research is crucial for the professional qualities of the graduate, indicating the emergence of a specialist.

The section The degree of formation of the student's research qualities and professional competencies is represented both by the above metric characteristics (for example, fully formed), and by partial estimates [13], e.g.:

The arguments and conclusions of the author are logical and convincing, which makes it possible to judge the readiness and ability to analyze and systematize various material, to conduct independent research work at a sufficiently high level.

It is worth mentioning that the author's arguments and conclusions are initially used as the object of evaluation in this fragment of the review, i.e. the actual result of his work, while in the subsequent part of the statement, the author of the review specifies which cognitive skills led to a similar result. Thus, the assessment becomes a starting point for the subsequent explication of the skills and abilities acquired by the student. The author moves towards the characterization of the study, which was carried out at a sufficiently high level. Evaluation frames the statement and allows the reviewer to indirectly introduce value meanings and highlight the strengths of the work.

As the analysis has shown, at this stage, the supervisor indirectly mentions that the student has developed all cognitive skills, since the ability to create something (in this case, scientific research) is the highest point in the development of human cognitive processes [14] and includes all other skills.

It is common for some research advisors to use certain evaluative means ​​in various structural elements of the recall. Therefore, for example, in the review of the work of a master's student in all sections, the fact of consistent work on the study is emphasized:

NN consistently illuminates each research phase, accompanying the presentation of results with thoughtful conclusions; The research required NN to elaborate on each stage of the research. NN posed difficult scientific problems and solved them consistently.

Let us consider such phrases as thoughtful conclusions, detailed study, complex scientific tasks. It seems reasonable that during the oral review of the work of the master's student, the research supervisor recommended the student to enroll in graduate school, which is the highest form of assessment of the work of a young researcher. The recommendation for graduate school is a factor in the formation of the discursive personality of a researcher which also carries information about the significance of the contribution of a master's student to science, which brings this understanding of the assessment closer to the views of researchers [7].

The assessment scale and its charge varied in the responses depending on the degree of development of the research skills of undergraduates and bachelors. Let's turn to the following feedback: During the first year of work on the WRC, NN was interested in the research topic, showed enthusiasm in collecting and analyzing empirical material. This review contrasts somewhat with the review given above, where the sequence of the master's student's work is highlighted. The research advisor emphasizes, first of all, the psychological component of the research process of the master's student (enthusiasm, interest), while mentioning only the first year of study implicitly implies a weakening of this perception of scientific activity by the master student at the final stage. This implication is already explicated in the next part of the review which focuses on the personal qualities of the researcher: NN can be mobilized to solve a problem in a timely manner, can work with interest and fruitfully on the analysis of linguistic phenomena. It should be noted that through the structure can + adverb + verb, even if the adverb has positive semantics, the teacher seeks to emphasize the inconsistent nature of the work, which is confirmed in the following statement by the author of the review: But: The student did not work regularly, in compliance with the terms and agreements. It seems that such a review allows the teacher to show, with the help of positive assessments, that the student's work could be even better if the student's work was consistent. The importance of the latter was pointed out by Hans Selye in his work, which he devoted to novice researchers, "From Dream to Discovery" [15].

Gradually, we come to the next section of the review, in which the supervisor characterizes the student's personal qualities, manifested in the process of working on the final qualifying work. Undoubtedly, all parts of the review are interconnected, since the work of a particular student is characterized, and his personal qualities (for example, the desire to complete work on time) will affect the ability to work with literature, will be mentioned in the section Degree of formation of research qualities, etc. At the same time, in the section characterizing the student's personal qualities that there is a greater variability in the opinion of the supervisor. Therefore, for example, ethical aspects can be emphasized:

Among the personal qualities of a master's student, I would especially like to note the desire to help, kindness, care for teachers and their classmates.

Further, the teacher weaves in a teleological assessment:

purposefulness and stress resistance, and, of course, a sense of humor, which also played an important role in the study of the comic by the master's student.

In a review of another student's work, we find: conscientious, correct in all its manifestations.

In most cases, reviewers emphasize the skills acquired during the research that are directly related to work:

NN acquired the necessary erudition in the course of writing the work, showed consistency in solving problems, a great personal interest in the topic, showed herself as an independent and deep researcher. The author is distinguished by scrupulousness, creative approach, consistency in setting and solving problems.

