Rationale
In the realm of foreign and second language (L2) writing instruction, written corrective feedback (WCF) is considered a fundamental aspect of formative assessment Nonetheless, the effectiveness of WCF in promoting learning has sparked intense discussions among L2 writing researchers and educators For a comprehensive analysis of this debate, refer to the works of Karim and Nassaji (2019), as well as Kang and Han (2015) and Liu and Brown.
(2015) for a systematic review) This debate got to the climax when Truscott
(1996) put forward an idea that WCF was, in general, “ineffective” and even
“harmful” to both writing development as well as general L2 acquisition (p.327) This standpoint immediately receives many critiques from various scholars far and wide (e.g., Ferris (1999); Bruton (2009); Chandler (2009))
Truscott highlights significant limitations in traditional approaches to Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in L2 writing classrooms Feedback is often delivered in a unidirectional manner, preventing meaningful interaction between students and instructors As a result, L2 students may struggle to comprehend the feedback, leading them to replicate corrections verbatim without engaging with the underlying concepts Even when students wish to explore feedback further, they often lack the necessary support from instructors to do so Thus, the focus should shift from whether to provide WCF to how it can be delivered effectively.
This study introduces a three-step writing conference designed for L2 students to enhance their understanding of specific language errors In the first step, students collaborate with the instructor to focus on a particular error Next, they analyze a variety of examples to identify the correct usage patterns or rules Finally, students plan their error correction and further study of the language point The primary objective of this writing conference is to transform traditional feedback sessions into interactive learning opportunities, allowing students to engage with their instructor and better comprehend the feedback, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the associated knowledge.
Research aim and overall research design
This study investigates the impact of a three-step Teacher-to-Student writing conference on error correction and second language (L2) uptake, comparing its effectiveness to a traditional Peer-to-Peer writing conference The research aims to evaluate the success rate of error correction and the extent of L2 uptake resulting from both conference methods Key research questions will guide the analysis of these two approaches to writing support.
(a) How are L2 students engaged in the suggested writing conference with their writing instructor and in the conventional one with their peers?
(b) What is the effect of this engagement on error correction? Is this effect more pronounced in the case of the suggested writing conference?
(c) What is the effect of this engagement on L2 uptake? Is this effect more pronounced in the case of the suggested writing conference?
Theoretically, this study is grounded on Swain’s Output Hypothesis (2005), Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996), and Vygotsky’s Socio-cultural Theory
In 1987, this study distinguishes itself from prior research by incorporating both negotiated feedback and feedforward, along with the concept of scaffolding, to actively engage L2 students in correcting their writing errors during conferences Utilizing a case-study methodology, the research focuses on five intermediate EFL students selected from a language learning center in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Expected contributions
This study is significant for several reasons Firstly, it pioneers the integration of both feedback and feedforward in writing conferences Secondly, it goes beyond previous research by assessing not only the immediate error correction in L2 students but also their long-term retention of skills learned during the conference This aspect addresses whether L2 students can retain knowledge over time, potentially reducing similar errors in future writing The findings could illuminate the advantages of teacher and peer feedback for enhancing writing and L2 retention, offering empirical support for Swain’s Output Hypothesis, Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, and Vygotsky’s Socio-cultural Theory Additionally, these results are expected to provide valuable insights for writing instructors and students in various educational settings.
Organization of this report
Apart from the Introduction and the Conclusion section, this research report includes four major chapters: (1) Literature review, (2) Methodology, (3) Findings, and (4) Discussion and Implications
Chapter 1 of the Literature Review serves three primary objectives: it defines key concepts integral to the thesis, outlines the theoretical frameworks that underpin the study, and evaluates past empirical research on the impact of feedback, feedback engagement, and writing conferences on L2 writing enhancement and uptake, thereby identifying research gaps that this study intends to address.
Chapter 3 – Findings outlines the key results of this research project, highlighting the frequency of student errors and the occurrence of negotiation episodes related to both form and meaning in the target language It also examines how these negotiation episodes influence error correction and second language (L2) uptake during both Teacher-to-Student and traditional Peer-to-Peer writing conferences.
Chapter 4 – Discussion and Implications summarizes the study's findings in relation to the research questions, compares these results with prior research in the field, and offers practical implications for L2 writing instructors in various teaching and learning contexts.
Key concepts
As learners study a new language, they often produce erroneous language output, prompting researchers to investigate the factors influencing language acquisition Corder (1967) identifies two key terms for these inaccuracies: mistakes and errors Mistakes occur when learners, despite having prior knowledge, fail to recall language rules due to memory lapses or psychological factors like fatigue or strong emotions; these are often self-corrected and termed performance errors In contrast, errors stem from insufficient language competence and are more consistent, allowing researchers to assess learners' linguistic abilities through these systematic variations.
Overgeneralization is a demonstration of errors and how they differ from mistakes For instance, “He standed there” as an incorrect form of the sentence
Beginner-level learners often struggle with irregular verbs, such as "stand," leading them to incorrectly use the regular past tense form, resulting in sentences like "He stood there." This lack of awareness can hinder their language development.
When an advanced or native English speaker says “He walk home every day” instead of the correct “He walks home every day,” it typically indicates a grammatical mistake This error may stem from a slip of the tongue, often due to carelessness or other performance-related factors Such mistakes can happen to both language learners and proficient users alike.
