Research gaps
Written corrective feedback (WCF) in second language (L2) writing instruction serves two essential purposes: enhancing the quality of writing, particularly in terms of accuracy, and facilitating the acquisition of new language elements However, empirical studies on the impact of WCF on L2 writing development and language uptake have yielded mixed results While some research indicates that WCF improves writing accuracy, other studies suggest the contrary, with Truscott (1996) even labeling WCF as “ineffective” and “harmful” to L2 development Given these inconsistent findings, further investigation into the effects of WCF is necessary.
Inconsistent research findings suggest that student engagement with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), rather than WCF itself, may be the key factor influencing outcomes To effectively operationalize student engagement with WCF in both research and instructional practices, educators often utilize writing conferences, which involve one-on-one meetings to enhance the learning experience.
In a writing conference, a writing teacher or skilled peer guides a student through their writing errors, helping them understand and prepare for corrections while learning the underlying concepts Hyland (2019) highlights that these conferences provide powerful feedback, as they involve negotiation between teacher and student, fostering a shared understanding However, there is limited research on how student engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) during these conferences impacts L2 writing development and the effectiveness of error correction Hyland calls for further research to address this gap.
Ellis (2010) proposed a three-dimensional model of student engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF), encompassing affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses This model highlights the significance of student engagement as a crucial link between WCF and learning outcomes, offering insights that can enhance pedagogical practices in providing feedback Despite its importance, empirical evidence supporting this model is still limited, indicating a need for further research to validate its framework Initial studies have primarily focused on individual aspects of engagement, such as cognitive (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010), behavioral (Sachs & Polio, 2007), and affective engagement (Ellis, 2010), without exploring their interplay.
3 between and among all three types of engagement in the model as the whole This highlights another research gap for future research to fill in
In writing conferences, the facilitator can either be a teacher (Teacher-to-Student) or a peer (Student-to-Student), both of which significantly contribute to L2 writing development through the concept of scaffolding Ellis (2000) defines scaffolding as a dialogic process where one speaker aids another in acquiring new skills, while Schumm (2006) describes it as support provided to learners that is gradually removed as they gain independence Research indicates that teachers typically employ more scaffolding strategies than peers in L2 writing contexts (Khodamoradi et al., 2013; Malihe & Nasrin, 2011) Additionally, it's crucial to consider the socio-cultural context of the writing classroom, especially in EFL settings like Vietnam, where specific challenges and dynamics may influence the effectiveness of writing conferences (Pham, 2010).
“the teacher is always seen as having much better knowledge than students” (p
Students are expected to show respect towards their teachers, which can hinder open debate and honest communication Nguyen (2011) highlights that this belief may cause students to avoid straightforward discussions for fear of being perceived as rude or disrespectful Consequently, this hierarchical dynamic can negatively impact students' willingness to engage with their writing teachers during conferences and to ask questions, as noted by Han and Hyland.
Research by Pham and Gillies (2010) indicates that Vietnamese students show a greater willingness to participate in peer assessment compared to teacher-led evaluations This suggests that the way students engage with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) during teacher conferences may significantly differ from their interactions with peers, particularly regarding their emotional involvement However, there appears to be a lack of studies that directly compare these two forms of engagement.
This study investigates the patterns of student engagement during writing conferences, specifically comparing Teacher-to-Student interactions with Student-to-Student collaborations By addressing existing research gaps, the study aims to enhance understanding of these engagement dynamics.
Research aims and research questions
This study aims to fill existing research gaps by comparing student engagement in written corrective feedback (WCF) during writing conferences with either their instructor (Teacher-to-Student) or peers (Student-to-Student) It also investigates the relationship between this engagement and the success rate of error correction Utilizing a contrastive case study approach, the research seeks to answer critical questions regarding these dynamics in educational settings.
(1) How do L2 students cognitively, behaviorally, and affectively respond to WCF in the Teacher-to-Student and the Student-to-Student writing conference?
(2) Is there any difference in the pattern of the student engagement with WCF between the Teacher-to-Student and the Student-to-
(3) If yes, is this difference associated with their learning outcomes measured by the success rate of their error correction and L2 uptake?
