04051001920 learner engagement with teacher feedback in tertiary efl writing classes = sự tham kết của người học với phản hồi của giáo viên trong lớp học viết tiếng anh bậc Đại học
INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
In Vietnam, the past decade has seen a significant rise in learners' demand for enhancing their English skills, particularly in writing, to meet academic and career goals This growing emphasis on English writing has motivated teachers nationwide to improve their instructional methods and ensure student progress Beyond traditional classroom teaching, providing effective teacher feedback has emerged as a crucial strategy for supporting students in developing their writing abilities.
Teacher feedback is essential in writing classes, guiding students through the writing process and helping them achieve a polished final product Educators invest considerable time in identifying and correcting errors, understanding students' intentions, reorganizing ideas, and providing detailed comments for improvement However, delivering effective written feedback remains a significant challenge for English language teachers They must navigate various questions, such as which issues to address—careless mistakes, spelling and grammatical errors, or content and organization—and decide whether to focus on all errors or just a few, as well as the importance of including positive comments.
Teachers play a crucial role in education, but their impact is limited by how students engage with feedback To enhance writing instruction, it is essential to understand both the effectiveness of feedback and the students' role in interpreting and applying it Emphasizing insights into learners and their learning processes is vital for improving educational outcomes.
The practice of providing feedback in EFL writing classes has garnered significant attention from researchers over the years Recent studies have shifted focus from merely assessing the effectiveness of teacher feedback to exploring how students interact with the feedback they receive (Han & Hyland, 2015; Uscinki, 2015; Ma, 2019) Ellis (2010) offers a framework for analyzing written feedback, highlighting its importance in enhancing writing instruction.
Research in Second Language Acquisition has concentrated on written corrective feedback, identifying key individual and contextual factors that influence student engagement with feedback and learning outcomes This theoretical framework has been adapted by subsequent researchers to explore learner engagement in various contexts (e.g., Han & Hyland, 2015; Grondahl, 2015; Han, 2017; Fan & Xu, 2020; Pearson, 2022).
Previous research that attempts to provide insights into student engagement includes experimental studies which focus on investigating how students process specific kinds of feedback (e.g Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Storch
& Wigglesworth, 2010) Those conducted in a naturalistic context have also gained traction in the past few decades In earlier years, multiple-case studies by Hyland
Research from 1998 to 2011 explored student engagement with written corrective feedback from instructors, alongside studies on factors influencing this engagement (Ferris et al., 2013; Lee & Schallert, 2008) Recent investigations in Chinese tertiary writing contexts, including works by Zheng and Yu (2018), Fan and Xu (2020), Tian and Zhou (2020), Zhang (2020), and Zheng et al (2020), reveal significant variability in student responses to feedback, influenced by individual, social, and contextual factors.
There is a notable gap in research regarding learner engagement with teacher feedback in Vietnamese contexts, as existing studies primarily focus on limited dimensions using quantitative data from questionnaires and qualitative data from interviews (e.g., Le, 2014; Dam, 2018; Pham & Iwashita, 2018) To address this deficiency, the current study aims to enhance the existing body of empirical research by examining how Vietnamese learners engage with teacher feedback on writing compositions in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes at a tertiary institution.
Research objectives
This study aims to enhance the understanding of Vietnamese EFL learners' interactions with teacher feedback by exploring their engagement through Ellis’s (2010) and Han and Hyland’s (2015) frameworks It specifically investigates how students process feedback across three dimensions: affective, cognitive, and behavioral.
The research question is as follows:
How do students engage with the teacher feedback on their compositions affectively, cognitively and behaviorally?
Significance of the study
This study employs a multi-dimensional theoretical framework to explore the complexity of EFL learners' engagement across affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, highlighting individual variations It aims to enhance the existing literature on teacher feedback, particularly empirical studies on written feedback By examining learner engagement in a Vietnamese context, the research seeks to inspire further studies in diverse settings, thereby enriching feedback research The findings offer valuable insights into students' revision processes, encompassing their emotional responses to feedback, comprehension of feedback, and subsequent actions, providing significant implications for educators and institutions.
Overview of the thesis
This study explores learner engagement through a structured approach, beginning with a definition and theoretical framework in Chapter 2, which also reviews relevant literature Chapter 3 outlines the research design, detailing participant demographics, data collection methods, and analysis techniques In Chapter 4, the researcher presents findings on student engagement with teacher feedback Chapter 5 discusses these results, highlighting emerging themes and their connections to existing literature, along with implications for educators and learners The final chapter concludes the study, addressing its implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research to enhance understanding of learner engagement.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Approaches to teaching L2 writing
According to Richards and Renandya (2002), writing in a second language (L2) is the most challenging skill for students to master due to the significant difficulty in producing coherent and fluent text Consequently, there has been a growing focus on effective methods for teaching L2 writing The literature frequently highlights three primary approaches: product-oriented, genre-based, and process-oriented.