Cognitive linguists emphasize the importance of addressing errors in language learning, viewing them as crucial to the acquisition process Adherents of the cognitive approach, rooted in cognitivist psychology, believe that language acquisition primarily involves learning rules This method highlights the significance of connecting concepts, identifying patterns from correct examples, and making generalizations, all of which aid in developing a mental representation of the target language.
Linguistic scientists adopting a cognitive approach focus on the unique characteristics of errors and mistakes to assess learners' abilities in acquiring a second language (L2) Corder (1974) categorizes L2 errors into three types based on the learner's understanding of the target language The first category, pre-systematic errors, occurs when learners are unaware of specific language rules, leading to random guesses in their expressions Consequently, a learner may produce various instances of the same error, such as creating grammatically incorrect sentences.
Learners often make systematic errors in language when they incorrectly assume rules, leading to repeated mistakes such as using "He isn't work" or "He don't work." Unlike pre-systematic errors, which are less frequent, these errors are consistently repeated Post-systematic errors occur when learners grasp the correct language rules but apply them inconsistently.
Errors in language acquisition provide valuable insights for researchers and extend their benefits to teaching and learning processes According to Corder (1967), analyzing errors helps educators assess student progress and develop tailored instructional plans Additionally, errors play a crucial role for learners, as they enable students to refine their understanding of the target language by correcting misconceptions through feedback from teachers.
This paper emphasizes the significance of errors in language learning, viewing them as essential indicators of progress rather than mere mistakes Errors serve as visible evidence that students are engaged in the learning process, offering teachers valuable insights to select effective teaching strategies By addressing these errors, educators can assist students in correcting their misunderstandings and acquiring the foundational knowledge and skills related to those errors.
Corrective feedback in language learning literature is often referred to by various terms, including "corrective feedback," "negative evidence," and simply "feedback." Chaudron (1977) and Nassaji and Kartchava (2017) define feedback as teacher responses aimed at enhancing students' oral and written communication Long (1996) further categorizes this feedback into "positive and negative evidence," where positive feedback acknowledges correct language use, while negative feedback highlights errors to guide improvement.
Corrective feedback serves as a form of negative evidence, providing learners with information that highlights inaccuracies in their language output This feedback prompts necessary adjustments in their inter-language system, facilitating improved language acquisition.
This article examines written corrective feedback provided by teachers to enhance student writing It distinguishes between feedback, which evaluates L2 students' past performance against learning goals, and feedforward, which offers guidance on how to improve future language tasks (Walker, 2013) Essentially, feedback reflects students' previous learning outcomes, while feedforward focuses on their potential for future growth.
In this research, students working with the teacher will be given feedback to revise their writings as well as feedforward to improve future performance
Writing conferences are a targeted strategy that involves direct interaction between a teacher and an individual student, known as Teacher-to-Student conferences, or between pairs of students, referred to as Peer-to-Peer conferences According to Gillet and Beverly (2001), these conferences can effectively occur in one-on-one settings, pairs, or small groups, enhancing the writing process through personalized feedback and collaboration, as also noted by Routman.
(2005) also confirms that writing conferences can be led either by the teacher or the student
Writing conferences serve multiple purposes, including encouraging, teaching, and assessing students, as well as setting educational goals (Routman, 2005) According to Calkins (1986), these conferences are crucial for enhancing students' writing content, processes, and evaluations, providing a prime opportunity for direct instruction on complex writing skills They can take place at any stage of the writing process and support a variety of writing strategies and concepts Graves (1994) emphasizes that writing conferences enable students to communicate their knowledge and uncertainties, allowing teachers to offer tailored assistance Furthermore, Lucy Calkins (1994) highlights the significance of Teacher-to-Student and Peer-to-Peer writing conferences as essential components of writing instruction, fostering student engagement with their own work.
Conference assessments provide a unique opportunity for students to engage directly with their teachers, focusing on specific pieces of work or their overall learning processes (Brown & Hudson, 1998) Unlike traditional assessments, conferences emphasize the exploration of learning strategies and processes (Genesee & Upshur, 1996) For instance, discussing various drafts of students' writing allows for a deeper understanding of their perceptions and concerns regarding their learning journey.
The present research employs both Teacher-to-Student and Peer-to-Peer writing conferences as a platform for students to negotiate errors
Negotiation, as defined by Nassaji (2011), involves a dynamic exchange of strategies aimed at resolving communication issues It encompasses two primary types: meaning negotiation, which addresses comprehension challenges during conversations (Pica, 1994; Van den Branden, 1997), and form negotiation, where the focus is on enhancing the correctness and appropriateness of language use (Van den Branden, 1997) Both forms of negotiation facilitate interactional feedback, enriching the overall communication process.
Theoretical frameworks
This study investigates the impact of a proposed writing conference on the improvement of L2 writing and uptake, grounded in three key theories of second language acquisition: Swain’s Output Hypothesis (2005), Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996), and Vygotsky’s Socio-cultural Theory (1987) Each theory offers essential insights that collectively underpin the research framework, highlighting the significance of output, interaction, and social context in language learning.