Meaningfulness and novelty of this study
This research is significant as it provides empirical evidence supporting Ellis’ (2010) multi-dimensional construct of student engagement with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) It validates the model's applicability for research purposes and illuminates the relationship between student engagement with WCF and the success rate of error correction Additionally, it highlights differences in engagement patterns during Teacher-to-Student and Student-to-Student writing conferences Pedagogically, the findings can inform writing teachers, particularly those seeking to enhance their instructional strategies.
The language centers are focused on enhancing their decision-making processes for designating writing conferences Their goal is to scaffold positive student engagement with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), thereby promoting the development of second language (L2) writing skills and improving L2 uptake among students.
Organization of this study report
This paper is structured into four main chapters, excluding the Introduction and Conclusion Chapter 1, titled "Literature Review," defines essential concepts and frameworks that underpin the thesis, followed by a critical analysis of relevant empirical studies to identify research gaps that this study intends to address Chapter 2 continues to build on this foundation.
The "Methodology" section outlines the research aims and questions, detailing the overall research design, participant selection, data collection procedures, and analysis methods, while justifying the chosen design's relevance to the research objectives Chapter 3, titled "Findings," presents the primary outcomes from both qualitative and quantitative analyses, focusing on the contrasting patterns of student engagement with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) between Teacher-to-Student and Student-to-Student interactions.
The final chapter of the study, titled "Discussion and Implications," connects the current findings with previous research and relevant theoretical frameworks It also highlights the pedagogical implications derived from these insights, emphasizing their significance for educational practices.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Key concepts
This study focuses on analyzing student engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) during both Teacher-to-Student and Student-to-Student writing conferences The investigation is grounded in three key concepts: written corrective feedback, student engagement, and the writing conference In the following sections, these concepts will be explored in greater detail.
In the current literature, different terms have been coined to label corrective feedback Some of the most common concepts include “corrective feedback”,
Feedback, as defined by Chaudron (1977), encompasses any teacher-initiated reactions aimed at improving students' oral and written language skills Long (1996) categorizes this feedback for L2 learners into two types: positive evidence, which highlights correct language use, and negative evidence, which focuses on errors This understanding positions corrective feedback as a form of negative evidence, encouraging L2 students to address and rectify their mistakes.
Corrective feedback in second language (L2) learning can take various forms, including oral and written modalities It is categorized as explicit when the teacher provides the correct answer for a specific error immediately In contrast, implicit feedback involves drawing the student’s attention to the error without directly providing the correction, such as underlining the mistake or using error codes This article focuses on written corrective feedback (WCF), specifically emphasizing the implicit written feedback that teachers offer on student writing.
The response of student writers to written corrective feedback (WCF) and their subsequent use of this feedback for revising their work has garnered significant attention from researchers globally However, interpretations of student engagement in this context vary, particularly regarding the depth of processing involved (Sachs & Polio, 2007; Storch).
& Wigglesworth, 2010), the revision behaviors (e.g Hyland, 2003; Ferris, 2006; Sachs & Polio, 2007) or merely the individual perception (Fithriani & Rahmah,
In 2010, Ellis provided a comprehensive definition of student engagement with corrective feedback (CF), including written corrective feedback (WCF), which is utilized in the current study This definition serves as a foundational understanding of how students interact with WCF in the context of their learning.
Engagement in learning refers to how learners respond to feedback, which can be analyzed from three perspectives: cognitive, behavioral, and affective The cognitive perspective focuses on learners' attention to corrective feedback (CF), while the behavioral perspective examines how they incorporate oral corrections or revise written texts Lastly, the affective perspective explores learners' emotional responses to CF These three dimensions of engagement are relevant to both oral and written corrective feedback.
Cognitive engagement in writing involves the cognitive strategies that student writers utilize to analyze written corrective feedback (WCF) and implement necessary revisions These strategies may encompass the identification of specific gaps in their knowledge or skills, allowing them to enhance their writing proficiency.
Students often grapple with gaps in their inter-language systems, prompting them to seek relevant input and analyze it to uncover underlying language patterns (Sachs & Polio, 2007) This process involves meta-cognitive strategies, allowing student writers to plan, monitor, and evaluate their cognitive efforts while addressing any challenges that arise (Han & Hyland, 2015) Behavioral engagement refers to the actions student writers take in response to Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) Previous research has explored the learning strategies they employ during revisions and the effectiveness of their revision efforts, focusing on identifying patterns in revision behaviors (Ferris et al., 2013; Hyland, 2003).
