STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE WRITING CONFERENCE a CONTRASTIVE CASE STUDY = sự THAM GIA của học SINH vào QUÁ TRÌNH CHỮA lỗi bài VIẾT NGHIÊN cứu bốn TRƯỜNG hợp TƯƠNG PHẢN

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION GRADUATION PAPER STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE WRITING CONFERENCE: A CONTRASTIVE CASE STUDY Supervisor: Nguyễn Chí Đức, Ph.D Student: Đỗ Quỳnh Trang ID: 17040042 Course: QH2017.F1.E2 HÀ NỘI – 2020 ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP SỰ THAM GIA CỦA HỌC SINH VÀO QUÁ TRÌNH CHỮA LỖI BÀI VIẾT: NGHIÊN CỨU BỐN TRƯỜNG HỢP TƯƠNG PHẢN Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Nguyễn Chí Đức, Ph.D Sinh viên: Đỗ Quỳnh Trang Mã sinh viên: 17040042 Khóa: QH2017.F1.E2 HÀ NỘI – 2020 Signature of Approval Nguyễn Chí Đức I hereby state that I: Đỗ Quỳnh Trang from class 17E2, being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honored English Language Teacher Education program) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper Signature Đỗ Quỳnh Trang 04/05/2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest appreciation and most sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Nguyen Chi Duc, a teacher of the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, ULIS-VNU The completion of my dissertation would not have been possible without his guidance, supervision, and support throughout the execution of this research Dr Nguyen Chi Duc had guided me from the very first stage of this research I am very much grateful for his invaluable insights into the topic, constructive criticism, as well as his unparalleled support along the way, without which I would not have been able to finish this project It was a great honor and pleasure to work with him Secondly, I would like to send my great thanks to the students and teacher who played a decisive role in this research If it had not been for their kindness and willingness to share their valuable time participating in this project, this study would not have been completed Lastly, I also wish to thank my friends and family, who had provided me with unconditional love, patience and support throughout the duration of this project To my fellow deadline-running mates, Vor the immortal, Thao, Kitti, Chúp, and Nhất, I thank you all for having been extremely supportive and motivating To Danh, An Khanh, and Jan, thank you for your care, your encouragement and your support To my family members, especially Mom and Dad, I am thankful for your patience and empathy i ABSTRACT While recent studies on written corrective feedback (WCF) have underscored the importance of examining student engagement with WCF, student engagement with WCF in the Teacher-to-Student and Student-to-Student writing conference is still under-investigated Based on the multi-dimensional conceptual framework of learner engagement with corrective feedback put forward by Ellis (2010), this paper reports on the findings from four contrastive case studies which explored how four L2 Vietnamese secondary school students engaged cognitively, behaviorally and affectively with WCF in the writing conference either with their teacher or a peer in the context of an EFL writing classroom The primary data for this study were collected from multiple sources including students’ writing drafts, direct observation, videotapes of the writing conferences, retrospective verbal reports through stimulated recalls, and prepost-conferencing interviews The findings demonstrated the complexity of learner engagement as well as its association with the student’s learning outcome While students were more cognitively, behaviorally and affectively engaged in the writing conference with their teacher, a lower level of cognitive engagement, more negative feelings and revision operations were found in the Student-to-Student writing conference These findings contributed greatly to our current limited knowledge about learner engagement with WCF in the writing conference, particularly in an EFL context like Vietnam In addition, these findings also inform the writing teacher, especially those in the language centers, about their decision-making process regarding how to implement the writing conference in a way that successfully scaffolds their students’ engagement with WCF, which, in turn, creates a favorable condition for enabling the error correction and L2 uptake among these students Keywords: Written corrective feedback (WCF), writing conference, student engagement with WCF, scaffolding, negotiation ii TABLE OF CONTENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT .ii LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATION v INTRODUCTION 1 Research gaps Research aims and research questions Meaningfulness and novelty of this study 4 Organization of this study report CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Key concepts 1.1.1 Written corrective feedback (WCF) 1.1.2 Student engagement with WCF 1.1.3 The writing conference 1.2 Potential benefits of student engagement with WCF in the writing conference 1.2.1 Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990) 10 1.2.2 Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) 10 1.2.3 Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) 11 1.2.4 Scaffolding 12 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 17 2.2.1 Overall research design 18 2.2.2 Research context 19 2.2.3 Research participants and sampling 20 2.3 Data collection and data analysis 21 2.3.1 Data collection 21 2.3.2 Data analysis 25 Quantitative analysis 26 Qualitative analysis 27 iii CHAPTER FINDINGS 31 3.1 Initial data cleaning 31 3.2 Success rate of error correction 32 3.3 Student engagement with WCF in the writing conference 33 3.3.1 Cognitive and behavioral engagement 33 3.3.2 Affective engagement 41 3.4 Correlation between the success rate of error correction and the level of cognitive engagement with WCF in the writing conference 45 CHAPTER DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION 46 4.1 Discussion 46 4.2 Implications 49 CONCLUSION 51 REFERENCES 53 APPENDICES 58 iv LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATION TABLE Table Han & Hyland’s summary of multi-dimensional framework of learner engagement with WCF (2015) 15 Table Pretest scores and Teacher’s ratings for participants and their Class 20 Table Timeline for data collection procedure 22 Table Proposed stages of the writing conference with teacher 24 Table Han & Hyland’s taxonomy of revision operations (2015) 26 Table Total numbers of linguistic flaws, mistakes and errors 31 Table Summary of LREs that dealt with errors during the writing conferences 32 Table Participants' success rate of error correction 33 Table Summary of students’ cognitive engagement level 34 Table 10 Total moments showing evidence of affective engagement 42 Table 11 Correlations between students’ success rate of error correction and their level of cognitive engagement with WCF in the writing conference 45 FIGURE Figure Ellis’ framework for investigating CF (2010) Error! Bookmark not defined Figure Level of learner cognitive engagement 29 Figure Analyzing and coding pair talk for LREs 30 Figure An original copy of a flaw in Lisa’s second draft Error! Bookmark not defined ABBREVIATION WCF Written corrective feedback CF Corrective feedback v L2 Second language ZPD Zone of Proximal Development vi Evans, N., Hartshorn, K., & Tuioti, E.A (2010) Written Corrective Feedback: Practitioners' Perspectives International journal of english studies, 10, 4777 Ferris, D R (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Ferris, D (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction In K Hyland & F Hyland (Authors), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 81-104) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007 Ferris, D R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M (2013) Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307– 329 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009 Fithriani, Rahmah (2017) Indonesian Students' Perceptions of Written Feedback in Second Language Writing Retrieved from https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/educ_llss_etds/87 Freedman, S W (Ed.) (1985) The Acquisition of Written Knowledge Response and Revision Norwood, NJ: Ablex Gass, S M., & Mackey, A (2007) Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition B Vanpatten, & J Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, 175-200 London: LEA Gilliland, B (2014) Academic language socialization in high school writing conferences Canadian Modern Language Review, 70, 303–30 Habibullah, P., Rafique A M., Shumaila M., Ali R,K., & Illahi B (2018) A Critical Review of Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory in Second Language Acquisition International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(4) Han, Y., & Hyland, F (2015) Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002 Han, Y., & Hyland, F (2019) Learner Engagement with Written Feedback Feedback in Second Language Writing, 247 264 doi:10.1017/9781108635547.015 Hằng, N (2013) Phản hồi viết từ bạn học: Từ lý luận tới thực tiễn áp dụng VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 29(4) Retrieved from https://js.vnu.edu.vn/FS/article/view/1108 54 Homayounzadeh, M., Mehrpour, S., & Saadat, M (2016) Peer corrective feedback on L2 writing: Does it help improve written accuracy and L2 explicit knowledge over time? The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 28-45 doi:10.5539/ijel.v8n4p232 Hu, G (2002) Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105 Hyland, F (2003) Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback System, 31, 217–230 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2019) Contexts and Issues in Feedback on L2 Writing In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 1-22) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/9781108635547.003 Khodamoradi, A., Iravani, H., Jafarigohar, M., Amerian, M (2013) Teacher’s Scaffolding Vs Peers’ Collaborative Dialogue: Implementing an Innovation in the Sociocultural Context of Iranian Universities MiddleEast J.Sci.Res., 14(9), 1212-1220 Long, M H (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition In W C Ritchie, & T K Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 413-468 New York: Academic Press Luu, N L (2011) Impacts of peer review training on freshmen's peer feedback activity at Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, ULIS-VNU Master’s thesis, Vietnam National University, Hanoi Malihe R., Nasrin S., (2011) TEACHER VS PEER SCAFFOLDING MODES IN L2 WRITING CLASSES: A CONSIDERATION OF GENRE APPROACH TO WRITING Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2) Retrieved from http://ojs.atmajaya.ac.id/index.php/ijelt/article/view/179 Martin, L & Mottet, T (2011) The effect of instructor nonverbal immediacy behaviors and feedback sensitivity on Hispanic students’ affective learning outcomes in ninth-grade writing conferences Communication Education, 60, 1–19 Melissa, A B (2019) Verbal Reports in Instructed SLA The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Research in Classroom 55 Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y (2006) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200 Nguyen, M H (2013) EFL Students’ Reflections on Peer Scaffolding in Making a Collaborative Oral Presentation English Language Teaching, 6(4) doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n4p64 Nguyen, T (Thanh) (2011) Impacts of socio-culture on the development of autonomous learning: A lens of Vietnamese context Journal of Studies in Education, 1(1) Retrieved from http://www macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jse/article/view/866 Pham, T H T (2010) Implementing a student-centered learning approach at Vietnamese higher education institutions: Barriers under layers of causal layered analysis (CLA) Journal of Futures Studies, 15, 21–38 Pham, T H T., & Gillies, R (2010) Designing a culturally appropriate format of formative peer assessment for Asian students: The case of Vietnamese students International Journal of Educational Reform, 19(2), 72-85 Philp, J (1998) Interaction, noticing and second language acquisition: an examination of learners' noticing of recasts in task-based interaction University of Tasmania Retrieved from https://eprints.utas.edu.au/21215/ Sachs, R., & Polio, C (2007) Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing task Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29 , 67 – 100 Schmidt, R (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning Applied Linguistics, 2, 129-158 Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G (2010) Learners’ Processing, Uptake, And Retention Of Corrective Feedback On Writing Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334 doi: 10.1017/s0272263109990532 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together Modern Language Journal, 82, 320 – 337 Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language Learning, 46, 327–69 Tsui, A B M., & Ng, M (2000) Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170 Vygotsky, L S (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Massachusetts: Harvard University Press White, R., & Arndt, V (1991) Process Writing London: Longman 56 Zhang, S (1995) Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209– 222 doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1 Zheng, Y., & Yu, S (2018) Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students Assessing Writing, 37, 13-24 doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001 Ÿepni, S B (2016) A Replication Study: Oral Corrective Feedback on L2 Writing; Two Approaches Compared Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 520-528 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.072 57 APPENDICES Appendix A Informed consent for Participants in research study ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH ĐƠN CHẤP THUẬN THAM GIA NGHIÊN CỨU (Dành cho người tham gia) Lời chào từ người thực nghiên cứu, Chào em, chị Đỗ Quỳnh Trang, sinh viên năm cuối trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội Chị viết đơn để mời em tham gia vào nghiên cứu: “Sự tham gia học sinh vào trinhg chữa lỗi viết hội thảo viết: Nghiên cứu hai tình tương phản” (tựa đề tiếng Anh: Student engagement with written corrective feedback in the writing conference: A contrastive case study) Đơn chấp thuận bao gồm phần: • Thơng tin nghiên cứu • Chấp thuận người tham gia Phần Thông tin nghiên cứu Mục đích nghiên cứu khoa học tìm hiểu tham gia học sinh vào hình thức chữa lỗi chữ buổi hội nghị viết với giáo viên với bạn lớp Người thực nghiên cứu mong muốn so sánh tham gia người học chữa hai đối tượng khác để từ suy cách đưa phản hồi hiệu Nghiên cứu có tham gia em buổi hội nghỉ viết một-một (one -on-one writing conference) với giáo viên/bạn lớp Buổi hội nghị kéo dài khoảng 15-20 phút ghi hình để phục vụ cho phân tích liệu Sau tham gia buổi hội nghi, em tiếp tục viết số cho viết giao, với 58 nhận xét nhận từ giáo viên/bạn Ngoài ra, em mời tham gia buổi vấn khoảng 20 đến 30 phút vào tuần sau nộp viết số Hai viết em người thực nghiên cứu giữ lại để phân tích Về quyền lợi, em nhận buổi học online gia sư cải thiện kĩ Viết luận (academic essay) miễn phí, với tài liệu ơn thi vào cấp trường Chuyên, tài liệu ôn thi IELTS * Lưu ý: - Mọi thông tin cá nhân em bảo mật - Em chọn rút khỏi nghiên