The product-oriented approach emphasizes the development of writing skills through habit formation and imitation (McDonough & Shaw, 2003) To enhance their writing abilities, student writers are frequently encouraged to emulate model texts that exemplify effective writing, enabling them to learn the proper arrangement of words into clauses, clauses into sentences, and sentences into larger discourse units (Hyland).
The approach emphasizes final products while overlooking the writer's role, intentions, and the writing process stages In this model, the teacher primarily acts as an error spotter and corrector of final drafts, rather than facilitating the learning-to-write experience.
The genre-based approach emphasizes the formal characteristics of texts and their writing contexts (Paltridge, 2004) It aims to teach specific genres that students require in various settings, with the writer striving to fulfill the communicative purpose typical of that genre In this approach, the teacher's role parallels that of product-based methods, focusing on feedback primarily related to grammatical corrections in the final text (Badger & White, 2000).
The process approach to teaching writing has emerged from two theories:
Cognitivism focuses on the cognitive processes involved in writing, while expressivism emphasizes students' abilities to take ownership of their prose This approach highlights both cognitive and discoursal aspects of writing, guiding students in idea generation and development within a structured format that meets both the writer's intentions and the reader's needs The primary goal is to make students aware of the decision-making processes writers engage in throughout various stages of writing.
The process approach to writing emphasizes distinct stages in the writing journey, which include planning, drafting, revising, and editing (White & Arndt, 1991) While theorists may categorize these stages differently, they all underscore the essential cognitive and metacognitive processes that contribute to effective written communication.
Writing is a recursive process rather than a linear one, allowing writers to navigate freely between different stages With the advent of the process approach, teachers have transitioned from merely evaluating written products to becoming facilitators and active participants in the writing journey.
The process approach to writing is increasingly popular in recent tertiary-level writing classes Despite facing challenges such as time and resource constraints, writing instructors prefer this method because it allows students to actively participate in every stage of the writing process This approach facilitates timely feedback from both peers and instructors, while also providing opportunities for learners to reflect on and revise their work.
In this research study, the researcher adopts the process approach to enhance understanding of students' writing and revision processes This approach allows for deeper insights into writing topics, mechanics, and the complex decision-making involved in writing By focusing on the engagement with teacher feedback, the study aims to explore how these experiences contribute to students' overall writing development.
Teacher feedback
Feedback is a crucial practice in the classroom, recognized for its significant role in enhancing learning (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) It is defined as information from various sources, such as teachers, peers, or self-assessment, that helps learners understand their performance relative to their goals (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) This process highlights the gap between current performance and desired outcomes, guiding students toward improvement (Wiggins, 1993).
In the EFL classroom, teachers can offer feedback in various written forms, including direct error correction, margin notes, end-of-paper commentary, and questions regarding the author's intent, as well as praise for their ideas and organization Additionally, oral feedback can be provided through teacher-student conferences, where discussions about the written feedback take place (Ferris).
2003) However, the written mode of teacher feedback has been the major kind of feedback in writing classrooms (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Lee, 2017) with students
Research indicates that students consistently prefer written feedback over other forms, such as peer or oral feedback during writing conferences (Hyland, 2003, p 3) In this study, the term "teacher feedback" specifically refers to the written comments provided by teachers on students' writing assignments.
2.2.2 The effectiveness of teacher feedback
In a process-oriented writing classroom, teachers play a crucial role in guiding students through the writing process, with a strong focus on providing feedback According to Hyland (2003), teacher feedback is vital in process writing, as it offers individual attention, facilitates explicit language teaching, and motivates student writers, aiding their progression through various writing stages The feedback provided by teachers, including comments, questions, and suggestions, parallels the responses a reader gives to a writer, ultimately enhancing the creation of reader-focused prose (Flower, 1979).
Although teacher feedback is commonly used in writing classrooms, its effectiveness has been challenged by researchers like Cumming (1985), Truscott (1996), and Zamel (1985) during the 1980s and 1990s.
In 1985, it was noted that ESL teachers frequently misinterpret student texts, provide irrelevant feedback, and do not effectively assist students in enhancing their writing skills Additionally, some critics pointed out that teacher feedback is often directive, authoritarian, and excessively focused on errors.
In the early stages of feedback research, as noted by Hyland and Hyland (2006), best practices were quite basic Recently, the focus has shifted towards identifying the most effective types of feedback rather than questioning its overall effectiveness This article will review various types of feedback and discuss their effectiveness in educational settings.
2.2.3.1 Content-focused and form-focused feedback
Teacher responses encompass commentary on content and ideas, as well as feedback that focuses on linguistic issues such as vocabulary and grammar Bitchener and Ferris (2012) referenced studies by Straub (2000) and Hyland and Hyland, highlighting the importance of addressing these aspects in educational feedback.