As an output task, the writing practice in the present study might foster L2 learning in accordance with the four main tenets of Swain’s Output Hypothesis
In the process of writing, students often identify gaps in their vocabulary and grammar, prompting them to focus on relevant language elements as they encounter L2 input (Swain, 1995) This output task not only allows them to experiment with new words and structures in context but also reinforces their understanding of these linguistic items, a process referred to as hypothesis testing by Swain Additionally, producing language enhances fluency, as utilizing recently learned vocabulary and grammar aids in memorization and increases the automaticity of recognizing and retrieving these elements during communication Furthermore, engaging in writing conferences enables students to discuss specific words or structures, fostering meta-linguistic awareness that supports the internalization of language into their interlanguage system.
The Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) has four major constructs, which are input, interaction, feedback, and output The present study is concerned with feedback and interaction
The Interaction Hypothesis posits that feedback from negotiating form and meaning is crucial for second language acquisition This negotiation occurs during communication breakdowns, prompting either L2 learners to modify their output for clarity or native speakers to adjust their input for comprehension Such modifications highlight gaps in the learners' interlanguage, enhancing the likelihood of acquiring the targeted linguistic forms White (1987) emphasizes that comprehensible input fosters second language learning by allowing students to recognize discrepancies between their interlanguage and the target language Additionally, Swain's Output Hypothesis (1985, 1995, 2000, 2005) asserts that mere input is inadequate for language acquisition; active output stimulates cognitive processes essential for learning The negotiation of meaning aids this by fostering awareness of one's linguistic production, thereby facilitating the internalization of forms Long's (1996) interaction hypothesis further supports the idea that interactive input is superior to non-interactive input, reinforcing the significance of engaging communication in language learning.
According to research from 2007, interactive learning directs students' focus toward challenging aspects of knowledge, encouraging them to engage with new vocabulary and grammar points, ultimately enhancing their second language acquisition.
Interaction enhances the value of language output for L2 students by providing them with accurate examples of L2 usage through negotiated input, such as feedback This feedback enables learners to adjust their output, making it clearer and more understandable for their conversation partners.
Sociocultural Theory (SCT), developed by Vygotsky in 1978, posits that human mental activities are fundamentally linked to our ability to consciously control thinking through cultural tools like language, literacy, and logic These higher-level tools facilitate complex cognitive processes, including decision-making and problem-solving (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p 198).
According to the Sociocultural Theory (SCT) proposed by Vygotsky, human characteristics and behaviors emerge from the interplay between our biological makeup and the historical, social, and cultural contexts we engage with This perspective emphasizes that our development is influenced not only by innate factors but also by our interactions within our environment.
Human features, such as language ability, are influenced more by sociocultural history than by biology, suggesting that these traits are not static Instead, students' second language (L2) competence can evolve through dynamic interactions with their peers and educators, highlighting the importance of a collaborative learning environment.
SCT perceives learning as a dual process involving cognitive and social dimensions, highlighting the role of language as a significant cultural tool that mediates human thought Social interaction plays a vital role in the learning process, offering essential opportunities for regulation and internalization, which promote cognitive growth Learning takes place within the zone of proximal development (ZPD), supported by the scaffolding provided by others.
I discuss three key concepts of SCT – ZPD, social interaction, and scaffolding – in greater detail
Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) highlights that learning occurs through interaction, defining the ZPD as the gap between a learner's actual developmental level and their potential development when guided by adults or more skilled peers (Vygotsky, 1978) Initially seen as a fixed trait, the ZPD is now understood as a dynamic and evolving space that expands learning potential by fostering unexpected opportunities (Wells, 1998) In the context of language learning, the ZPD encompasses various elements, including the teacher, learner, their social and cultural backgrounds, goals, motivations, and collaboratively constructed resources (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) Ultimately, from a Vygotskian perspective, effective learning primarily takes place within the learner's ZPD.
Social interaction is a fundamental aspect of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), emphasizing the role of language in communication to share experiences and build knowledge From a sociocultural perspective, it involves the interactions between teachers and students, as well as peer-to-peer communication, all of which are integral to the learning process.
Sociocultural Theory (SCT) emphasizes that learning occurs within social and cultural contexts, highlighting that it is a co-constructed process where students enhance their understanding through communication about their experiences As noted by McNeil (2012), social interaction plays a crucial role in helping students grasp concepts by collaborating on tasks, receiving support, and eventually completing assignments independently This indicates that cognitive and linguistic development is significantly influenced by social interactions and assistance from peers Consequently, learning is fundamentally constructed through social interactions.
Social interaction is fundamental to learning and development, as highlighted by Walqui (2006), who states that learning involves the transformation of skills and knowledge from social contexts to cognitive understanding Gibbons (2007) emphasizes that language acquisition in second language classrooms occurs through collaborative activities among students, with language learning being deeply rooted in social and cultural contexts Interaction plays a vital role in second language acquisition by offering students the chance to practice and understand the target language Ultimately, as noted by Wells (1999), learning is initiated through interaction, which fosters an environment conducive to both language learning and learning through language.
In a Vygotskian framework, the concept of scaffolding is essential, as it highlights the guided support offered to novices by more knowledgeable partners This collaborative process allows the novice to engage in learning activities that enhance their skills and knowledge, ultimately leading to greater competence Scaffolding creates an environment where knowledgeable participants facilitate the novice's development, fostering a deeper understanding and mastery of new concepts.