cứu lúc Quyết định rút khỏi nghiên cứu không làm ảnh hưởng đến quyền lợi em Nếu có câu hỏi gì, em liên lạc trực tiếp với chị qua kênh thông tin sau: SĐT: 0329227792 (Imess, Zalo) Email: dotrangcsp@gmail.com Phần Chấp thuận người tham gia Tôi đọc thông tin có hội hỏi đáp Tôi đồng ý tham gia nghiên cứu khoa học Tên người tham gia: Chữ ký người tham gia: Ngày: 59 Appendix B The prompt of the writing task Write a 250-word essay about the following subject Nowadays, keeping pets in many families is growing in popularity Discuss the arguments for and against raising pets Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience Appendix C Guided questions for the interviews The first interview (Adapted from Han & Hyland, 2015) (1) Tell me about your learning experiences of English writing Do you take other writing courses? What are the purposes of the course? (2) How important you think language accuracy is in writing? (3) How did your former or how other teachers help you with the grammatical problems in your English writing? (4) Do you prefer to receive feedback from your peers or your teacher? (5) Which feedback you think is more beneficial to you? That from your peer? Or your teacher? (6) How you often feel when receiving WCF (from your peers or your teacher)? (7) There are many types of feedback on linguistic errors, such as underlining, correction, giving clues or codes, and comments in the margin What type of feedback you prefer? Why? (8) Do you often discuss the errors with your peer/teacher when or after being provided with WCF? 60 Appendix D Error categories and codes used in teacher marking (Ferris, 2006) 61 Appendix E Error correction check-list Error correction check-list For the feedback provider Student’s name: Error no Error type (code) Mistake 62 Error Ss fail Ss can to correct correct Notes Error correction check-list For the student Student’s name: Error no Error type (code) Mistake 63 Error I can I cannot correct correct Notes Appendix F GUIDELINES FOR LREs ANALYSIS (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010) A Language Related Episode (LRE) is any segment in the data where there is an explicit focus on language Note: • This focus can be in response to the feedback the participants received but can also be unsolicited • LREs can vary in length They can be short (e.g., consisting of a learner simply reading out aloud a reformulated word or phrase with no response from the other member of the pair) or a long segment (e.g., where both learners discuss grammatical or lexical choices) • LREs can be interrupted For example, learners may deliberate over the use of articles and decide to omit it They may then return to this decision at a later stage in their pair talk and decide to reverse their decision, and insert the article Since both segments deal with the same ‘error’ they are counted as one episode CODING LRES Identify in the data segments where learners seem to be focusing explicitly on language choice Distinguish LREs in terms of focus: form-focus (F-LREs), lexis-focus (LLREs), mechanics-focus (M-LREs) • F-LRE: focus on morphology or syntax (e.g., verb tenses, word forms, use of articles, prepositions, word order) • L-LRE: deliberations on word meaning, searching for a word, suggesting alternative words/phrase • M-LRE: deliberations on issues such as spelling or punctuations (or pronunciation) Determine whether the LRE deals with language items that were targeted by the feedback given 64 Band Appendix G RATING SCALE FOR WRITING TASK 10 TASK FULFILMENT ORGANIZATION VOCABULARY • covers all the requirements of the task sufficiently and effectively • presents a fullydeveloped response with relevant, extended and well-supported ideas • organizes information and ideas logically • uses a range of cohesive devices and organizational patterns flexibly • uses paragraphing sufficiently and appropriately • covers all the requirements of the task sufficiently • presents a clear position throughout the response • presents a fullydeveloped response with relevant, extended and well-supported ideas • organizes information and ideas coherently • uses a range of cohesive devices and organizational patterns effectively • uses paragraphing sufficiently and appropriately • covers all the requirements of the task • presents a generally clear position throughout the response • organizes information and ideas coherently • uses a range of linking words and cohesive devices appropriately, though there may 65 GRAMMAR • uses a wide range of vocabulary including less common lexis precisely and flexibly • show full control of style and collocation, but there may be occasional inappropriacies • errors are very rare with just one or two minor slips • uses a wide range of vocabulary including less common lexis precisely • show good control of style and collocation, but there may be some inaccuracies • errors, if present, are nonsystematic and non-impeding • uses a wide range of structures precisely and flexibly • errors are very rare with just one or two minor slips ` • uses a good range of vocabulary including some less common lexis appropriately • uses a variety of simple and