Ferris et al (2011) emphasize that modern teacher feedback prioritizes global aspects such as content, idea development, and organization over local concerns like grammar and vocabulary This shift suggests that previous claims about teachers focusing mainly on form are outdated However, Bitchener and Ferris (2012) acknowledge that their study's teacher-participants were chosen for their experience and commitment, which may not accurately represent the feedback practices of all educators in real-world settings.
Montgomery and Baker (2007) found that teachers in an ESL writing program believe they provide more global feedback than they actually do, while Soori et al (2011) revealed that Iranian EFL writing teachers primarily focus on language forms, often neglecting content feedback This emphasis on grammatical errors is influenced by factors such as large class sizes, which make it challenging for teachers to provide comprehensive feedback, and an examination-oriented culture that prioritizes writing accuracy (Lee, 2004, 2008, 2017; Furneaux et al., 2007; Agbayahoun, 2016).
Ur (1996) emphasized the significance of feedback on macro-level features of writing, focusing on content relevance and organization, before addressing language form aspects like vocabulary and grammar In a study by Kepner (1991), the effectiveness of content feedback was compared to form feedback among two groups of Spanish L2 learners over a semester The findings indicated that grammatical error correction does not significantly improve accuracy or cognitive ability in L2 writing Conversely, periodic content feedback positively influences both grammatical accuracy and the quality of ideas presented.
(2017) also noted that with the popularity of the process approach in L2 writing pedagogy, more researchers and teachers have shifted attention to teacher feedback on content issues
Looking at content feedback from students' point of view, however, Chandler
Research by Ferris (2004) and Lee (2004) indicates that students often perceive a lack of attention from teachers when they receive only content-related feedback Lee's study highlights that for lower-level students, addressing content issues can be cognitively challenging, suggesting that focusing solely on surface errors may lead to better outcomes Therefore, while content feedback is important, it should not be the sole focus; teachers must also consider individual student needs and proficiency levels when providing feedback.
Written corrective feedback (WCF) emphasizes linguistic forms and has generated significant debate among scholars in second language acquisition and L2 writing Notably, Truscott (1996) argued that WCF is ineffective and potentially harmful, while Ferris (1999) presented contrasting views.
The debate initiated by Truscott (1996) regarding the effectiveness of grammar correction in writing has been challenged by researchers like Ashwell (2000), Chandler (2003), and Ferris (2006), who provide evidence supporting the positive impact of written corrective feedback (WCF) on students' writing accuracy and second language development Despite these findings, Sachs and Polio (2007) note that there remains limited empirical evidence to conclusively demonstrate that error corrections significantly enhance language acquisition in learners' written work.
The general recommendation for L2 writing teachers is that they should refrain from a predominantly form-focused approach and incorporate feedback on content, language, organization, and style (Ferris, 2003, 2004; Hyland & Hyland,
Balanced feedback does not require teachers to address every aspect comprehensively According to Lee (2017), educators should consider their instructional goals, student needs, and the writing stage—whether it is a first, second, or final draft—when determining their feedback strategies Ferris (2004) emphasized that in writing classes following a process approach, teachers should prioritize content and organization in the initial draft, deferring language issues to subsequent drafts.
Learner engagement with teacher feedback
2.3.1 The broad definition of learner engagement
Learner engagement encompasses the level of investment and commitment students have towards their learning This broad term includes factors such as attention, curiosity, interest, and the willingness to utilize language proficiency and various learning skills to achieve progress (Zhang & Hyland, 2018).
Finn (1989) examined learner engagement by focusing on student participation, adherence to school rules, and a sense of belonging within the school community However, this framework requires enhancement, as students may comply with rules without deeply processing the knowledge and skills taught Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) proposed a more comprehensive view of student engagement, identifying three interrelated dimensions: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive Behavioral engagement involves participation in academic tasks and school activities, while emotional engagement encompasses students' affective responses, such as happiness and anxiety Cognitive engagement relates to the investment in learning and the use of effective learning strategies These three dimensions are interconnected, as both cognition and emotions significantly influence student behavior.
When exploring learner engagement, it is essential to consider related concepts such as involvement, which Astin (1999) defines as the physical and psychological energy students invest in their academic experiences This definition emphasizes behavior over thoughts or feelings, highlighting a key aspect of engagement Autonomy, as described by Deci and Ryan (1987), refers to the inner endorsement of one's actions, indicating that engagement is influenced by both internal and external factors Additionally, agency, linked to Bandura's (2001) work, represents an individual's desire for control over their learning, empowering students to make choices about their educational paths Lastly, commitment encompasses the affective dimension of engagement, focusing on beliefs, interests, acceptance, and positive attitudes toward learning (Sarwar & Ashrafi).