Scaffolding and support through Teacher-to-Student and Peer-to-Peer interactions are essential for learners to successfully complete complex tasks while acquiring a second language This support should be tailored to the learner's needs and distinguished from unidirectional assistance Effective scaffolding emerges from collaborative social interactions between novices and experts within the learner's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) Thus, the effectiveness of corrective feedback is not solely determined by its type, but rather by how feedback is negotiated and evolves during these interactions.
Empirical research into the effects of feedback, negotiated feedback,
3.1 Empirical studies into the effects of feedback on error correction and L2 uptake
Feedback plays a crucial role in the language classroom, particularly in second language (L2) writing, as supported by extensive research over the past two decades Studies by Ferris (1999, 2004) highlight that students desire correction from teachers, emphasizing that error correction is essential Chandler (2003) found that various types of feedback significantly enhance L2 writing accuracy Similarly, Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) demonstrated that combining feedback with writing conferences greatly improves students' use of grammatical elements like the past simple and definite articles Leki (2007) revealed that L2 graduate students in a US university found written feedback from faculty highly valuable, with many requesting more input on content and technical writing skills Furthermore, Li's (2010) meta-analysis of 33 studies confirmed a medium effect size for feedback on L2 writing performance, indicating its lasting impact on student improvement.
Some researchers contend that feedback in second language (L2) writing is largely ineffective for development For instance, Semke (1984) conducted a 10-week study with students divided into four groups receiving different treatments, including direct error correction and content-only comments The findings revealed no significant differences in writing outcomes among those receiving error correction and those given only content feedback, suggesting that the quantity of writing may be more crucial than the feedback received Similarly, Kepner (1991) observed minimal improvement in L2 participants' writing despite direct feedback on grammatical errors Truscott's review of related research further supports these findings.
(1996) concludes that feedback does not have benefits for either L2 writing improvement or L2 uptake
The review indicates that the impact of feedback on L2 writing enhancement and uptake remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for further empirical research in this field.
3.2 Empirical studies into the effects of feedback engagement on error correction and L2 uptake
While feedback is frequently seen as ineffective for second language (L2) learning, there is a growing interest in the concept of feedback engagement Despite this shift, limited research has explored how feedback engagement influences L2 writing improvement and uptake.
Han and Hyland (2015) conducted a qualitative study on four college students' engagement with corrective feedback, revealing that students’ beliefs and experiences influenced their engagement levels Zhang (2017) examined a university student's interaction with computer-generated feedback, finding that while her behavioral patterns were unclear, her positive cognitive engagement and emotional responses, such as surprise and frustration, impacted her understanding of the feedback Zheng and Yu (2018) explored the engagement of 12 lower-proficiency Chinese students with teacher-written corrective feedback, using data from essays, feedback, oral reports, and interviews Their findings indicated that although affective engagement was positive, behavioral and cognitive engagement were limited, with minimal understanding of indirect written corrective feedback affecting language accuracy.
Recent studies reveal that feedback engagement in L2 learning is more intricate than previously understood, highlighting the importance of both cognitive and emotional factors These studies primarily address feedback without integrating comments that combine feedback and feedforward Furthermore, according to Sociocultural Theory (SCT), L2 students may struggle to progress beyond their current developmental stage without guidance from teachers or peers Therefore, writing conferences present an ideal opportunity to explore the impact of feedback and comments on L2 writing enhancement and learning uptake The following section will review critical studies in this field.
3.3 Empirical studies into the effects of writing conferences on error correction and L2 uptake
In a 2005 study by Bitchener, Young, and Cameron, the impact of various types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing was examined, focusing on 53 post-intermediate ESOL students over 12 weeks The research explored the effectiveness of direct written corrective feedback combined with individual conferences, direct written feedback alone, and the absence of corrective feedback on errors related to prepositions, past simple tense, and definite articles Participants were divided into three groups based on their class hours: a full-time group receiving comprehensive feedback, a part-time group receiving only written feedback, and a third group receiving no corrective feedback on specific errors but feedback on content quality The findings revealed that the combination of written and conference feedback significantly improved accuracy in using the past simple tense and definite articles in students' writing.
In 2013, Guetzlaff conducted a study examining the impact of Peer-to-Peer writing conferences on writing revisions in a second-grade classroom, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data The research focused on how training in Peer-to-Peer writing conferences influenced students' L2 writing performance Findings revealed that trained students were more effective in clarifying their writing and engaging in discussions, asking more questions than their untrained peers Consequently, those who received training demonstrated superior performance in their post-treatment writing tasks Additionally, Bayraktar (2013) explored the dynamics of Teacher-to-Student Writing Conferences and the potential effects of self-efficacy on student outcomes.
This study aimed to investigate the dynamics of Teacher-to-Student writing conferences, focusing on whether these interactions were balanced, student-centered, or teacher-centered Additionally, it explored the impact of students' perceived self-efficacy on the nature of these conferences and aimed to identify interaction patterns among students with varying levels of self-efficacy in writing Utilizing a qualitative approach, the research observed and analyzed these conferences over a ten-week period, involving fifth-grade students from a public primary school in the Southeastern United States The Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (Pajares, Miller, & Johnson) was employed to assess students' confidence in their writing abilities.
In a study adapted from Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989), data was collected through audio and video-taped Teacher-to-Student writing conferences, interviews, and observations, analyzed using qualitative methods The findings revealed that the writing conferences were not entirely teacher-centered; rather, the teacher skillfully balanced both teacher-centered and student-centered approaches Additionally, the dynamics of the writing conferences varied among students with different levels of self-efficacy, affecting aspects such as focus, ownership, scheduling, turn-taking, speech frequency, the quantity and function of questions asked, the number of compliments from the teacher, and external interruptions during the conferences.