Affective engagement refers to the emotional responses of student writers to Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), encompassing their immediate reactions and the evolution of their feelings throughout the revision process (Han & Hyland, 2015).
In 2010, it was highlighted that the emotional dimension of written corrective feedback (WCF) is frequently overlooked by researchers, despite its potential to induce anxiety in learners, which can hinder their acquisition of skills (p.344) Martin and Rose (2002) categorized the attitudinal responses to WCF into three areas: affect (emotional expression), judgement (assessment of character), and appreciation (valuation of worth) (as cited in Zheng & Yu, 2018) This study will focus on these three categories to explore student writers' emotional engagement with WCF, specifically examining (a) their feelings upon receiving feedback and any emotional shifts during the revision process, (b) their personal judgements, and (c) their appreciation of the feedback provided.
One-on-one conferences have emerged as a valuable alternative to traditional written corrective feedback (WCF) in second language (L2) writing classrooms, offering significant advantages for both teachers and student writers As highlighted by White and Arndt (1991), these conferences involve direct interaction between the student and their writing teacher or a peer, focusing on enhancing the clarity of the writer's intentions, purposes, and meanings (as cited in Luu, 2011) This personalized approach fosters a deeper understanding of the writing process and encourages effective communication between students and instructors.
Conversational dialogues facilitate two-way communication, allowing participants to negotiate meaning and understanding (Freedman & Sperling, 1985; Hyland, 2019) For student writers, this interaction provides immediate feedback on language issues and the opportunity to seek clarification on confusing points (Ferris, 2002) Writing teachers benefit from this dynamic, as it helps them articulate their intentions more clearly and recognize ambiguities in student writing This understanding ultimately informs their decisions on teaching strategies and assessment methods in future lessons.
Potential benefits of student engagement with WCF in the writing
Engaging with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) during writing conferences offers significant learning opportunities for student writers, enhancing their second language (L2) writing skills and promoting incidental L2 acquisition This section will explore these benefits in detail, supported by a relevant theoretical framework from foreign and second language education.
One key advantage of this conferencing is that it establishes an essential condition for second language (L2) learning by enhancing the concept of "noticing," as proposed by Schmidt in 1990 According to Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis, this awareness is crucial for effective language acquisition.
In 1990, it was emphasized that conscious attention plays a crucial role in transforming second language (L2) input into meaningful intake and subsequently into uptake Specifically, L2 learners can acquire new language knowledge, referred to as uptake, only when they recognize the presence of this novel information in the input, a process known as noticing Following this, they must concentrate their attention and actively process this knowledge, which is defined as intake.
During the writing conference, student writers receive feedback on their writing errors from either their teacher or peers, which helps them identify and understand their mistakes This "noticing" process facilitates the conversion of input into intake, creating optimal conditions for later transformation of this intake into uptake.
1.2.2 Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978)
A writing conference offers a significant learning opportunity for student writers by encouraging them to move beyond their current developmental stage and enter the zone of proximal development (ZPD), as described by Vygotsky This "push" helps students enhance their writing skills and fosters growth by providing targeted support and guidance.
1978) In his influential Socio-cultural Theory, Vygotsky (1978) defines ZPD as
The gap between a child's current developmental stage, assessed through independent problem-solving, and their potential development level, which can be reached with adult guidance or collaboration with more skilled peers, is crucial for understanding their learning process.
Writing errors can be seen as challenges that student writers need to address independently However, writing conferences create a supportive zone where students can receive guidance, enabling them to identify and correct these errors effectively.
Students can enhance their writing skills by receiving valuable feedback from their teachers or more capable peers This interaction allows them to negotiate and clarify the input they receive, making it more understandable The writing conference serves as an effective platform for this exchange, promoting deeper comprehension and improvement in their writing abilities.
During writing conferences, student writers benefit from interaction with their teachers or peers, which enhances their understanding of the material Ellis (2000) highlights that "learning arises not only through interaction but also in interaction" (p 209), indicating that these conferences create valuable learning moments The Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) further supports this by emphasizing the significance of negotiating form and meaning for second language acquisition.