2014) Commitment is a factor contributing to student persistence in higher education (Strauss, 2001)
2.3.2 Learner engagement with teacher feedback in writing classes
Recent studies in teacher feedback emphasize that the quality of learner engagement with feedback is crucial for its effectiveness Rather than being the conclusion of the writing process, feedback should be viewed as the starting point for learners (Burke, 2009; Hyland, 2011) Despite its importance, learner engagement with feedback remains under-researched (Bounds et al., 2013), highlighting the need for a stronger focus on this aspect of the feedback process (e.g., Hyland, 2003; Price, Handley, & Millar, 2011; Han & Hyland, 2015).
In the early 2000s, the concept of learner engagement with feedback was multifaceted and subject to different interpretations Qi and Lapkin (2001) conducted a study focusing on how students in a three-stage writing class noticed feedback, highlighting the importance of feedback engagement in the learning process.
Research by Ferris (2006) and case studies from 1998, 2003, and 2011 explored student behaviors and their perceptions following teacher feedback Lee (2008) focused on students' attitudes regarding written comments and error correction Additionally, Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) conducted a case study that investigated how learners process and respond to feedback.
In 2010, Ellis proposed a comprehensive definition and framework for researching teacher feedback, emphasizing the concept of learner engagement as a multi-faceted construct He defined learner engagement as "how learners respond to the feedback they receive" and identified three key dimensions: cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement Following this, various studies have utilized Ellis's framework in diverse contexts, with researchers adapting it to their specific needs Notably, Han and Hyland (2015) expanded on this framework by detailing several sub-dimensions for each broad dimension in their investigation of learner engagement with teachers' written corrective feedback.
2.3.3 Frameworks for investigating learner engagement with teacher feedback
Ellis's (2010) framework, based on Fredricks et al.'s (2004) tripartite conceptualization of engagement, examines learner engagement with teacher feedback through three dimensions: cognitive, behavioral, and affective The cognitive dimension focuses on how learners process feedback, while the behavioral dimension addresses the strategies they use to revise their texts The affective dimension reflects students' attitudes towards the feedback received Overall, learner engagement is a crucial factor influencing learning outcomes, shaped by individual differences such as beliefs and motivation, as well as contextual factors like the feedback setting.
Teacher feedback Engagement Learning outcomes
Figure 1 Framework for investigating corrective feedback by Ellis (2010)
Ellis’s (2010) framework of three engagement dimensions serves as the foundation for this study, originally designed for general feedback Han and Hyland (2015) expanded on this by creating a more detailed framework that specifies sub-dimensions tailored for analyzing learner engagement with written feedback A comprehensive description of each sub-dimension, along with examples, is available in Table 2 This refined framework is selected for data analysis in the current study, as it retains the three dimensions from Ellis’s (2010) model while being more pertinent to the investigation of engagement with written feedback.
Sub-dimensions of learner engagement with teacher written feedback
Depth of understanding The extent to which the learner successfully diagnoses the error i.e noticing and understanding
“harm for … (art) … I don’t understand [this code]”
Cognitive operations encompass the strategies and skills that learners employ to effectively process and respond to teacher feedback These include reasoning, activating prior knowledge, analyzing details, synthesizing broader concepts, and inferring beyond the immediate information presented.
Synthesizing: “I got the supporting details for this new idea from a blog post and a news article [ ] I re-arranged the found details and added linking words to make this part coherent.”
Strategies and skills the learner employs to regulate his or her mental processes, practices, and emotional reactions e.g planning for cognition, organizing learning and materials, monitoring and evaluating cognition
Planning: “I don’t remember this error code, so I’m going to double check the code list before revision.”
Revision operations The changes observed on students’ final draft compared to the previous draft
Deletion: The marked text is deleted to address the feedback e.g … those who play this game are likely to exhibit aggression, provocation and pugnacious mood=>
…those who play this game are likely to exhibit aggression, provocation
To enhance the quality of drafts and improve future writing, various observable strategies can be employed, such as seeking feedback from teachers, peers, and relatives, as well as utilizing dictionaries and online resources for word lookup.
“Sometimes I use translation app Here, I pasted the whole sentence in Vietnamese to Google Translate and copied the English sentence.”
Emotional responses The learner’s emotional reactions toward feedback upon receiving the feedback; the change of their emotional reactions during and after revision
Overwhelmed: “I was overwhelmed at first because the teacher wrote so many comments here”
Attitudinal responses e.g anxious, overwhelmed, disappointed, happy
The learner’s overall attitudes toward feedback that is revealed throughout the revision process e.g positive, negative, mixed
Appreciative (positive): “I felt grateful for this process as my teacher took her time to write detailed feedback.”
Cognitive engagement focuses on how students process feedback, particularly the depth of their engagement A case study by Qi and Lapkin (2001) utilized think-aloud protocols with two Chinese ESL learners to explore their feedback processing The findings revealed two types of noticing: perfunctory, which occurs without meta-awareness, and substantive, characterized by meta-awareness evident in students' explanations of their revisions The study concluded that the quality of noticing correlates with L2 proficiency, indicating that higher proficiency leads to better noticing, and that substantive noticing results in more significant improvements in revised texts compared to perfunctory noticing.