Prior empirical studies have confirmed that negotiation episodes during writing conferences significantly enhance L2 writing improvement and uptake However, most research has concentrated solely on either teacher-to-student or peer-to-peer writing conferences, with little comparison between the two types.
Research gaps
The review identifies key research gaps in the area of feedback on L2 writing improvement While numerous empirical studies have explored the impact of feedback, their results are inconclusive, with some indicating benefits and others showing negative effects This highlights the need for further investigation Additionally, much of the existing research focuses solely on feedback rather than on students’ cognitive engagement with it, suggesting that engagement is more crucial than the feedback itself Furthermore, previous studies often overlook the concept of feedforward, which is essential for helping L2 students avoid repeating errors There is also a lack of comparative studies on the effectiveness of Teacher-to-Student versus Peer-to-Peer writing conferences in enhancing L2 writing Finally, research on writing conferences within Vietnam's EFL context, particularly in informal settings like language centers, is limited This study aims to address these gaps.
Research Questions
This study aimed to explore how L2 students interact with written feedback from teachers during Teacher-to-Student and conventional Peer-to-Peer writing conferences It also investigated whether negotiation episodes in these conferences resulted in effective error correction and L2 uptake Additionally, the research compared the effectiveness of Peer-to-Peer and Teacher-to-Student conferences in enhancing learning outcomes.
(a) How are L2 students engaged in the suggested writing conference with their writing instructor and in the conventional one with their peers?
(b) What is the effect of this engagement on error correction? Is this effect more pronounced in the case of the suggested writing conference?
(c) What is the effect of this engagement on L2 uptake? Is this effect more pronounced in the case of the suggested writing conference?
Research site
This research took place in a language center in Hanoi during the first half of
In 2020, English language learners participated in lessons focused on enhancing their proficiency through writing practice To explore the impact of negotiated feedback on error correction and language uptake, the researcher organized Teacher-to-Student and Peer-to-Peer writing conferences, assessing learner involvement in negotiation and its influence on error correction rates in subsequent drafts Customized tests were developed for each student to evaluate the long-term effects of negotiated feedback on language retention Due to limited time and resources, a language center in Hanoi was selected for the study, providing convenient access to participants and ensuring the feasibility of the research.
Sampling
The study included five participants with similar English proficiency levels, ranging from B1 to B2 They were split into two groups: one group of two students engaged in a Teacher-to-Student writing conference, while the other group of three students participated in a Peer-to-Peer writing conference All participants were enrolled in an English course at a language center in Hanoi, and their proficiency levels were assessed using the center's placement test.
Due to constraints in time and resources, the researcher opted for convenience sampling at an English center in Hanoi, selecting readily available individuals as participants (Cohen et al., 2007) From a class of 25 students with similar proficiency levels, five participants were randomly chosen to take part in the study.
Research tools
This case study utilized a mixed-methods approach, gathering qualitative data from Teacher-to-Student and Peer-to-Peer writing conferences, alongside quantitative data from participants' writing drafts and test papers.
To gather data on how the students negotiated with different partners, the researcher employed two types of writing conferences One was the suggested
Teacher-to-Student writing conference, and the other was the typical Peer-to- Peer writing conference
Two key reasons influenced the selection of these writing conferences Firstly, research by Goldstein and Conrad (1990) revealed that students who effectively engaged in meaning negotiation during writing conferences were more likely to produce significant and high-quality revisions, a conclusion that was further supported by Williams.
In 2004, it was found that teacher advice on revisions was more effective when accompanied by explicit suggestions and active participation during conferences However, some L2 learners faced cultural and social barriers that hindered informal conversations with authority figures like teachers, leading to a reluctance to ask questions and a tendency to accept suggestions without critical reflection In contrast, peer feedback was shown to enhance students' sense of control and autonomy, fostering greater engagement in the feedback process (Mendoca & Johnson, 1994) Additionally, interaction with peers provided social and emotional support (Guerrero & Villamil, 1994) From a Vygotskian perspective, social interaction is crucial, as the Zone of Proximal Development (1978) suggests that writing skills can develop through collaboration Consequently, participants were divided into two groups to explore the impact of social hierarchy on negotiation episodes with teachers versus peers, and to assess how these interactions influenced immediate correction rates and long-term language retention.
The quality and delivery of feedback are crucial factors in the writing process Research by Leki (1990), Nelson & Murphy (1992), Lockhart & Ng (1993), and Mendoca & Johnson (1994) indicates that students often struggle to identify errors and deliver constructive feedback They frequently resort to formulaic comments or provide feedback that is either inappropriate or excessively critical.
According to Amores (1997) and McGroarty & Zhu (1997), focusing excessively on surface errors can hinder effective learning Within the Vygotskian framework (1978), scaffolding—where teachers provide guided support to novice learners during collaboration—is essential for effective feedback This approach emphasizes that learners require assistance in mastering the complexities of a second language through interaction with teachers and peers The effectiveness of corrective feedback is influenced more by the interactive negotiation between the novice and expert than by the type of feedback itself (Donato, 1994) Scaffolding is a collaborative process tailored to the learner’s needs and their Zone of Proximal Development While teachers typically possess greater expertise in this process, students often lack the necessary background to offer quality scaffolded support to their peers (Donato).
