This study aims to investigate grade 11 students’ cognitive, affective and behavioral engagement towards teacher’s feedback and the relationship between the level of engagement and their
INTRODUCTION Error! Bookmark not defined 1.1 Rationale of the studịy . -<c<<cccssece+ Error! Bookmark not defined 1.2 Aims and objectives of the Study - ó6 1v HH ng Hư 2 1.3 Research methodỌOg V . + ô+ xxx TT TH HH nh 2 1.4 Scope of the nh
Structure of the tẽ€S1S - - 5L s1 TH ng TH ng HH nh 3
This study contains five chapters The references and appendices are as follows.
This is a brief description of the research It also introduces the goals and the research questions , the research methodology as well as indicates the significance of the study.
This chapter reviews the literature on written corrective feedback (WCF) in second or foreign language learning and teaching This includes a review of different definitions of WCF, its role in students’ learning to write in English, types of WCF as well as some controversial attitudes towards it Then, the chapter reviews the literature on the role of student engagement with teachers’ WCE and what has been empirically found regarding this issue.
The chapter describes the strategy and methodology used in the study It also includes the method of data collection, and data analysis.
This chapter presents the results of data analysis and the discussion of these results Chapter 5: Conclusions
All the main issues are summarized to give conclusions In addition, some certain limitations of this study are pointed out Last but not least, the recommendations are provided for further research.
The first chapter was the introduction of the study In this chapter, the rationale for the research was described Besides, the author presented main objectives and two research questions The study was expected to be helpful for both teachers and students, so the significance of the study was mentioned clearly Finally, the structure part provided the design of the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW L HH HH HH ng ru 5 2.1 Theoretucal bacKgTOUTnd - - -ô- ô<< + 1x 1n TH TH ng HH 5 2.1.1 Feedback on student’s riting in English as a Foreign Language
Written corrective feedback (WCEP) .:cccccccscscessecessceseeeeseecesecessecnseseneeeeseenses 6 2.1.3 The ways WCF can be carried out in wriitng ẽ€SSOINS - 5-5 55+ <+<<ss2 7 2.1.4 The benefits of feedback to students’ Writing cecceseeseeseeseeeeesseeteeeseeseees 8 2.1.5 Positive attitudes towards WCTE - ch HH HH HH HH HH HH 9 2.1.6 Negative attitudes towards WCTE . - kg ng ng ệt 10 2.1.7 Students’ engagement in teacher”s WWCTF - + c + stsirrrrrrrrrrrree 11 2.2 Review of previous related studies Error! Bookmark not defined 2.3 SUMMALY 0 aa
Feedback in language teaching refers to the form of positive reinforcement or correction (Ellis, Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, 2008) In contrast,Lightbown and Spada (1999) got a broader definition that corrective feedback can be known as negative feedback, as “any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect” To some extends, written corrective feedback (WCF) refers to some ways a reader can respond to a second language writer by indicating that some usage in the writing does not conform to the norms of the target language.
2.1.3 The ways WCF can be carried out in writing lessons
Approaches to WCF in the teaching of writing English as a second or foreign language are diverse Ellis (2008) developed a taxonomy that consists six major kinds of WCF, namely, direct, indirect, metalinguistic, focused/unfocused, electronic, and reformulation However, these last two types of WCF, which are electronic and reformulation, are not widely used in the classroom where this study was conducted Therefore, the research would like to more focus on direct, indirect, metalinguistic and focused/unfocused.