Cognitive operations play a crucial role in assessing learner cognitive engagement (Ellis, 2010) A case study by Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) examined the differences in how ESL learners process direct versus indirect feedback.
The researchers assessed student engagement by analyzing discussions related to different types of feedback They found that when students received indirect feedback, they actively identified errors and sought appropriate corrections In contrast, with reformulations, students primarily accepted the teacher's reworded text and expressed agreement without further engagement.
Ferris et al (2013) conducted a case study on four adult ESL learners to investigate their metacognitive operations, focusing on how they monitor and regulate their mental effort during the revision of marked papers and the writing of new texts, as well as the individual and contextual factors affecting their writing development Similarly, Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) examined how participants evaluated the effectiveness of the written corrective feedback (WCF) they received and considered whether to revise the marked errors.
METHODOLOGY
Study design
This study utilizes a case study design to explore the multifaceted nature of student engagement, which involves various dimensions and sub-dimensions Unlike experimental research that examines a limited number of variables across many cases, case studies focus on the intricate interactions of multiple factors within a smaller set of cases (Ashley, 2012) This approach allows for the collection of rich, detailed information about student engagement (Yin, 2003) Additionally, as highlighted in the previous chapter, individual learners exhibit significant variability in their engagement with feedback Therefore, a case study design, which emphasizes the differences and similarities among several cases rather than a single case (Hunziker & Blankenagel, 2021), provides valuable insights into the diverse engagement levels of students.
A significant advantage of case studies is their ability to utilize multiple sources of evidence, facilitating data triangulation (Yin, 2003) In this research, data was gathered from learners' oral reports, interviews with both students and teachers, and student writing samples Additionally, written documents such as course guides and materials were analyzed to comprehend the context of written feedback This approach aligns with the contemporary trend in feedback research, aiming to provide deeper insights into students' engagement with feedback.
Research context and participants
A study was conducted at a foreign language-specialized university in Hanoi, focusing on first-year English-major students enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course during the first semester of the 2021-2022 academic year The students were divided into 20 classes, and the 15-week course emphasized the development of four essential skills: Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing The Writing module aimed to familiarize students with academic language and the principles of writing coherent academic paragraphs, including structure, unity, and idea development A key component of this module was the Writing Portfolio, which required students to draft three paragraphs The process involved writing an initial draft, receiving peer feedback, revising the draft based on teacher feedback, and producing a final version, with one week allocated for each draft.
Figure 2 Procedure of each entry in the Writing portfolio assignment
In this course, teachers have the flexibility to select feedback types that best fit their teaching context The writing assessment rubrics include four key criteria: Task Achievement, Coherence and Cohesion, Vocabulary, and Grammar There are no mandatory requirements for teachers to provide feedback on all these aspects.
Asked for peer feedback on Draft 1
Wrote Draft 2 Submitted Draft 2 to teachers for feedback Wrote Draft 3 and submitted to teachers
The researcher initiated the study by emailing teachers of the EAP course, inviting them to participate Three teachers, Ms Nhi, Ms Phuong, and Ms Minh Anh (pseudonyms), agreed to meet for further discussions During semi-structured interviews, the researcher explored their beliefs regarding feedback's role in writing classes and their feedback practices, as outlined in the interview guide (Appendix A) Additionally, the researcher reviewed five samples of students' writing assignments and observed the feedback process The selection criteria for teachers included their willingness to allow the study, their provision of both form and content feedback, and their use of diverse feedback types to enhance student engagement.
All three teachers emphasized the significance of providing feedback on student writing However, Ms Nhi's approach was limited, as she primarily underlined a few grammatical errors without offering detailed explanations, concentrating mainly on the linguistic elements of the texts In contrast, the other two teachers adopted a more comprehensive feedback strategy.
Ms Phuong and Ms Minh Anh utilized a diverse range of feedback methods, incorporating both direct and indirect feedback while emphasizing form and content This approach offered the researcher valuable insights into student engagement with feedback Consequently, the researcher selected their classes as the study's setting.
The researcher selected a diverse group of high-achieving and low-achieving students from their classes to gather varied data Students' achievement levels were assessed based on their scores from a writing diagnostic test administered at the start of the EAP course This test included a sentence transformation exercise and required students to compose a 150-word paragraph on a provided topic.
In Appendix B, it is noted that low-achieving students scored between 6.0 and 7.9 out of 10, which aligns with the A2 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), as determined by the course designers In contrast, high-achieving students achieved scores exceeding 8.0, corresponding to levels B1 to B1+.
The study's data collection involved extensive oral reports and interviews over a month, necessitating participant commitment at all stages An email was sent to 41 students in Ms Minh Anh and Ms Nguyet’s classes to introduce the study and invite their participation Participants were informed about the study's objectives and data collection methods, which included submitting photocopies of their assignments, participating in at least two in-depth interviews, providing detailed oral reports on their understanding and feelings regarding teacher feedback, and consenting to audio recordings during these sessions.