Environmental factors play a crucial role in language acquisition, influencing learners' selective attention and their evolving capacity for processing a second language (L2) These elements are most effectively utilized during meaning negotiation, where interactions can foster language development Additionally, negative feedback received during these negotiations or other contexts can significantly aid in L2 learning, particularly in areas such as vocabulary, morphology, and syntax, while also being vital for understanding specific contrasts between a learner's first language (L1) and the second language (L2).
A negotiation episode arises from a breakdown in communication, prompting the student writer to modify their sentence According to Gass and Mackey (2007), these episodes draw the student's attention to challenging aspects of language, such as new vocabulary or grammar points, thereby facilitating second language (L2) uptake.
L2 students often struggle to fully benefit from writing conferences due to various cultural and social barriers within the educational environment (Hyland, 2019) These cultural norms can significantly impact student engagement during negotiations, particularly in societies that prioritize maintaining a hierarchical yet harmonious relationship.
In Vietnamese educational culture, teachers are viewed as the primary authority figures, possessing significantly more knowledge than their students (Hu, 2002; Pham, 2010) As a result, students often accept teacher feedback as authoritative, leading to a passive incorporation of comments into their writing revisions (Miao et al., 2006; Tsui & Ng, 2000) Additionally, writing conferences can be characterized as "emotionally charged interactions," highlighting the complex dynamics between teachers and students during these exchanges (Trees et al., 2009).
The evaluative nature of feedback can create tensions for both teachers and students, potentially harming students' self-esteem and motivation, which may hinder their future learning (Hyland, 2019) While there is considerable discussion in the literature regarding the emotional benefits of peer feedback, empirical research on this topic remains limited (Chaudron, 1984; Zhang, 1995; Pham & Gillies, 2010) This study operates under the assumption that student writers may exhibit different patterns of emotional engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) when interacting with teachers compared to peers during writing conferences.
At the heart of Vygotsky's Socio-cultural Theory is the concept of scaffolding, which illustrates how guidance facilitates developmental learning within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) Scaffolding occurs specifically within this ZPD, highlighting its crucial role in supporting learners' growth.
METHODOLOGY
Overall research design
This study utilizes a contrastive case study approach as its primary research design to address the outlined research questions By employing qualitative research methods, the case study offers an in-depth description and analysis of specific bounded social phenomena, which may include social units or systems such as programs, institutions, processes, events, or concepts (Bloomberg & Volpe).
A case study, as defined by Baxter and Jack (2008), is a research approach that explores a phenomenon within its context using diverse data sources, allowing for a comprehensive understanding through multiple perspectives This methodology aligns seamlessly with the current research's aim to ecologically examine student engagement with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) during writing conferences Furthermore, to identify differences in student engagement patterns between Teacher-to-Student and Student-to-Student writing conferences, a contrastive case study is the most suitable choice for this investigation.
This study involved a contrastive case analysis of four intermediate English as a Foreign Language student writers, who were randomly assigned to either Teacher-to-Student or Student-to-Student writing conferences The typical conferencing procedure was followed, and their interactions with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) were video-recorded and later discussed in one-on-one interviews Thematic analyses of the qualitative data aimed to reveal their affective, cognitive, and behavioral engagement with WCF during these sessions Additionally, quantifying this data allowed for a correlation between their engagement levels and the success rate of error correction in subsequent writing versions While the research incorporated both qualitative and quantitative elements, the predominance of qualitative analysis led to the conclusion that the study is primarily qualitative in nature.
Research context
This research took place in a high-stake English exam preparation class where the researcher worked as a teaching assistant The target class was run by Ms
The researcher, a senior EFL pre-service teacher at the University of Languages and International Studies in Hanoi, Vietnam, conducted a study in a foreign language specialized school with permission from Ms An With over two years of experience teaching English as a foreign language in Vietnam, the researcher collaborated with Ms An to prepare students for entrance exams to prestigious specialized high schools The study focused on a class of 21 students, all of whom had L2 proficiency levels ranging from B2 to C1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
During the first semester, Ms An guided her students in writing various academic essays, such as opinion pieces, discursive essays, and argumentative essays As the second semester begins, she continues to build on these foundational skills.