The first approach is Direct Corrective Feedback (CF) in which the teacher provides learners with the correct form (Ellis, 2007) This approach can be proved by crossing out unnecessary word or phrase, adding a missing word and writing the correct form above or near the mistakes Another popular approach is Indirect Corrective Feedback, according to which the teacher only indicates students’ mistakes without correcting them (Ellis, 2007) This approach is implemented in some ways such as underlining or circling the mistakes Ferris and Roberts (2001) in Ellis (2007) assumed that direct CF seems to be more effective for students to know their mistakes and how to fix them, especially for those with low levels of proficiency On the contrary, according to Lalande(1982 in Ellis, 2007), indirect CF was useful in developing students’ problem- solving skills and such feedback can stimulate students’ finding the way to fix the mistakes themselves The third approach is metalinguistic CF, which provides some comments in the form of abbreviation for different kinds of mistakes In other words, the teacher uses some error codes to show students’ mistakes Lalande (1982 cited in Ellis, 2008) recognized that using error codes may help students improve in accuracy and establish students’ self-editing skills.The last approach to WCF in Ellis’ taxonomy is focused/unfocused type.Focused CF is defined as the way of correcting just one type of error at a time, which contrasts the unfocused CF, which refers to the correction of all or most of the errors in the students’ writings.
2.1.4 The benefits of feedback to students’ writing
The most important benefit of feedback to students’ writing is to help students to improve their own writing Hattie and Timperley (2007) suggested that feedback can be considered as a powerful guide for students to perceive their performance because feedback itself provides students with teachers’ comments Apart from comments for students’ good points, teachers mention what students failed to achieve in their writing, especially mistakes Thanks to the teacher’s feedback, students can themselves realize their weaknesses and then make proper improvement Therefore, feedback brings the second benefit because they are where the future learning begins Through the feedback, students can reflect their process of writing when they know about what they have done well and uphold these good points In terms of mistakes, students should pay their full attention to them because they will make out what kinds of knowledge they still lack or misuse and then clarify the learning intentions or goals for future learning This is a chance for students to set the learning intentions with an obvious target In other words, Hattie (2009) reckoned that feedback makes learning visible to students Another benefit of feedback plays an important part in assessment process because it gives students the reason why they got that marks Instead of giving students only the marks to show how good or bad their writing is, teachers help students understand why they get that high marks or low marks.
Ferris, et al (1997) reported that approximately two-thirds of grammar-focused teacher comments led to successful revisions In Ferris and Roberts’ (2001) study two groups of students offered different types of feedback The results showed that one group was able to successfully revise more than a half of the underlined grammatical while another group was able to revise 64% of such errors when they were both underlined and coded, but not corrected through feedback In contrast a group which revised without feedback was able to self correct only 18% of their errors.
To sum up, the most outstanding advantage of feedback is to help students improve their writing; besides it has certain benefits for students’ learning intentions and assessment However, the influence of feedback on student writing remains controversial and researchers have documented conflicting results One of the main reasons for this is the different research designs were used, which were not comparable Another reasons is the learners and the context of their learning English Finally, the learning cultures are also different. Some studies that were conducted in the contexts where grading was optional while others were conducted in the classrooms where grading was compulsory.
The debate continues between those who believe in giving corrective feedback to students to improve their written accuracy and those who do not. These will be presented in the following sections.
In L2 writing, teacher’s feedback can be considered to be one of the most essential ways to improve students’ writing skill (Richard, 2003; Yoon & Lee,
Firstly, this type of feedback can assist students in absorbing the explicit knowledge and paying more attention to language accuracy after their writing production Both Krashen (1982) and Schwartz (1993) agreed that WCF could help students to absorb the explicit knowledge and then better revise their writing products by themselves.
