IMPLICIT THEORIES OF WRITING INTELLIGENCE INFLUENCE THEIR WRITING MOTIVATION AND ORIENTATION TO WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK B y Laurel Waller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Master of Arts 2015 ABSTRACT THEORIES OF WRITING INTELLIGENCE INFLUENCE THEIR WRITING MOTIVATION AND ORIENTATION TO WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK By Laurel Waller One of the most perplexing topics for second languag treatments of written corrective feedback (WCF) influence th eir orientation to WCF as well as their motivation. A three questionnaires on motivation, WCF , and a background questionnaire totaling 73 - items was given to 142 English language learners at a Midwestern university in the United States . The results of multi ple regression analyses showed that the that is dynamic and can be developed through effort and experience) have a stronger tendency towards receivi ng and acting upon feedback compared to the students who have an entity theory of writing intelligence (the belief that intelligence is fixed and unchangeable). In addition, the incremental theory of intelligence was a strong predictor of writing motivatio n whereas the entity theory did not predict motivation. The research and pedagogical implicat ions of the study are discussed. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . ..iv . Introduction . . Implicit Theories of General Intelligence and Achievement Goals . . 8 Research Questio ns . ... Method . 12 . . 12 . 1 2 15 Data analysis . 16 Reliability Analysis . 16 . 16 ... . Discussion .. . 23 Conclusion ... . . 2 7 APPENDICES .. . 29 Appendix A: Language Learner Questionnaire Items (Questionnaire 1) . Appendix B : Written corrective feedback Questionnaire (Questionnaire 2) .. . .31 Appendix C : Background Information (Questionnaire 3) . . .33 3 4 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 implicit theories of general intelligence and adapted implicit theories of writing intelligence . 1 3 Table 2 Sources for Feedback Seeking Orientation and Feedback Avoiding Orientation Items ... .. 1 4 Table 3 Writing motivation items adapted from Taguchi, Magid, and Papi (2009 ) ... . . 1 4 Table 4 Variables 1 6 Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations . Composites of variables with Cronbach Alpha coefficients , means and standard deviations 1 6 Table 6 Principal Component Analysis based on eigenvalues >1 . .. .. 1 7 Table 7 Result of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and means and standard deviation for the items making the Feedback Seeking Orientation (FSO) and Feedback Avoiding Orientation (FAO) factors ... 19 Table 8 Correlation coefficients between implicit theories of general intelligence and implicit theories of writing intelligence . . . 20 Table 9 Correlations between predictor and outcome variables . . 20 Table 10 Results of three multiple regression analyses with incremental theories of writing intelligence (Incremental TWI) and entity theories of writing intelligence (Entity TWI) as predictor and feedback seeking and feedback avoiding orientations and writing motivation as outcome variables 21 Table 11 Results of three multiple regression analyses with the implicit theory of writing intelligence (TWI) as predictor and feed back seeking and feedback avoiding orientations and writing motivation as outcome variables ... 22 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 1 8 1 Introduction Research on written corrective feedback (WCF) in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) has a history of more than 30 years . The topic has been extensively researched and there is a better understanding of the issue than before; however, it continues to be debated (see Evans et al., 2010; Ferris, 2006; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Goldstein, 2005; Lee, 2004; Montgomery & Baker, 2007 ; Saito, 1994; Schulz, 1996). One of the main reasons for the controversial findings concerning feedback may be the lack of attention to individual differences among learners ( Hendrickson, 1978; Zamel, 1985) . Although the effects of written corrective feed back have been investigated on students collectively, taking individual learner differences into account could help in developing a better understanding of the issue. While the relationship between feedback and individual le arner differences remains under e xplored, Hyland (1998) found that many of the teachers who participated in her qualitative work did, indeed, consider individual students when they gave their feedback. If many teachers give their students individual feedback on their papers, why not consi der that in research? One of the most important individual difference factors in second language (L2) learning which has rarely been studied in relation to L2 written corrective feedback is L2 writing motivation and the possible sources of it . The current study is based on the assumption th and their orientation to written corrective characteristics . These chronic motivational differences have recently been in troduced in L2 motivation research as motivational factors which could account for why learners have different levels of motivation and show different learning behaviors (Papi & Teimouri, 2014). Although motivation has almost been ignored in research on wr itten corrective feedback, it has always been a concern for L2 writing researchers and many scholars have attested to its importance . Hyland (1998) argued that motivation is an important factor in feedback because writing can be very private Writing is a n intensely personal lack of motivation is one reason students may not be paying atten tion to feedback . If motivation can play such a role in relation to written 2 corrective feedback, considering the motivational character istics of learners in research o n motivation and the ir orientation and treatment of written corrective feedback can help us further both research and practice in the area. More specifically, it could shed light on why some learners are highly motivated to master writing in the second language while others are not and also more specifically why so me students cannot wait to get detailed feedback on their papers while others simply ignore it. The present study, thus, aims to take research on written corrective feedback from the point of view of second language learners with different motivational ori entations. Orientations to Written Corrective Feedback There has been a substantial number orientation to written corrective feedback (e.g., Cardelle & Corno, 1981; Cohen, 1987; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990 ; Enginarlar, 1993; Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Leki, 1991; Montgomery & Baker, 2007 ; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Saito, 1994). These studies have focused on how students perceive written corrective feedback. Over the course of time, these surveys evolved from a two - item questionnaire (Cardelle & Corno , 1981) to multi - orientations (Montgomery & Baker, 2007). As these surveys became more in - depth along the wa y, they seem to have lost focus on