In this case, the author of the review focuses on the intellectual aspects: erudition, interest, depth; teleological: consistency, scrupulousness, as well as on the combination of intellectual, teleological and psychological evaluation, which consists in expressing a creative approach, since a creative one is “creative, independently creating something new, original”. Moreover, creative can be defined as "related, relating to creativity, the creation of the new on the basis of intellectual and aesthetic choice." In this way, the supervisor also emphasizes the aesthetic component. In the reviews analyzed, 85% of teachers noted the creative approach of students to work. And although aesthetic assessments as such are practically not found in reviews, it seems possible to talk about a creative approach as a student's desire for beauty. Among the motives for engaging in scientific activity, H. Selye singles out "admiration for the beauty of regularity" [15, p. 20]. The scientist quotes the words by Isaac Newton: “I feel like a boy playing by the sea, who managed to find a more beautiful pebble than others, but the ocean of the unknown lies in front of me,” and notes that “to contemplate the beauty and harmony of the Universe, the degree of comprehending them is one of the basic human abilities that gives one the highest satisfaction ”[15, p. 22-23].

The analysis has shown that scientific advisers strive to link the student's personal qualities with his scientific achievements:

A mature researcher, carefully treating the material, carefully analyzing it, which made it possible to obtain reliable results that have quite practical value and theoretical significance. NN knows how to choose an adequate research methodology and apply it in a targeted manner to solve practical scientific problems.

Teleological and intellectual assessments are intertwined in this review. It seems that in such cases we are talking about scientific ethics. One of the scientific advisers using an allusion to the poem by B.L. Pasternak described the work of his students as follows: NN strives to get to the very bottom in everything. It seems that allusions are used in reviews not only for the purpose of giving some brightness to the review, but also due to the fact that allusions, as researchers note, have an evaluative potential [16]. The ethical aspect is often explicated in reviews:

NN always adheres to scientific ethics and integrity, both in research and in interaction with colleagues. The academic environment is developing precisely due to the entry of such individuals into it.

As the analysis has shown, in 70% of reviews a particular characteristic is followed by a clarification of the value of a particular quality for science or discourse, which is reflected, for example, in the above fragment, where the research advisor connects ethics with teleology – the morality of the researcher becomes the key to the development of discourse.

Authors of 80% of reviews indicate the student's proficiency in academic and scientific discourse. It seems appropriate to cite the following full review of the personal qualities of a bachelor, since it illustrates how research qualities are intertwined with personal ones and influence the result of work:

She is independent, knows how to think structurally, owns a high degree of research procedures, and also has an excellent command of academic discourse. Able to develop strategies for solving research problems and solve them step by step at a high level. It should be specially noted that the problem posed is extremely difficult, and experienced researchers are not always ready to tackle it. From the very beginning it was clear that NN was able to handle this task. She did it successfully. It is possible to recommend the development of research in the direction of dissertation research. The topic is dissertation-wise, and the researcher has the necessary level of training.

This review was received by a bachelor, whose work was noted by both the supervisor and the members of the commission as a study that could be recommended not only for a master's degree, but also for postgraduate research. This is a unique case, which testifies to both the student's work and the work of his supervisor, who entrusted the student with a complex topic, believed in him and, with his instructions and recommendations, helped the student to bring it to such a high level.

Let’s analyze a recommendation for postgraduate school, expressed through an assessment of the intellectual activity and personal qualities of a master's student: In the course of the study, starting with previous courses, term papers and final theses, the author is a thoughtful, conscientious, talented researcher, dynamically developing research competencies. Thinks creatively, brilliant analyst. The work carried out by her is promising and requires continuation in the format of a dissertation research.

This review indirectly notes the systematic nature of the work on the study.

The structural element of feedback The ability to work with scientific, specialized, reference literature and electronic information resources showed in a form of a statement that 80% of students have developed this skill, while in 20% of cases the teachers tried to highlight certain aspects related to the research: a young researcher was critical analyzes the scientific literature, not blindly agreeing with every statement of authoritative authors, but analyzing them and assessing the degree of their applicability to their own work – this characteristic shows the desire of the supervisor to emphasize the formation of such a master's skill as identifying the relevance of a particular theory for his work.

