School of Languages and Linguistics - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemInvestigating the effectiveness of using scaffolded written feedback on EFL students' writing: A longitudinal classroom-based study( 2022)The role of teacher written feedback, and particularly corrective feedback on language errors, in improving L2 learners’ writing has been the central concern of a large body of research. There has been mounting evidence showing that written corrective feedback can help improve students’ writing accuracy. An important line of research on written corrective feedback is whether direct (errors corrected) or indirect (errors indicated) written corrective feedback can be more helpful. From a sociocultural theory perspective, both types of feedback can be helpful depending on the learner’s needs. The approach of giving feedback that accords with the learner’s needs is known as scaffolded feedback. To date there has only been a small body of research that looked at the role of scaffolded feedback in improving L2 writing accuracy, and this research has shown that scaffolded oral feedback led to improved accuracy. However, little is known about the role of scaffolded feedback when it is provided in written form. In addition, there is little research about the role of scaffolded written feedback when given on writing issues beyond accuracy (e.g., essay structure). This study examined the effect of scaffolded written feedback on Saudi EFL students’ writing, both in terms of accuracy and essay structure. Feedback was given gradually from implicit to more explicit over the written drafts based on the student’s needs. The study was longitudinal, conducted over one academic semester. In addition, the study elicited the students’ perceptions regarding the scaffolded written feedback approach. In order to explain the findings, the study employed activity theory and considered the interplay of individual and contextual factors. Two groups participated in this study. Both groups received feedback on eight targeted grammatical structures as well as on essay structure errors. One group (n=39 students) received scaffolded written feedback, and the other (n=32 students) was a comparison group that received unscaffolded feedback. The students in both groups wrote six essays in class, received feedback on their writing and then revised their essays in the subsequent class in response to the feedback they received. The students also completed a pre-, immediate post, and delayed post-test. The aim of taking the pre-test was to assess the students’ writing performance (i.e., accuracy and essay structure) at the beginning of the study. The aim of taking the immediate post-test was to measure whether there was any improvement in the students’ writing (i.e., accuracy and essay structure) at the end of the study. The delayed post-test (conducted one month after the study) aimed to measure whether improvements, if any, in the writing accuracy and essay structure were retained. The students also responded to two questionnaires, at the beginning and then at the end of the study. Thirty students drawn from both groups participated in semi-structured interviews that were conducted following the second questionnaire. Findings from the pre- and post-tests (immediate and delayed) showed that both groups showed improvement in their overall writing accuracy. When comparing the performance between the two groups, it was found that there were no significant differences in overall writing accuracy between the two groups. Findings also showed that both groups showed similar improvements in six of the eight targeted grammatical structures. The exception is for two structures: subject-verb agreement and singular-plural agreement for which the scaffolded feedback group showed a greater improvement than their counterpart. Both groups did not show improvement in the same two targeted structures: articles and sentence fragment. Both groups also showed improved essay structure in both immediate and delayed post-tests. However, when comparing the performance between the two groups, the scaffolded feedback group showed greater improvement on essay structure than the unscaffolded feedback group but only in the immediate post-test. There was no significant difference between the two groups in essay structure in the delayed test. As to students’ perceptions, findings showed that both groups valued the feedback they received on both grammar and essay structure errors. In particular, the scaffolded feedback group liked the approach of feedback mainly because of its novelty. The students also experienced two different ways of the feedback scaffolding. The first way is in regard to the increased of feedback explicitness, and the second way is in regard to the increased of feedback implicitness. However, the students preferred the scaffolded feedback that became more explicit as opposed to when it became more implicit. Informed by activity theory (2nd generation), a number of key individual and contextual factors were identified that could explain the findings. One key factor identified was related to context of study: the educational system. The students in this current study were accustomed to and thus expected to get direct feedback from their teachers throughout their learning experience. Thus, they were not ready to respond to more implicit types of feedback, the type of feedback they received in the current study. The second key factor was individual and related to students’ goals. Students differed in the goals that motivated them to undertake the writing subject. Students’ responses in the interviews showed that while some of the students had long goals of improving their writing accuracy, others only hoped to pass the course with the minimum required score. The different goals impacted on students’ engagement with the scaffolded feedback. Theoretically, the findings endorse an important notion in sociocultural theory and activity theory - human actions are mediated by artefacts (scaffolded written feedback) that are influenced by context and individual agency. Using scaffolded written feedback is an activity that is situated in a specific culture. Although human activity is shaped by culture, it is also influenced by the individuals’ goals. Pedagogically, the findings suggest that both scaffolded and unscaffolded written feedback can have a similar effect on improving L2 writing accuracy. However, given that providing scaffolded feedback is very time-consuming for teachers, unscaffolded feedback may be a more pragmatic approach to the provision of corrective feedback. Teachers may also consider giving scaffolded written corrective feedback to selected students, who have high goals of improving their writing accuracy. The findings from the case studies in this study suggested that such students were very engaged with the scaffolded feedback, and they also showed higher accuracy gains in their writing. Additionally, teachers may consider using scaffolded feedback when providing feedback on their students’ essay structure errors, given its superior effect to that of the unscaffolded feedback on improving essay structure that this study revealed.