In a 20-student class, Ms An and I emphasized the importance of providing Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on students’ essays, which they wrote weekly Our teaching approach involved a draft-comment-revise cycle, where students composed drafts, received WCF from either the teacher or peers, and then revised their work To facilitate this process, I first introduced the concept of writing conferences, demonstrating a sample session before allowing students to conduct their own 15-to-20-minute conferences After three weeks of familiarizing the students with both Teacher-to-Student and Student-to-Student writing conferences, I began collecting data for the study.
Research participants and sampling
In this study, purposive sampling strategies were utilized to select research participants, focusing on four students from a target class of 21, all of whom demonstrated an average level of L2 proficiency, particularly in writing These students were chosen based on their previous writing scores, their willingness to participate in the research, and recommendations from their writing teacher, Ms.
Four students, using pseudonyms, were randomly assigned to either the Teacher-to-Student writing conference (Eren and Lisa) or the Student-to-Student writing conference (Kim and Tina).
Lisa Tina Kim Eren Highest Lowest Avg Pretest (Avg score/10) 7 6.5 6.5 6.75 8.5 5.5 6.75 Teacher’s rating of overall ability in English in CEFR B2 B1+/
Table 2 Pretest scores and Teacher’s ratings for participants and their Class
Before participating in this research project, all participants were thoroughly informed about the study's purpose, procedures, and relevant ethical considerations They provided their consent by signing a consent form, ensuring their full understanding and agreement to take part in the research.
21 permission to use collected data for the research purpose, given their personal information was all kept anonymous and confidential both during and after the research was carried out.
Data collection and data analysis
The study's primary data sources comprised two versions of a writing task from four selected student writers, captured before and after their participation in assigned writing conferences Additionally, the research utilized video recordings of these conferences and accompanying observation notes.
To ensure the accuracy of the data gathered from the primary sources, I utilized an error correction sheet that the selected student writers used to track their responses to highlighted issues in their first drafts, alongside their verbal retrospective reports after participating in the writing conference Additionally, I conducted pre- and post-conferencing one-on-one interviews These tools allowed me to validate the data from their writing performances and the video recordings of their conference interactions, while also providing clarity on aspects that were not fully captured due to the constraints of the video recording process.
The data collection procedure for this study started in the last week of December
The data collection process for the study, which began in 2020 and concluded in March 2021, encompassed both the pilot and the official main study phases Key steps and their corresponding timelines are detailed in the table below.
• Pilot the sequence of the Teacher-to-Student writing conference
• Modify instructions and steps if necessary
• Select group of potential participants and introduce the general purpose and the procedures of the study as well as ask for their consent
Instruction of the writing conferences
• Instruct students how to implement a writing conference Week 4 –
Stage 2: Students’ first drafts Week 4 –
• Teacher’s on-script WCF in writing conference
• Observation and video tapes of the writing conference
• Students’ revision for 2 nd drafts
Table 3 Timeline for data collection procedure
At the start and conclusion of the research cycle, I conducted individual interviews with each participant in either English or Vietnamese The initial interview served as an icebreaker to engage participants with the topic of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), while the follow-up interview allowed me to validate and expand upon the findings from direct observations and video recordings.
The second interview's guided questions were developed after the initial data analysis to clarify and deepen the understanding of student engagement with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) during writing conferences To enhance the interviews, photocopies of the drafts and WCF were utilized as reference prompts.
The student writers were tasked with a 250-word take-home essay, which they submitted via email due to social distancing measures following the Tet holiday After collecting the first drafts, Ms An, the teacher, provided indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) before the students engaged in one-on-one writing conferences with either their peers or the teacher These conferences were observed and recorded on video by the primary investigator of the research project.
The Teacher-to-Student writing conference is structured to enhance student engagement with Writing Conference Feedback (WCF) across emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions This conference follows a three-stage sequence to effectively support students in their writing development.
A teacher fosters a supportive learning atmosphere where mistakes in a second language (L2) are viewed as valuable indicators of students' progress and development In this context, errors are seen as constructive elements of the learning journey, highlighting the positive aspects of acquiring a new language rather than being perceived as setbacks.