Initially, ten students agreed to participate in the study and signed a consent form (see Appendix C), but one later withdrew due to personal issues Based on diagnostic test scores, five students were identified as high-achieving and four as low-achieving To ensure equal representation, the researcher selected four students from each group, resulting in a total of eight participants While the sample size is relatively small, the study's focus is on the total number of written feedback points provided on students' texts According to Hyland (1998), a feedback point is a specific piece of written intervention targeting an aspect of a written text, emphasizing the need for a manageable sample size to effectively handle the extensive data collected (Ritchie et al.).
Due to time constraints, the researcher was unable to conduct a comprehensive analysis of a large number of students' written work and interview transcripts within the study's limited timeframe Additionally, several published studies on teacher written feedback have utilized small participant groups to explore learner engagement in naturalistic settings For instance, Han and Hyland (2015) examined the engagement of four students in a tertiary-level course in China, Cheng and Liu (2022) compared the engagement of eight low-competency and high-competency learners, and Pearson (2022) focused on four participants' engagement in an IELTS course.
Ms Phuong and Ms Minh Anh, both holding an MA in TESOL, have three and seven years of experience in teaching academic writing, respectively They emphasized the importance of providing detailed written feedback to students as an essential component of their teaching practice Despite the time-consuming nature of this task, both teachers believe that such feedback is crucial for enhancing students' writing skills, as it helps student writers identify and address their existing issues effectively.
The researcher allowed teachers to provide feedback based on their usual practices without additional training Teachers dedicated significant time to reading and commenting on students' writing, addressing content, organization, and language according to course rubrics Students were required to submit three drafts, and feedback included both direct and indirect types, with a preference for indirect feedback to enhance language development Direct corrections were limited to simple errors, marked by underlining and providing the correct form Indirect feedback primarily utilized error codes, such as "ww," to guide students in identifying their mistakes.
(wrong words) and pl (plural) written next to the errors There were also margin comments pointing out content and linguistic issues with some providing detailed explanations
Many first-year students lacked prior experience in writing and providing feedback, leading teachers to only expect them to identify basic grammatical errors in their peers' work Consequently, the responsibility for feedback primarily fell on the teachers, indicating that the peer feedback stage likely had minimal impact on assessing the participants' engagement with teacher feedback.
The comprehensive feedback provided by teachers in this study offered valuable insights into student engagement, making their classrooms ideal environments for research.
All eight student participants at the time of the study were from 18 to 20 years old The background information about each participant is as follows
Name Age Level of achievement
Phuong 19 High-achieving 9.3 Was in English-specialized classes in middle school and high school; ample experience with writing skills and receiving feedback
Van 18 High-achieving 9.0 Had experience with academic writing and receiving teacher feedback from taking an IELTS course in high school; emphasize on the importance of practice under exam conditions
Khanh 18 High-achieving 8.5 Was in the high school team for gifted students; some experience with teacher feedback and revision obtained from the gifted team
Dinh 20 High-achieving 8.8 Self-taught writer in high school; only started formally learning writing skills in university, only learned grammar in high school;
Thu 18 Low-achieving 6.8 Perceived herself as a bad learner of English; basically had no experience with teacher feedback on writing before the EAP course in university
Huyen 18 Low-achieving 7.0 Only learned grammar in school; learned writing essays in a short IELTS course: some experience with teacher feedback no experience with revision
Duyen 18 Low-achieving 6.3 No experience with writing prior to college; at university: find writing difficult because lack of experience; was not sure if she would need this skill for her future job or studies
Nga 19 Low-achieving 6.5 Not much experience with writing in high school, no experience with feedback and revision; but at university prioritized writing assignment over others
Data collection
This study utilized various data collection instruments, including semi-structured interviews, oral reports, and written assignments accompanied by teacher feedback The data collection process spanned four weeks, specifically from Week 9 to Week 12 of a 15-week semester Throughout this period, the researcher maintained the regular schedule and instructional activities of the two classes involved.
The diagram below summarizes the four weeks in the data collection process
Student activities Researcher activities Week 1
Wrote draft 1, Got peer feedback on draft 1
Participated in the first interview
Wrote draft 2, Submitted draft 2 to teacher
Received teacher feedback on draft 2; gave oral report to researcher
Submitted a copy of the commented-on draft 2 to researcher; wrote draft 3 (final draft) at home
Collected a copy of the commented-on draft 2
Submitted a copy of the final draft to the teacher
Collected the copy of the final draft
Participated in the second interview
3.3.1 Students’ texts with teacher feedback
This study aims to analyze the changes made by participants after receiving feedback from their teacher Students were tasked with writing a 200-word paragraph on a topic related to themes discussed in previous weeks, choosing one they felt most comfortable with They collaborated with peers for idea generation in class, wrote their initial drafts at home, and sought feedback from one or two classmates in the first week of the revision cycle In the second week, they submitted their second drafts to the teacher for feedback After receiving the teacher's comments in week three, they made a photocopy of the second draft for the researcher and revised their paragraphs accordingly Finally, in week four, they submitted their final drafts to the teacher and provided a photocopy of the final version to the researcher.