In a study conducted in 1994, the researcher divided participants into two groups to investigate the impact of feedback quality and its delivery on immediate correction rates and language acquisition in students.
The suggested teacher-to-student conference
In this study, the researcher adapted the following procedure of scaffolding for the suggested Teacher-to-Student conference Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) put forward a regulatory scale for giving feedback
Figure 1 REGULATORY SCALE (INDIRECT TO DIRECT) (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994)
The teacher used a systematic approach to help students identify and correct errors in their sentences Initially, the teacher highlighted the erroneous sentence and guided students to pinpoint the specific location of the mistake If students struggled to recognize the error, the teacher offered hints regarding the type of error present Should they still be unable to make the correction, the teacher provided additional cues on how to fix it Ultimately, the teacher presented the correct form, along with explanations and examples of the appropriate pattern.
Inspired by Aljaafreh and Lantolf's (1994) guidelines, this study implemented modified scaffolding steps The teacher adhered to specific guidelines for addressing each error encountered during the process.
1 The teacher marks the errors made in the first draft with error codes
2 The teacher asks the student to correct the error independently
3 The teacher rejects unsuccessful attempts to self-correct
4 The teacher provides a number of good samples and asks the student to deduce the correct rules or patterns themselves
5 The teacher rejects unsuccessful attempts to correct
6 The teacher provides further cues to help the student arrive at the correct form
7 The teacher rejects unsuccessful attempts to self-correct
8 The teacher provides the correct form
9 The teacher provides an explanation for the correct form
This adaptation is based on the belief that actively engaging students in the process of understanding standardized knowledge, rather than allowing them to passively absorb it, can enhance their long-term language retention.
The teacher instructed students to create a plan outlining their strategies for correcting errors and provided additional at-home practice following the feedback received during the conference.
The conventional Peer-to-Peer conference
In a typical Peer-to-Peer conference, students collaboratively addressed the errors highlighted by their teacher, discussing each one in detail They were encouraged to utilize various resources to enhance their understanding and facilitate effective error correction.
The researcher analyzed students' error correction rates through their writing drafts, which were all based on the same topic and ideas generated during brainstorming sessions with the teacher The first drafts were composed in class and later received feedback from the teacher using implicit error codes Errors were categorized into two types: local and global, as defined by Burt and Kiparsky (1974) Local errors, which included issues with noun and verb inflections, articles, prepositions, and auxiliaries, did not hinder communication or comprehension In contrast, global errors, such as incorrect word order or inappropriate word choice, significantly disrupted meaning and interfered with effective communication.
Students’ errors were marked based on the coding scheme below
The 2nd drafts were edited versions of the 1st drafts after the writing conference
To assess students' L2 uptake, individualized tests were created, focusing solely on rule-governed language errors in their essays due to time constraints Each test's length was tailored to the specific number of errors made by each student The researcher implemented a structured approach, designing four targeted questions for each type of error to effectively measure L2 uptake.
The initial question presented a unique sentence with a gap, aimed at identifying the errors made by students Without any options provided, students were required to fill in the blank, assessing their ability to recall the new language code within a fresh context Success in this task allowed them to progress to the next error, while those who struggled would continue with the second question in the series.
The second question required students to fill in a blank in their writing, with the target error removed and no options provided This exercise assessed their ability to recall language codes within the same sentence as their original work Successful completion allowed students to progress to another error, while those who struggled would continue with the third question in the series.
Data collection
Regarding the procedure of data collection, the researcher, who also acted as the teacher, adhered to the following plan:
+ The teacher instructed students to write a roughly 300-word essay on an assigned topic
+ The teacher required students to produce this writing within the classroom time
+ The teacher collected students’ works and provided written feedback (implicit and attending to all aspects, not just limited to grammar and vocabulary)
+ The teacher returned students’ works with her implicit feedback (as described) + The teacher divided students into two groups and organized writing conferences
During the Peer-to-Peer writing conference, three students collaborated to identify and correct their errors, while in the Teacher-to-Student writing conference, two students received guidance directly from the teacher The teacher implemented the scaffolding steps outlined in section 4.1 of this chapter to enhance the learning experience.
These conferences were all audio-recorded for later analysis based on the agreement of all research participants
+ The teacher collected 2nd drafts of all 05 students
+ The teacher analyzed the success rate of error correction
Two weeks after the initial draft submission, the teacher created tailored tests focusing on the specific errors made by each participant Following the design of these learner-specific assessments, the teacher proceeded to administer the tests.
+ The teacher scored the tests
+ The teacher analyzed L2 uptake based on the performance of each student.
Data analysis
This study adopted qualitative as well as quantitative approaches to analyzing the acquired data
In order to answer research question 01, the researcher first transcribed the audio recordings of all writing conferences
Previous research in this field has focused on identifying negotiation episodes during conferences, categorizing the data into recurring themes, and obtaining frequency counts for each type For instance, studies by Goldstein and Conrad have contributed to this understanding.