• The teacher draws the student’s attention to a particular erroneous language use
• The teacher asks if the student can recognize the flaw
• If the student can correct this flawed L2 use, it is treated as a mistake; if not, it is an error
The teacher presents three examples of standard L2 usage related to the student's error, prompting the student to analyze and differentiate between their mistake and the correct forms.
The teacher motivates the student to explore the samples thoroughly to identify the underlying pattern or rule If the student struggles to discern this pattern, the teacher provides additional hints and cues Should the student still be unable to uncover the pattern after these prompts, the teacher offers a comprehensive explanation to ensure understanding.
• After having the pattern/rule, the student plans for his/her error correction and future study of this language point
• The teacher can give more guidance or available resources that might foster the student’s future learning of this language point
Table 4 Proposed stages of the writing conference with teacher
The procedure was initially tested with two students from a different class who had comparable L2 proficiency to the research participants, allowing for necessary modifications to enhance its effectiveness before the main implementation It's important to note that the student writers were encouraged to take the lead during the Teacher-to-Student writing conference, ensuring that the writing teacher did not overshadow the discussion.
During the Student-to-Student writing conference, participating student writers received valuable feedback from their peers in an organic manner, guided by the teacher's indirect written corrective feedback (WCF), allowing for a more relaxed and flexible approach to the writing process.
25 procedure or scale It was also worth nothing here that they were allowed to access any available resources, including online ones, for their error correction
During the writing conferences, student writers utilized an error correction checklist (refer to Appendix D) to monitor their responses to various flaws, including mistakes and errors Following these discussions, the students revised their work and created a second draft informed by the feedback received during the conference.
During the week when student writers were tasked with completing their second and final drafts, they also participated in a retrospective verbal report session This session allowed them to view video recordings of their conferencing engagements and elaborate on their interactions with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), addressing clarification questions related to their affective and cognitive engagement—key aspects of Ellis’ (2010) student engagement framework For this case study, I opted for stimulated recall as a data collection method, as it aligns better with the research design compared to the think-aloud process As noted by Melissa (2019), while think-aloud methods can yield richer data during L2 learning's input processing stages, certain types of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research, such as oral interaction studies, are more effectively explored through stimulated recalls.
The teacher collected and evaluated the final writing versions from the four student writers, providing them with individualized feedback in the subsequent lesson.
The procedure for data analysis consists of two main parts, including the quantitative rating of the success rate of error correction made by each student
FINDINGS
Initial data cleaning
The study revealed that all four research participants exhibited various linguistic flaws in their writing, categorized as mistakes and errors Mistakes are language-related issues that L2 students can self-correct, while errors stem from knowledge gaps that require assistance to rectify Table 6 summarizes the total number of linguistic flaws, mistakes, and errors found in their initial writing drafts, indicating that Lisa emerged as the most accurate writer among the participants, whereas Kim displayed the highest number of linguistic flaws.
The Teacher-to-Student Writing Conference
The Student-to-Student Writing Conference
Table 6 Total numbers of linguistic flaws, mistakes and errors
This report focuses exclusively on the LREs that addressed errors, as detailed in Table 7 The majority of the LREs identified in this dataset pertained to target L2 errors and were primarily form-focused.
32 whereas, the total number of mechanic and lexis-focused LREs were 4 and 5, respectively
Participants Kim Tina Eren Lisa
Table 7 Summary of LREs that dealt with errors during the writing conferences
Success rate of error correction
A comparative analysis of error correction success rates revealed that student writers engaged in Teacher-to-Student writing conferences achieved a higher percentage of error corrections (M = 100%) than those involved in Student-to-Student conferences (M = 85.5%) This measurement was based on the proportion of errors corrected with the assistance of either a writing teacher or a peer, relative to the total errors identified in their initial drafts, as detailed in Table 8.
Student – and – Student writing conference
Teacher – and - Student writing conference
Table 8 Participants' success rate of error correction
Student engagement with WCF in the writing conference
Research indicates that cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement patterns in writing conferences vary significantly between Teacher-to-Student and Student-to-Student interactions This article will explore these differences in more detail.
In analyzing behavioral engagement, I focused on indicators that revealed how student writers responded to feedback and utilized it to revise their texts These indicators also reflected their cognitive engagement and cognitive operations Essentially, cognitive and behavioral engagement are interconnected aspects of the same process Therefore, this section will address both dimensions simultaneously.
