Understanding individual differences in lower-proficiency students' engagement with teacher written corrective feedback

被引:34
作者
Zheng, Yao [1 ,2 ]
Yu, Shulin [1 ]
Liu, Zhuoyao [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Macau, Fac Educ, Room 3007,E33,Av Univ, Taipa, Macau, Peoples R China
[2] Yangtze Normal Univ, Sch Foreign Languages, Chongqing, Peoples R China
[3] Seton Hall Univ, Dept Educ Leadership Management & Policy, S Orange, NJ 07079 USA
关键词
Second language writing; student engagement; teacher written corrective feedback; lower-proficiency students; individual differences; LEARNER ENGAGEMENT; SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT; ACHIEVEMENT; MOTIVATION; FRAMEWORK; OUTCOMES; BELIEFS;
D O I
10.1080/13562517.2020.1806225
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
While research on written corrective feedback (WCF) has proliferated over the past three decades, scant attention has been paid to how lower-proficiency (LP) students engage with teacher WCF in specific contexts and why they (dis)engage in the ways they do. This case study explored two Chinese LP students' engagement with teacher WCF in English writing for an in-depth understanding of the individual differences in their engagement and the influencing factors. By analyzing teacher WCF, students' essay drafts, immediate oral reports, and retrospective interviews, the study revealed that (1) their engagement was distinctively different in terms that one's engagement was relatively extensive, especially in the affective aspect, but the other's engagement was at a relatively limited level, characterized by negative emotions and scant cognitive engagement, and (2) their differences in engagement could be attributed to the individual factors of studentbeliefsandgoals, and the contextual factor ofteacher-student relationship.
引用
收藏
页码:301 / 321
页数:21
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2001, Journal of Second Language Writing, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8, 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8, DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743]
[2]   Attachment in the Classroom [J].
Bergin, Christi ;
Bergin, David .
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2009, 21 (02) :141-170
[3]   Feedback: ensuring that it leads to enhanced learning [J].
Boud, David .
CLINICAL TEACHER, 2015, 12 (01) :3-7
[4]   The ideology of student engagement research [J].
Buckley, Alex .
TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018, 23 (06) :718-732
[5]   The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing [J].
Chandler, J .
JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 2003, 12 (03) :267-296
[6]   A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES [J].
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) :37-46
[7]   Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project [J].
Darling-Hammond, L ;
Ancess, J ;
Ort, SW .
AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2002, 39 (03) :639-673
[8]   What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives [J].
Dawson, Phillip ;
Henderson, Michael ;
Mahoney, Paige ;
Phillips, Michael ;
Ryan, Tracii ;
Boud, David ;
Molloy, Elizabeth .
ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2019, 44 (01) :25-36
[9]   Motivation and engagement in mathematics: a qualitative framework for teacher-student interactions [J].
Durksen T.L. ;
Way J. ;
Bobis J. ;
Anderson J. ;
Skilling K. ;
Martin A.J. .
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2017, 29 (2) :163-181
[10]   A typology of written corrective feedback types [J].
Ellis, Rod .
ELT JOURNAL, 2009, 63 (02) :97-107