The next positive attitude is that the effectiveness of some types of written corrective feedback Direct feedback seems to show the most obvious advantage in guiding students to solve the errors Ellis (2009) pointed out that direct feedback can help students to know what their errors are and how to solve these easily Chandler (2003) stated that it is undeniable that direct feedback is the superior feedback to produce more accurate in writing because it provides students all the errors and the ways to correct them Apart from direct feedback, indirect feedback has its own benefits to students’ writing While direct feedback has already provided students with correct form of errors, indirect feedback can help them to correct their errors by themselves; hence students can have to think and dig deeper into their own knowledge to find out the correcting ways This advantage is also supported by Ferris (2013) and he added that allowing students to correct their mistakes by themselves helps them to pay more attention to the forms, language uses and other aspects The next type of WCF which should be considered is focused CF A number of researchers agreed that focused CF is effective because one type of error will be focused and corrected; therefore, students can remember this knowledge and avoid making the similar mistakes in the near future (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2010; Farrokhi & Sattapour, 2012). The parallel type of focused CF is unfocused CF which is admitted to provide students with all (or most) errors are corrected Unfocused CF seems to be the combination of direct and indirect CF because it not only point students’ errors out but also give the appropriate correction needed Unfocused CF can improve accuracy in general, not just emphasize on only one aspect of grammatical feature.
In the previous part, many positive attitudes towards WCF have been shown However, there have been some opposite attitudes towards WCF.
Firstly, Truscott (1999, 2007, 2010) argued that WCF did not bring many positive benefits in developing language use in productive skills such as writing and speaking Moreover, explicit knowledge could be partially admitted in developing explicit knowledge, but WCF seemed to fail in developing students’ implicit knowledge (Truscott, 1998).
Secondly, although there are some benefits mentioned above, these types of WCF still have the drawbacks According to Ellis (2009), direct feedback can’t improve students’ long-term memory because they have the available correct form from teachers Moreover, she states that direct feedback makes students become a dependent learners when they just have to copy and retype the corrections Lee (2008) also supports for this opinion Besides to direct feedback, indirect feedback has disadvantage because it can cause students’ confusion about the teacher’s correcting code (Ferris, 2003) What should be mentioned next is focused CF In the positive attitudes, focused CF is supposed to be more effective, but Van Beuningen et al (2012) made a counterargument that focused CF was nothing but grammatical mistake correction Moreover, it makes students to be aware of only one target feature In terms of unfocused CF, negative ones emphasize that it lists out too many errors from various aspects in writing; therefore, students don’t know what is the main points to concentrate on and then they can’t start and plan for their future learning to revise their missed knowledge.
2.1.7 Students’ engagement in teacher’s WCF
Engagement, in the context of learning to write English as a second or foreign language, refers to the extent of students’ investment and commitment to their learning The concept embraces a complex of factors which can be seen in students’ responses to texts and their attitudes to writing and responding It is an umbrella term which brings together students’ degree of attention, curiosity,
I1 interest and willingness to employ their language proficiency and a repertoire of learning skills to make progress These are realised through affective, behavioral and cognitive elements (Zhang & Hyland 2018).
The concept of learners’ engagement has been examined in the aspects of education and it has been believed to related to positive educational outcomes. Engagement is generally defined as the fact of being involved with somebody/something in an attempt to understand them/it
Zhang and Hyland (2018) described engagement as composed of three interlocking and overlapping components These are,
A Behavioral engagement refers to students’ uptake to feedback such as time spent on revision tasks and revision actions (e.g consulting dictionaries or peers)
B Affective engagement includes students’ emotional responses (e.g. anxiety) and attitudinal reactions (e.g dislike) to corrective feedback.
C Cognitive engagement is concerned with how students attend to the feedback This embraces (1) understanding and interpreting, (2) evaluating and reflecting, (3) planning and revising, and (4) monitoring and self-regulation
A number of studies have suggested that student engagement with written corrective feedback facilitates language acquisition and writing development Qi and Lapkin (2001) argued that learner engagement as demonstrated in the quality of noticing, related to the depth of processing feedback, is a key factor in improvement in students’ revisions Hyland (2003) reported a case study on the relationship between teacher feedback and student revision in two academic writing classes The author used data from teacher think aloud protocols, teacher and student interviews and student texts to examine the extent to which teachers focused on formal language concerns when they gave feedback and the use that
12 students made of this feedback in their revisions It was reported in the study that language accuracy was a very important focus for teachers’ feedback and that there was a great variation among the students in terms of their engagement with the teacher’s feedback when revising their drafts.