The Relationship among Language Mindset, Corrective Feedback Preferences, and Follow-Up Strategies of Students in Writing Scientific Texts

Authors

  • Arti Prihatini Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia
  • Fida Pangesti Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia
  • Rusdhianti Wuryaningrum Universitas Jember, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i1.9078

Keywords:

Corrective feedback preferences, Language mindset, Writing skills, Writing instruction, Scientific texts

Abstract

Student learning success is primarily determined by their skills in writing scientific texts as their final assignment. However, students experience problems when preparing research proposals. The obstacles experienced were triggered by students' views that scientific writing is challenging and students' lack of understanding of input from lecturers. So, this research has four objectives, namely describing (a) language mindset, (b) corrective feedback preferences, (c) students' follow-up strategies in writing scientific texts, and (c) the correlation of the three. This research employed a mixed method. The research subjects were Indonesian Language Education students at the University of Muhammadiyah Malang. Data was collected using questionnaires and in-depth interviews. The results show that the highest average language mindset is a growth language mindset (4.573). As many as 95.3% of students had an average questionnaire of 3.5-5.00, so most students had a growth language mindset tendency. The dominant corrective feedback that students prefer is an explicit correction (4,895). The average of the follow-up strategy is 4.30, demonstrating that students try to receive corrective feedback on their written scientific texts from lecturers. Based on the correlation results, there is a significant relationship between language mindset and corrective feedback preference (0.529); there is a relationship between language mindset and follow-up strategy-based corrective feedback (0.297); but there is no significant relationship between corrective feedback preference and follow-up strategy based corrective feedback (0.160). The conclusion is that scientific text writing guidance activities need to encourage an increase in students' growth language mindset, corrective feedback preferences, and follow-up strategies in writing scientific text. 

Author Biographies

Arti Prihatini, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang

Indonesian Language Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang , Indonesia

Fida Pangesti, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang

Indonesian Language Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang , Indonesia

Rusdhianti Wuryaningrum, Universitas Jember

Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia

References

Almeida, F. (2018). Strategies to perform a mixed methods study. European Journal of Education Studie, 5(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1406214

Anguera, M. T., Blanco-Villaseñor, A., Losada, J. L., Sánchez-Algarra, P., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2018). Revisiting the difference between mixed methods and multimethods: Is it all in the name? Quality and Quantity, 52(6), 2757–2770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0700-2

Bai, B., & Wang, J. (2023). The role of growth mindset, self-efficacy and intrinsic value in self-regulated learning and English language learning achievements. Language Teaching Research, 27(1), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820933190

Bai, B., Wang, J., & Nie, Y. (2021). Self-efficacy, task values and growth mindset: what has the most predictive power for primary school students’ self-regulated learning in English writing and writing competence in an Asian Confucian cultural context? Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1778639

Bem, D. J. (2021). Writing the empirical journal article. In The compleat academic (pp. 171–201). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac990155t

Burnette, J. L., Billingsley, J., Banks, G. C., Knouse, L. E., Hoyt, C. L., Pollack, J. M., & Simon, S. (2022). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Growth Mindset Interventions: For Whom, How, and Why Might Such Interventions Work? In Psychological Bulletin (Issue October). https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000368

Cheung, Y. L., Chu, Y. N. J., & Jang, H. (2021). Impact of a Socio-cognitive Approach to Teaching English Language Writing on Primary School Students’ Compositions. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.120973

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087

Fatima Zohra, R., & Hamitouche, F. (2022). Exploring Learners’ and Teachers’ Preferences Regarding Written Corrective Feedback Types in Improving Learners’ Writing Skill. Arab World English Journal, 13(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no1.8

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

Hamid, M. A. A. A., Sahrir, M. S., & Razali, K. A. (2021). A preference analysis and justification of Arabic written corrective feedback among instructors and undergraduates. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 697–706. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i3.31756

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005

Khajavy, G. H., Pourtahmasb, F., & Li, C. (2022). Examining the domain-specificity of language mindset: a case of L2 reading comprehension. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(3), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1956936

Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443

Kiriakos, C. M., & Tienari, J. (2018). Academic writing as love. Management Learning, 49(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507617753560

Lee, H., Lee, J. H., & Scarcella, R. C. (2023). Influencing language mindsets and English writing competence through an EAP program: A longitudinal study with latent transition analysis. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221143258

Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2016a). Changing language mindsets: Implications for goal orientations and responses to failure in and outside the second language classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.03.004

Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2016b). Changing language mindsets: Implications for goal orientations and responses to failure in and outside the second language classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.03.004

Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2017). Measuring Language Mindsets and Modeling Their Relations With Goal Orientations and Emotional and Behavioral Responses in Failure Situations. Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 214–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12380

Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign and second language education: A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teaching. System, 86(xxxx), 102126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102126

Mahvelati, E. H. (2021). Learners’ perceptions and performance under peer versus teacher corrective feedback conditions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70(January), 100995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100995

Moses, R. N., & Mohamad, M. (2019). Challenges Faced by Students and Teachers on Writing Skills in ESL Contexts: A Literature Review. Creative Education, 10(13), 3385–3391. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.1013260

Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365

Muñoz, C. (2010). On how age affects foreign language learning. Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers, 39–49.