In 1990, six distinct types of negotiation episodes were identified, which include: (1) teacher talks with student backchannels, (2) teacher questions paired with student answers, (3) teacher and student dialogues, (4) student talks accompanied by teacher backchannels, (5) student questions followed by teacher answers, and (6) a blend of these interactions Each episode features a unique combination of topics and purposes, and importantly, these episodes can persist even after being interrupted by other types of interactions.
Goldstein and Conrad (1990) adopted a coding scheme due to challenges in determining the exact start and end points of negotiation episodes In their study, negotiation episodes were clearly identifiable as interlocutors addressed errors individually during writing conferences The scaffolding guideline used for the Teacher-to-Student writing conference aimed not to quantify speaking time or the number of initiated episodes, but rather to assess the level of support required by students to correct their errors Consequently, a new coding scheme was developed to reflect this focus.
Figure 2 TYPES OF NEGOTIATION EPISODES
The coding scheme for negotiation participation categorizes it into two primary types: covert and overt participation Covert participation includes two sub-types: (1) no audible response and (2) backchannels only In contrast, overt participation is divided into four distinct sub-types.
Students can effectively self-modify their work by analyzing samples, utilizing cues provided by the teacher, and applying the correct rules given by the instructor This process enhances their ability to adapt and improve their skills independently.
To address research question 02, the researcher evaluated the error correction rates in students' second drafts following writing conferences Error treatment was categorized into two primary types: no attempt and attempted correction The attempted corrections were further classified as successful or unsuccessful, with a successful attempt defined as one where the student effectively followed guidance from teachers or peers, while an unsuccessful attempt indicated failure to achieve the correct form.
Figure 3 TYPES OF ERROR REVISION
The success rate was calculated by dividing the number of successful corrections by the total attempts made, ensuring an accurate assessment To enhance reliability, an independent rater was utilized during this evaluation process.
The researcher examined the effectiveness of negotiated feedback in Teacher-to-Student writing conferences compared to Peer-to-Peer writing conferences Additionally, the study analyzed how well students corrected various types of errors Ultimately, the researcher established a correlation between the success rate of error correction and the degree of participation in negotiation during the writing conferences.
To address research question 03, the researcher calculated the mean score for each student, assigning scores from 0 to 4 based on their responses to a series of questions regarding one error Levels 3 and 4 indicated procedural knowledge, while Levels 1 and 2 reflected only declarative knowledge (refer to section 4.3 in this chapter).
The researcher analyzed the outcomes of students engaged in two distinct types of writing conferences, correlating the scores for each question and error with the negotiations that occurred during the conferences This analysis also examined how these discussions influenced the corrections made in the students' second drafts.
Research question 01
How are L2 students engaged in the suggested writing conference with their writing instructor and in the conventional one with their peers?
This study explored student involvement in negotiating feedback during two types of writing conferences By analyzing transcripts from recorded sessions, the researcher identified negotiations related to issues found in students' first drafts, utilizing a coding scheme outlined in chapter 2, section 5 The findings are summarized in the tables below.
In a recent Teacher-to-Student writing conference, both students actively engaged in the feedback negotiation process without any covert participation Student N demonstrated significant improvement by implementing six self-modifications based on the indirect feedback provided through coding by the teacher Furthermore, the student made six additional modifications after reviewing teacher-provided samples, ten modifications following further cues from the teacher, and three modifications after receiving the correct answers.
Table 3 NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT N IN THE SUGGESTED
TEACHER-TO-STUDENT WRITING CONFERENCE
Type of negotiation participation Count
Overt Able to modify by themselves 6
Able to modify after analyzing samples given 6 Able to modify after T’s provision of cues 10 Able to modify after T’s direct provision of rules/ patterns
Student P implemented a total of 25 self-modifications in response to teacher feedback, including 6 adjustments based on indirect error codes, 6 modifications after analyzing provided samples, 10 changes following additional cues from the teacher, and 3 corrections made after receiving the correct answer.
Table 4 NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT P IN THE SUGGESTED
TEACHER-TO-STUDENT WRITING CONFERENCE
Type of negotiation participation Count
Overt Able to modify by themselves 7
Able to modify after analyzing samples given 7 Able to modify after T’s provision of cues 11 Able to modify after T’s direct provision of rules/ patterns
In the Peer-to-Peer writing conference, similar to the Teacher-to-Student writing conference, no covert participation was noted However, a deeper analysis of student engagement unveiled unexpected scenarios that were not originally identified in the coding scheme.
Student T implemented three self-modifications based on indirect feedback from the teacher Additionally, one modification occurred after analyzing samples, while six modifications were made following cues provided by P without sample analysis Another six modifications resulted from P's provision of the correct answer without sample analysis However, no modifications were made after P's further cues or correct answers following sample analysis Instances also arose where students misunderstood the teacher's feedback or failed to adjust their L2 use due to insufficient or incorrect input.
Table 5 NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT T IN THE PEER-TO-PEER
Type of negotiation participation Count
Overt Able to modify by themselves 3
Able to modify after analyzing samples given 1
Able to modify after P’s provision of cues (no sample)
Able to modify after P’s direct provision of rules/ patterns (no sample)
Unable to modify due to P’s wrong input 1
Student L implemented a total of 18 self-modifications based on various forms of feedback This included 7 modifications from indirect feedback in the form of codes provided by the teacher Additionally, 1 modification stemmed from analyzing sample solutions, while 2 modifications were made following cues from P without sample analysis Furthermore, 6 modifications resulted from P providing the correct answer without sample analysis One modification occurred after P offered additional cues following sample analysis, and no changes were made after P provided the correct answer with sample analysis Notably, Student L also made 2 modifications after observing a peer solve a similar problem.