After completing the second draft of their writing and receiving teacher feedback, participants provided oral reports to the researcher, discussing their understanding of the feedback Using prompts from the researcher, they articulated their immediate reactions to the comments on their writing These reports took place shortly after the feedback was given in week 3, minimizing the risk of forgetting their thoughts Each report lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes and was conducted in Vietnamese, with all sessions recorded for analysis.
This instrument aims to explore students' cognitive engagement with feedback Researchers like Hayes & Flower (1983) and Olson, Duffy & Mack (1984) support the think-aloud technique for revealing cognitive processes, but it fails to capture unconscious engagement factors Similarly, other methods like questionnaires and retrospective interviews also share this limitation, as understanding unconscious cognitive processes necessitates psychological approaches beyond this study's scope.
The oral report instrument aimed to gather data on students' affective engagement, alongside evidence of cognitive engagement Conducted shortly after receiving teacher feedback on their second draft, the reports were expected to capture students' genuine emotions The researcher encouraged participants to share their true feelings, assuring them that all study data would remain confidential and would not impact their teachers or assignment outcomes.
Interviews are a fundamental research tool in the social sciences (McDonough & McDonough, 1997) Unlike structured interviews that follow a strict set of questions, semi-structured interviews allow researchers to guide the conversation while maintaining flexibility in question order and content This approach enables a deeper exploration of participants' responses (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
During the second week of data collection, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with participants to explore their experiences learning English, their perspectives on writing, and their views on teacher feedback in writing classes The interview questions were adapted from Han and Hyland's (2015) study on learner engagement with teacher feedback, with additional spontaneous questions to further investigate participants' responses Conducted in Vietnamese, the interviews facilitated comfortable expression of thoughts, each lasting approximately 20 minutes.
In the final week, participants engaged in a second semi-structured interview with the researcher, guided by questions adapted from Han and Hyland (2015) This interview aimed to assess their overall impressions of the revision process and their engagement with feedback Specifically, it explored how students developed changes in their final drafts, reflecting their cognitive engagement, while also examining the strategies they employed for revision, which related to their behavioral engagement Additionally, the interview addressed their emotional and attitudinal responses to teacher feedback and the revision process, alongside an opportunity for participants to share any extra insights Each interview lasted approximately 30 to 40 minutes and was conducted in Vietnamese.
Interviews, like other research instruments, have inherent flaws that must be addressed According to Powney and Watts (1987), the quality of information obtained is influenced by the status dynamics between the interviewer and interviewee A significant status gap can hinder access to the necessary knowledge In this context, the researcher’s role as a university teacher created such a gap with student participants To gather in-depth insights, it is essential to build rapport and trust with participants (Nunan, 1992; Powney & Watts, 1987) The researcher facilitated this by having teacher participants introduce them to the students, thereby enhancing credibility, and by engaging in casual conversations with the students prior to the formal interviews to foster a friendly environment.
A significant challenge in interviews is the reliability of participants' recall, particularly when discussing past events like feedback experiences or writing tasks completed days earlier For instance, some students struggled to remember specific actions taken during at-home revisions when they encountered difficulties understanding teacher feedback To mitigate recall issues, it was essential to conduct interviews with all students within a consistent timeframe, specifically within three days after they received feedback.
Data analysis
The data analysis process that the researcher conducted can be summarized in Figure 4
Compared two drafts of student texts; detected changes
Coded the changes using the framework of learner revision operations adapted from Ferris (2006)
Asked a trained colleague to recode a portion of the texts to ensure reliability
Transcribed and translated the recordings of the oral reports interviews into English; asked a colleague to proofread; sent the transcripts to participants for confirmation
Coded the transcripts of each participant along the three broad dimensions: affective, behavioral, and cognitive using Han and Hyland’s (2015) framework
Coded the data of each dimension along the the sub-dimensions using Han and
Asked a trained colleague to recode a portion of the transcripts to ensure reliability
The final drafts of participants were analyzed alongside their second drafts to identify revisions made during the editing process This analysis highlighted the impact of teacher feedback on participants' behavioral engagement with the revision process The researcher meticulously examined each participant's drafts to detect changes, subsequently coding them based on a learner revision operation framework adapted from Ferris's taxonomy.
In 2006, the feedback categories were revised to enhance clarity, leading to the removal of the "No change" category The terms "Substitution, correct" and "Substitution, incorrect" were updated to "Successful substitution" and "Unsuccessful substitution" to more accurately represent content-related substitutions This change emphasizes that there are multiple approaches to addressing content issues, making "successful" a more fitting descriptor than "correct."