Papi, M., Rios, A., Pelt, H., & Ozdemir, E. (2019). Feedback-Seeking Behavior in Language Learning: Basic Components and Motivational Antecedents. Modern Language Journal, 103(1), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12538

Papi, M., Wolff, D., Nakatsukasa, K., & Bellwoar, E. (2021). Motivational factors underlying learner preferences for corrective feedback: Language mindsets and achievement goals. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 858–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211018808

Pawlak, M. (2018). Grammar learning strategy inventory (GLSI): Another look. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2 Special Issue), 351–379. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.8

Pineteh, E. A. (2013). The Academic Writing Challenges of Undergraduate Students: A South African Case Study. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n1p12

Prihatini, A., & Pangesti, F. (2023). The use of grammar learning strategies by law students in writing opinion text. LITERA, 22(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.21831/ltr.v22i2.53565

Prihatini, A., Putra, C. R. W., & Sunaryo, H. (2022). Implementasi Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Kritis untuk Meningkatkan Kualitas Produk Pemikiran Tulis pada Matakuliah Puisi. Panrita Abdi-Jurnal Pengabdian Pada Masyarakat, 6(2), 356–368.

Prihatini, A., Zamahsari, G. K., & Pangesti, F. (2023). Social Media Benefit for Advancing Language Ability in E-learning Environment: A Systematic Literature Review. 2023 17th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM), January, 1–5.

Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (2012). Implicit theories: Language learning mindsets. In Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 74–89).

Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ Practices and Students’ Preferences for Feedback on Second Language Writing: A Case Study of Adult ESL Learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v11i2.633

Savvides, H., & Bond, C. (2021). How does growth mindset inform interventions in primary schools? A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology in Practice, 37(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2021.1879025

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011

Shirvan, M. E., Lou, N. M., & Taherian, T. (2021). Where do Language Mindsets Come from? An Ecological Perspective on EFL Students’ Mindsets About L2 Writing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50(5), 1065–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09787-y

Susilowati, Y., & Prihatini, A. (2023). Motivasi Belajar Siswa dalam Berliterasi di SD Negeri Kebonsari Kulon 6 Kota Probolinggo. Ghancaran: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra Indonesia, 4(2), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.19105/ghancaran.v4i2.6850

Vaghei, S., Esfahani, F. R., & Shafiee, S. (2020). The relationship between language mindsets and feedback preferences in L2 writings of EFL learners. Journal of Language and Education, 6(4), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.10792

Vaghei, S., Rahimi Esfahani, F., & Shafiee, S. (2021). L2 Writing Feedback Preferences and Their Relationships with Entity vs. Incremental Mindsets of EFL Learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 9(34), 119–134. http://jfl.iaun.ac.ir/article_677925.html

Waller, L., & Papi, M. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.004

Wyse, D., & Torgerson, C. (2017). Experimental trials and ‘what works?’ in education: The case of grammar for writing. British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1019–1047. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3315

Xu, J., & Wang, Y. (2022). The differential mediating roles of ideal and ought-to L2 writing selves between growth mindsets and self-regulated writing strategies. System, 110(November). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102900

Yao, Y., Wang, W., & Yang, X. (2021). Perceptions of the inclusion of Automatic Writing Evaluation in peer assessment on EFL writers’ language mindsets and motivation: A short-term longitudinal study. Assessing Writing, 50(October). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100568

Yao, Y., & Zhu, X. (2022). Modeling chinese high school EFL writers’ language mindsets, goal orientations, and feedback-seeking behavior: the interaction effect between language mindsets and writing competence. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10339-6

Zarrinabadi, N., Rezazadeh, M., & Chehrazi, A. (2021). The links between grammar learning strategies and language mindsets among L2 and L3 learners: examining the role of and gender. International Journal of Multilingualism, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1871356

Zhao, W. (2015). Learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback and their effects on second language noticing and learning motivation by. McGill University.

Downloads

Published

2024-01-09

How to Cite

Prihatini, A., Pangesti, F., & Wuryaningrum, R. (2024). The Relationship among Language Mindset, Corrective Feedback Preferences, and Follow-Up Strategies of Students in Writing Scientific Texts. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 12(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i1.9078

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2024)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.