Table 6 NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT T IN THE PEER-TO-PEER
Type of negotiation participation Count
Overt Able to modify by themselves 7
Able to modify after analyzing samples given 0 Able to modify after P’s provision of cues (no sample)
Able to modify after P’s direct provision of rules/ patterns (with sample)
Able to modify after P’s direct provision of rules/ patterns (no sample)
Others Able to modify after a similar correction is made in P’s writing
Unable to modify due to the lack of input or wrong input
Student Q implemented a total of 08 self-modifications based on indirect feedback from the teacher After analyzing samples, no modifications were made, while 05 modifications occurred following cues from P without sample analysis Additionally, 09 modifications were made after P provided the correct answer without analyzing samples A single modification resulted from P's further cues after sample analysis, but no changes were noted after P's correct answer was provided post-analysis Furthermore, 01 modification was made after observing a peer solve a similar problem There was also 01 instance of misunderstanding the teacher’s comment and another instance where no input was given.
Table 7 NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT Q IN THE PEER-TO-PEER
Type of negotiation participation Count
Overt Able to modify by themselves 8
Able to modify after analyzing samples given 0 Able to modify after P’s provision of cues (no sample)
Able to modify after P’s direct provision of rules/ patterns (with sample)
Able to modify after P’s direct provision of rules/ patterns (no sample)
Others Able to modify after a similar correction is made in P’s writing
Unable to modify due to the lack of input or wrong input
The data indicates that both groups of students actively participated in the negotiation process regarding errors, demonstrating strong engagement during the feedback sessions Additionally, both conference formats effectively promoted self-correction, as evidenced by the numerous modifications made by the students themselves.
A notable difference emerged between two student groups during negotiation episodes Group 1 focused on analyzing teacher-provided samples to infer rules and patterns, adhering to scaffolding guidelines Modifications were primarily made by the students themselves, often after deducing rules from samples or receiving additional cues from the teacher, with direct answers being rare In contrast, Group 2 tended to provide cues or correct answers immediately, bypassing the analysis of samples or other resources They only utilized samples or external resources like the Internet when peer input was absent Consequently, errors in Peer-to-Peer writing conferences were less thoroughly negotiated than those in Teacher-to-Student writing conferences.
An analysis of the negotiations during the Teacher-to-Student and Peer-to-Peer writing conferences revealed significant differences in clarity and understanding In the Teacher-to-Student conferences, students reported no confusion or misunderstandings, as the teacher clarified comments before each negotiation, leading to acceptance of the feedback Conversely, the Peer-to-Peer conferences exhibited instances of confusion regarding peer comments, with some input being inaccurate This resulted in mixed reactions from students, where certain suggestions were accepted while others were dismissed.
Negotiating different types of errors reveals that rule-governed problems are generally quicker to correct than global errors, such as word choice and relevance, which demand more time and effort For instance, correcting word choice errors involves teachers providing examples of proper usage to help students understand the inappropriateness of their initial selections Additionally, teachers must offer more accurate alternatives to convey the intended meaning Similarly, during Peer-to-Peer conferences, the lengthy process stems not from sample analysis but from discussions based solely on the students' existing knowledge.
Research question 02
What is the effect of this engagement on error correction? Is this effect more pronounced in the case of the suggested Teacher-to-Student writing conferences?
Following an analysis of the second drafts submitted by students, the researcher synthesized the error correction success rates for each individual student according to the established scheme outlined in Section 6.2 of Chapter 3.
In the first draft, student N made 25 attempts to correct errors, achieving success in 18 of those attempts, which represents 72% of the total corrections Conversely, 7 attempts were unsuccessful, making up 28% of the total error corrections.
Table 8 STUDENT N’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION
Type of error correction Count Percentage
Student P made significant progress in correcting errors in the first draft, successfully addressing 24 out of 26 attempted corrections This achievement reflects a high success rate of 92.30%, with only 2 corrections, or 7.70%, remaining unsuccessful.
Table 9 STUDENT P’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION
Type of error correction Count Percentage
At the Peer-to-Peer writing conference, student T made an effort to correct errors in their first draft, achieving a success rate of 55.55% with 10 out of 18 corrections made accurately, while 44.45% of the attempts, totaling 7 out of 18, were unsuccessful.
Table 10 STUDENT T’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION
Type of error correction Count Percentage
Regarding student L’s 2 nd draft, 01 out of 19 errors was not corrected Among those that were corrected, 14 (73.68%) were successfully modified, and 04 (21.05%) were unsuccessfully modified
Table 11 STUDENT L’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION
Type of error correction Count Percentage
According to table IV.2.5, student Q did not attempt to correct 01 out of 26 errors in their 1 st draft Among the 25 attempted corrections, 13 attempts (50%) were successful, but 12 attempts (46.16%) were unsuccessful
Table 12 STUDENT Q’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION
Type of error correction Count Percentage
The study revealed that the success rate of error correction in Teacher-to-Student writing conferences averaged 82.15%, significantly higher than the 59.74% success rate observed in Peer-to-Peer writing conferences This indicates that Teacher-to-Student writing conferences are more effective for error correction.