Table 9 presents a summary of the Learning Related Experiences (LREs) from the entire dataset, highlighting a significant disparity in cognitive and behavioral engagement levels The analysis reveals that students participating in the Teacher-to-Student conference exhibited a markedly higher level of engagement (M=4.0) compared to those involved in the Student-to-Student conference (M=1.79).
Student – and – Student writing conference
Focus LRE no Related Revision operation
Teacher-and-Student writing conference
Focus LRE no Related Revision operation Cognitive level
Focus LRE no Related Revision operation Cognitive level
Focus LRE no Related Revision operation
Table 9 Summary of students’ cognitive engagement level
The data indicates that student writers involved in the Teacher-to-Student writing conference exhibited greater behavioral and cognitive engagement with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) compared to those in the Student-to-Student conference Notably, Eren, one of the participants in the Teacher-to-Student conference, showed a higher level of engagement (M= 4.75) than his peer Lisa (M= 4.00) An example of Eren's engagement with WCF during the conference is provided below.
(a) Original version: Firstly, pets will increase personal safe
Teacher: Moving on to this word here *circling the flaw* Can you recognize?
Student: *hesitating, squinting his eyes to read the sentence again, then shaking his head*
Teacher: OK, I’ll give you three examples You can look at these examples and see if you can draw out any pattern
Teacher: ‘The novel is written from personal experience.’; ‘I take personal responsibility for the incident.’, ‘Of course, this is just a personal opinion.’
Student: *itr* Ahh I see, it’s supposed to be ‘safety’
Teacher: Very good ‘Safety’ is a noun, right? Why do you need a noun instead of an adjective here?
Student: Because a noun comes after an adjective and that adjective is used to describe the noun
(c) Revised version: Firstly, pets will increase personal safety
In a recent discussion between Eren and his writing teacher, they addressed a recurring word-form error in Eren's first draft, showcasing his highest level of behavioral and cognitive engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) Initially, Eren struggled to identify the nature of the error, indicated by his hesitation and confusion The teacher provided examples of the correct usage, prompting Eren to recognize the mistake and respond with enthusiasm, stating, “Ahh I see,” and correctly articulating the underlying rule that an adjective must precede a noun it describes This interaction highlighted Eren's active engagement with the material, allowing him to grasp the concept independently, ultimately earning him the highest score for his involvement in the learning process.
Another interesting point is that not only was Eren successful in correcting the error above, but he could even transfer that underlying knowledge of this
36 language point to amend another error of the same type as well This can be seen in the following example
(a) Original version: smaller dogs or cats can alert their owners to potential dangerous such as
Teacher: Next, another one here *circling the flaw*
Student: *mumbling the sentence* Danger, danger, teacher
(c) Revised version: smaller dogs or cats can alert their owners to dangers such as
Lisa demonstrated a significant level of behavioral and cognitive engagement during the Teacher-to-Student writing conference, particularly evident in her interaction regarding a word-choice error.
(a) Original version: A person has to dedicate a time slot of their day for their pets
Teacher: *underlying the flaw* Can you recognize the flaw?
Student: *hesitating then shaking her head, smiling awkwardly*
A "time slot" refers to a designated period allocated for a specific purpose, such as broadcasting or programming In the examples provided, it highlights how a prime time slot on national radio signifies a valuable broadcasting opportunity, while the reduced time slot for nurses at Kington hospital indicates a change in scheduling due to competing priorities Additionally, the need to fill a thirty-minute time slot in a late-night show emphasizes the importance of managing time effectively in media and programming contexts.
Student: An amount of time?
Teacher: Hmm An amount of time Is it what you want to express in your essay?
In the context of radio programming, a prime time slot refers to a specific period during which a show is aired, such as on Rational Radio, within the overall program, or during a late-night show This highlights the importance of timing in broadcasting to maximize audience engagement.
Student: *itr* Ahh they are all programmes
Student: They’ve all been scheduled
Teacher: So, is ‘time slot’ suitable here?
Teacher: So, when can we use it?
Student: Uhm… for a slot in a schedule, a programme on TV
Teacher: OK good, so you can change it into what?