complex structures with good control • the majority of the sentences are error-free • uses a wide range of simple and complex structures precisely • the vast majority of the sentences are error-free • errors, if present, are nonsystematic and non-impeding • develops main ideas with most of the details relevant be some under/over use • uses paragraphing generally well • show some control of style and collocation • errors, if present, are nonsystematic and non-impeding • errors, if present, are nonsystematic and non-impeding • covers all the requirements of the task • presents a generally clear position throughout the response, but in some parts the conclusions may be repeated or unclear • presents relevant main ideas but one or two ideas may be not fullydeveloped or unclear • covers almost all the requirements of the task • presents a generally clear position throughout the response, but in some parts the conclusions may be repeated or unclear • presents relevant main ideas but some may be not fullydeveloped or unclear • organizes information and ideas coherently • uses a variety of linking words and cohesive devices within and across sentences suitably, but there may be faulty use • uses paragraphing but may not logically • uses a sufficient range of vocabulary • attempts less common lexis with occasional inappropriacies • errors not impede communication • uses both simple and complex structures • errors occur but they rarely lead to misunderstanding • organizes information and ideas coherently • uses a variety of linking words and a limited number of cohesive devices within and across sentences suitably, but there may be faulty use • manages paragraphing quite well • uses a sufficient range of vocabulary • attempts less common lexis but most are faulty • errors not impede communication • uses both simple and complex structures • errors occur but they rarely lead to misunderstanding 66 • partially covers the requirements of the task • presents a position but it is not always clear throughout the response; there may be no conclusions • presents some main ideas, but they are not fully-developed and there may be some irrelevant details • partially covers the requirements of the task • presents a position but it is not always clear throughout the response; there may be no conclusions • presents some main ideas, but they may be repetitive and are not sufficiently developed with relevant details • organizes information and ideas coherently • uses basic linking words and a limited number of cohesive devices within and across sentences accurately • may not write in paragraphs, or paragraphing is not adequate • uses a adequate range of vocabulary but tends to overuse certain lexical items • errors occur and may impede comprehension at times • shows good control of simple structures • attempts complex structures, but most are faulty • errors occur, but normally they not impede comprehension • presents information and ideas with some organization • uses a variety of basic, highfrequency linking words and cohesive devices within and across sentences, though there may be repetitions or inaccuracies • may not write in paragraphs, or paragraphing is confusing • uses basic vocabulary and acceptable control • errors are noticeable and impede comprehension at times • shows acceptable control of simple structures • attempts some complex structures, but unsuccessfully • errors occur frequently and impede comprehension at times • does not adequately address any part of the task, which may have been completely misunderstood • does not present a position • presents limited ideas which are largely undeveloped • presents information and ideas in a series of simple sentences linked by only basic, highfrequency linking words • uses a limited range of basic vocabulary • errors are frequent and distort the meaning • uses some simple structures correctly • frequently makes basic errors that distort the meaning 67 • barely responds to the task • does not present a position • presents one or two ideas which are not developed • has very little control of organizational features • answer is • has no totally irrelevant organizational or features incomprehensible • does not attend the exam • does not write any words • write only a memorized response 68 • uses a very limited range of words and phrases • errors are dominant and distort the meaning • can only use some memorized structures • errors are dominant and distort the meaning • uses only a few isolated words • cannot use sentence form at all ...ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH KH? ?A LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP SỰ THAM GIA C? ?A HỌC SINH VÀO QUÁ TRÌNH CH? ?A LỖI BÀI VIẾT: NGHIÊN CỨU BỐN TRƯỜNG HỢP TƯƠNG PHẢN Giáo... data analysis stage, because the main purpose of the final interview was for the researcher to ask for clarification or gain more in- depth understanding of the student engagement with WCF in the. .. Lapkin, 1998) for further indicators of engagement in addition to the subcategories from quantitative data Swain & Lapkin defined a LRE as “any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the