It is interesting to note that the research advisor evaluates in this case the teleological activity of the student, thus, a teleological assessment of the teleological assessment is obtained. In addition, the research advisors noted the degree of formation of a particular skill on the following scale: formed-sufficiently, formed fully, formed at a professional level, highly formed. Thus, adverbs allow one to see a certain gradation in terms of mastering this skill by graduates.

In oral reviews of scientific advisers in the process of defending diploma theses when characterizing the personal qualities of a student, scientific advisers often noted: the author is able to get together at the right time and focus on achieving the research problem; NN knows how to get ready on time. This characteristic was qualified by the members of the commission as discursive, since in this way the research advisor encourages the student to work more systematically in the future.

Research advisers during the oral presentations also noted the progress of students, focused on the stories of their development: the student managed to overcome all the difficulties of an adaptation nature after moving to our department, joined the student team; the student has surpassed himself in the process of working on the research; NN said from the first year that she did not notice the flow of time, for she was absorbed in her research.

In addition to the supervisor's feedback, there was feedback from academic supervisors of previous years, who noted the progress of students and expressed joy about this fact.

Emotional assessments, which were not reflected in written reviews, were expressed by research advisers during the oral presentations of their students:

I am happy that the student managed to show all his talents in research work; I was lucky to work with NN; it is sad / very unfortunate that, having an undoubted talent for scientific activity, the undergraduate, as far as I know, does not plan to enter postgraduate school; it will be gratifying to continue working with NN in the magistracy.

Emotional assessment in this study refers to words and expressions that name emotions experienced by the subject of assessment (for more details on the differentiation of emotion, expression and assessment, see: [17]; on the relationship of axiological factors and emotional concepts, see: [18]).

The highest praise for the novice researcher was the recommendation to enroll in master's and postgraduate studies.

Conclusion.

As the analysis of reviews on the final qualifying work of undergraduates and bachelors of 2020 of the Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies of the Institute of Foreign Languages ​​of the Moscow State Pedagogical University has shown, all research advisors emphasize that the graduates have developed all the research competencies.

The evaluative statements used by research advisors vary both in terms of the lexical means used (for example, the prevalence of certain evaluative means), and in terms of the intensity of the assessment. Due to the high level of works submitted for defense, the analyzed reviews did not contain negative assessments, while aspects of the graduate's work that needed improvement were mentioned in a recommendatory form or were implied through statements that were of a discursive nature.

Stylistically, despite the unified nature of the review sections, the supervisors used allusions that are evaluative in nature and at the same time contain an evaluative component.

The analysis of the evaluation tools used by the supervisors within the framework of the review as a genre of academic discourse made it possible to identify the following evaluation strategies: the implication of the research aspects that need to be improved; recommendation; statement; intensification.

As part of the strategy of implication, supervisors resort to tactics of pointing out the strengths of the work of a master's or bachelor's degree.

As part of the strategy of implication, research advisors resort to tactics of pointing out the strengths of the master's or bachelor's work, indicating what he or she has achieved, as well as the tactics of stating the fact of the ability to get together to solve a problem.

The strategy of recommendation is revealed in the advice to enroll in graduate and postgraduate studies, thereby giving a high assessment to the work of the graduate, as well as in the advice to develop those aspects of scientific activity that need improvement (for example, more careful planning of work).

The statement strategy is applied, as a rule, without using evaluative means, since the author of the review only states the presence of a particular skill or its formation.

The intensification strategy is implemented using various assessment tools that allow the research advisor to highlight all the positive aspects of the graduate's work during the past years of study. The authors of the reviews resort to a whole range of evaluative tools, characterizing the graduate's work in terms of ethics, psychology, aesthetics, emotional aspects of work, as well as academic discourse. The expression academic discourse has been formed, which is found in 100% of reviews, combines all the positive evaluative values ​​that characterize the work that has taken place.

The study of the evaluative component of academic discourse helps to identify the mechanisms on which the mutual understanding between the participants of this type of discourse is based (see in this regard: [19]).

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Olga Arkadyevna Suleimanova, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies at the Institute for Foreign Languages, Moscow State Pedagogical University, for her support and assistance at all stages of the research. I sincerely thank all the teachers of the Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies for the opportunity to analyze their reviews.