(c) Revised version: A person has to dedicate time for their pets
When questioned about her ability to identify the flaw, Lisa hesitated before smiling awkwardly and shaking her head, leading to the conclusion that it was indeed an error However, after the writing teacher reiterated three standard examples, Lisa successfully analyzed the samples and grasped the underlying rule of the phrase "time slot" without additional prompts Consequently, she was able to correct the mistake in her second draft.
In the Teacher-to-Student writing conference, a notable pattern of behavioral and cognitive engagement emerged through the use of haptic sense by student writers to address errors and enhance future learning For instance, Lisa utilized her haptic sense by writing the meaning of "time slot" in the margin of her notes, demonstrating an effective strategy for error correction Similarly, Eren engaged in this cognitive operation at the teacher's request, highlighting the importance of guidance in fostering such learning behaviors.
The research participants demonstrated a consistent pattern of high behavioral and cognitive engagement during the Teacher-to-Student writing conference, with engagement levels ranging from 4 to 5 They effectively utilized cognitive operations to enhance their future learning of relevant language points Furthermore, the writing teacher’s feed-now stage significantly supported the students' understanding and application of the target language, as evidenced by examples from the dataset.
The Student-to-Student writing conference revealed inconsistent patterns of engagement, with participants Kim and Tina demonstrating lower levels of behavioral and cognitive engagement compared to those in the Teacher-to-Student conference Kim and Tina's mean scores for engagement were 1.57 and 2.0, respectively, potentially reflecting the nature of feedback received from peers During the conference, their peers either provided immediate reformulations, suggested revisions, or offered irrelevant feedback regarding L2 usage Kim often participated minimally in discussions and quickly accepted peer suggestions without further inquiry, while Tina actively questioned and defended her ideas, showcasing a more engaged approach.
(a) Original version: Nowaday, raising pets in a family is
Feedback provider (FP): Here, I can see the first flaw which I have seen in many people’s writing before and I myself also had such flaw once before
39 someone corrected it for me It’s a spelling mistake This is not the correct spelling of ‘nowadays’ If you want to correct it, you need to put an ‘s’ here
(c) Revised version: Nowadays, raising pets in a family is
Excerpts 4 were extracted from the writing conference between Kim and her peer Since Kim did not realize or respond until her peer provided her with the reformulation, this flaw was treated as an error As can be seen in (4), no cognitive engagement was observed on her part as Kim accepted her peer’s feedback as the correct version and immediately incorporated that in her second draft
(a) Original version: Every problem has both sides, the advantages and the negatives
FP: And uhm, as for this word, ‘advantage’, it’s the matter of word choice Tina: Then what should I put here instead?
Tina: I mean, ‘advantage’ means ‘lợi ích’, so I don’t see anything wrong here I also use ‘negatives’ here What I’m trying to say is that this trend has both sides
FP: Uhm, yeah, I mean it’s not that the meaning is incorrect You should say like ‘advantage and disadvantage’ or ‘positives and negatives’ They come in pairs, you know
(c) Revised version: Every problem has both sides, the advantages and the disadvantages
Tina's inability to recognize and rectify a word choice error demonstrates her cognitive and behavioral engagement with the task This incident highlights the importance of immediate self-correction in assessing language proficiency.
Tina chose the term "advantage" but did not initially recognize her mistake After receiving a reformulation, she sought confirmation from another classmate before ultimately accepting the correction without deeper analysis Her engagement with the feedback was assessed as Level 2, as she recognized and corrected the error following her peer consultation.
Correlation between the success rate of error correction and the
of cognitive engagement with WCF in the writing conference
To investigate the relationship between cognitive engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) during writing conferences and the success rate of error correction, I aggregated data for each error type from four student writers and conducted a Pearson’s correlation test using SPSS to analyze the two variables.
Table 10 reveals a positive correlation between the success rate of error correction and the level of cognitive engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) during writing conferences, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.381 (p < 0.05).
Error correction success rate Pearson Correlation 381 * 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)
Table 11 Correlations between the success rate of error correction and the level of cognitive engagement with WCF in the writing conference
The findings indicated that higher cognitive engagement of student writers with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) during writing conferences significantly enhanced their ability to rectify linguistic errors in subsequent drafts This engagement was directly linked to improved learning outcomes, as evidenced by a greater success rate in error correction.