The terms “Error corrected” and “Incorrect change” have been updated to “Successful revision” and “Unsuccessful revision” to maintain consistency with the Substitution categories In addition to the changes made in response to teacher feedback, the researcher identified several self-initiated changes by students, leading to the inclusion of new categories for these revisions.
Participants’ revision analysis categories adapted from Ferris (2006)
Revision operations Descriptions and examples
The successful change was not initiated by teacher feedback Prolonged exposure to screens can result in limited visibility and eye discomfort, potentially leading to myopia and other eye diseases Additionally, this can cause distractions, forgetfulness, and may even be linked to serious health issues such as cancer.
Successful substitution occurred when the marked text was effectively replaced with a correction not indicated by the teacher's comments For instance, the phrase "can easily lead to limited visibility and eye pain, even myopia" was revised to "can lead to eye diseases."
Successful revision The error was successfully addressed as the teacher intended e.g They no longer confused => They are no longer confused
The unsuccessful change was not prompted by any teacher feedback e.g … advertisements appear more and more often (no feedback from teacher) => advertisements appear more and more frequent (incorrect new word)
The attempted correction of the marked text was not aligned with the teacher's feedback For instance, the focus on immediate needs can lead to overconsumption, resulting in waste and environmental harm It is argued that advertisements are designed to diminish the perceived utility of products before they reach the end of their normal lifespan.
Unsuccessful revision The error was incorrectly addressed e.g shooting can lead to an act (pl) of violence => shooting can lead to the acts of violence
Deletion The marked text was deleted to address the error e.g … those who play this game are likely to exhibit aggression, provocation and pugnacious mood (awkward)
=> …those who play this game are likely to exhibit aggression, provocation
The success of a change is determined by the researcher's evaluation To achieve precise coding, the researcher collaborated with teachers on certain modifications and enlisted a trained research colleague to re-code half of the participants' texts The initial inter-coder agreement rate for identifying revision operations was 92.1%, which improved to 100% following discussions between the two coders.
3.4.2 Transcripts of oral reports and interviews
The researcher transcribed and translated the oral reports and interviews into English, with subsequent proofreading by a colleague All quotations in the study were translated from Vietnamese Prior to the coding process, the researcher ensured the accuracy of the translated transcripts by sending them to the participants for confirmation.
The researcher systematically coded participant data across affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions, including their respective sub-dimensions, with a summary of the coding patterns available in Appendix I Examples illustrating this coding system are provided for clarity.
I feel overwhelmed by the numerous issues I need to address, particularly concerning my vocabulary, which is not my strong suit Additionally, I struggle with logical fallacies, making it challenging to resolve these problems effectively.
Sub-dimension: Emotional reaction towards feedback: overwhelmed
“Researcher: “expertise”, you added this word? The teacher didn’t ask you to
Dinh believes that the expertise of teachers is more convincing than the capabilities of pre-programmed computers The researcher inquires about the origin of Dinh's choice of words.
Dinh: I got it from an IELTS essay related to computers I do it just sometimes when I got stuck or I don’t have enough vocabulary.” (Dinh, Interview 2)
Sub-dimension: Behavior strategy – learn new words from sample essays
To effectively manage my revision process, I compile a comprehensive to-do list that includes all the areas I need to address and the resources available to assist me When I encounter a challenging idea, I consider seeking help from friends or exploring additional articles for guidance, which I then note on my list By systematically checking off each task, I can maintain focus and avoid feeling overwhelmed by the workload.
Sub-dimension: Meta-cognitive operation – monitoring the process
Then, the researcher compared and contrast the data of the participants within their group and between the two groups to find emerging themes along the three dimensions
The coding process of the transcripts was guided by Han and Hyland's (2015) engagement with written feedback framework, which builds on Ellis's (2010) conceptualization by specifying sub-dimensions tailored for analyzing written feedback This adaptation enhances the coding process for the study, with detailed descriptions of each sub-dimension provided in Chapter 2: Literature Review Additionally, the researcher identified four levels of understanding among participants, as outlined in Table 6.
Participants' depth of understanding of feedback
Levels of understanding Examples from the transcript
Learners understand both feedback and nature of errors e.g “The word everlasting is crossed out The word viability here means long-lasting, so the word everlasting here is redundant”
Learners often interpret feedback without fully grasping the nature of their errors For instance, they may notice a question mark indicating a lack of clarity in their ideas, yet still find their own expressions confusing and awkward, despite believing they are clear.
Learners do not understand feedback e.g “harm for … (art) … I don’t understand [this code]”
Learners do not notice the feedback no mention of the feedback
To ensure reliability in the analysis, an additional coder recoded a portion of the oral report and interview transcripts The researcher provided the second coder with an explanation of the data analysis framework prior to coding Initial agreement rates for coding the oral reports and interviews were 87% and 85.5%, which improved to 92% and 93.5% following review and discussion.