individual differences . orientation of written corrective feedback was done by Cardelle and Corno (1981). They studied the effects of feedback framing on eleven homework assignments w ritten by 80 beginning and intermediate Spanish students at Stanford University. The students were divided into four groups and given one of four types of feedback: one group was given the control group rec eived no feedback . A pre - Spanish vocabulary, grammar and structure, and translation. The students were then given a two - item 3 survey. The first item asked the students to evaluate if the feedback they rec eived increased their motivation to study, improved their performance, or both. The second item asked what type of feedback they preferred: praise, criticism, both, or grades only. The findings showed that 75% of the students felt feedback , either praise o r criticism, improved both their motivation and final performance. Most of the students (88%) of the total sample of students preferred a combination of praise and criticism, and of the group that received only criticism, 13% preferred criticism only. Inte restingly, some students felt that receiving no feedback was more motivating and improved their performance better than praise or criticism alone. The students were also categorized into high, middle and low performers according to their posttest scores. T he researchers found that the higher performing students preferred feedback (both criticism and praise) compared to the lower performers. Overall, the authors confirmed that feedback can it is more effective when it contains not only praise, but some criticism on specific errors. Cohen (1987) gave a survey to 217 ESL (English as a Second Language) and foreign language (FL) learners at New York State University at Binghamton , asking about the ir preferences for WCF. These were students who were receiving some type of written corrective feedback in their classes. The ESL students were in basic and advanced writing courses. The FL students were studying French, German, or Hebrew. The one page que stionnaire asked them to reflect on the last paper they received from their teachers. Students responded whether they , and how much of a teacher s comments they understood. The students also had to self - rate what kind of learner they were. excellent , good , fair learners (11%) . N one of the students rated themselves as poor learners . Based on the self - ratings, Cohen categorized his participants into better lea r ners and poorer learners in order to analyze the data. He found that 81% of students looked over almost all of the comments given by their teachers. Most of the better - rated learners were more likely to read through a paper with feedback and pay 4 attention to comments by their teachers on vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. The self - rated poorer students, on the other hand, wer e more likely to ignore attention to comments on their grammar. Cohen found that students generally have few strategies for processing feedback, especially the poorer - rated learners. One of the most popular strat egies was making a mental note of the feedback, which most better - rated learners did. Cohen speculated that this was because they were both good writers and they were learning from the mental notes they made . Radecki and Swales (1988) surveyed 59 learners in four ESL classes at the University of Michigan on their attitudes toward feedback. After they were surveyed, the researchers chose eight students to interview. The 18 - item questionnaire focused on the stude were classified into three categories according to their orientation to feedback: Receptors (46%), semi - resistors (41%), and resistors (13%). The receptors and semi - resistors preferred comments on content and grammar whereas the resistors preferred short adjectives and a grade. Receptors saw the correction of errors as the responsibility of both the instructor and the studen job only. Revision was welcomed by the receptors but seen as punishment by the resistors. Lastly, receptors and semi - resistors while resistors did not care. Ra decki and Swales suggested (p. 363) is one way of learning more about feedback. composition classes at the University of Tennessee. In the first part of the survey, students were asked about the importance of accuracy, which they felt was important not only to them (91%) but for their English teachers as well (82%). As for English tea chers pointing out grammar errors, 93 % of students felt it was very important. Leki explained that it is easier for both students and teachers to attend to grammar errors compared to content; thus, when they correct these errors, they feel like they are ab le to master the language more concretely. In the second part of the survey , students were asked the types of errors they 5 look at most frequently when a paper is returned to them. Although students said they want grammar corrections, only 53% of students s aid they looked carefully at comments on grammar. On the other hand, 74% and 65% claimed that they looked more carefully at comments on organization and ideas respectfully . In the third part of the survey, 70 % of students preferred that all errors, major a nd minor, be marked by a teacher; whereas 19 % wanted only major errors to be marked. A large majority of students ( 81 %) reported that their current English teachers marked all the errors on their papers. Sixty seven percent of students wanted their teacher s to give clues about how to fix their errors, and a quarter of the students wanted the teacher to write the correct answers for them. Leki argued that students like to be given clues because it gives them some satisfaction, similar to solving a puzzle. In part three which focused on peer review, 58 % of students said that peer review was the least useful in helping them correct written errors. Leki reasoned that this could be due to the fact that many of the students were new arrivals in the U.S. and thus did not have much prior experience with peer feedback ; or, perhaps, the peer reviewers were really unhelpful. The last section asked the students to rate seven different handwritten exa mples of grammar feedback in which they showed favor for clues for correction. Leki suggested that teachers spend some class time to discuss with their students their orientation to feedback and current research. As a whole, 97% of students carefully read Enginarlar (1993) looked at the written corrective feedback preferences of 47 EFL (English as a Foreign Language) freshman students at a university in Turkey. First, the students took one of two courses in English composition. Th e students were given feedback with codes (e.g., Prep for preposition needed) and brief comments on how to improve. The drafts were given back to the students and they were only graded on the revised drafts. At the end of the courses, they were given a sur vey. The two - part survey consisted of a 20 - feedback and the second part asked the students to comment on the procedure and what they learned. Many students, 70%, reported on t heir survey that they approved the policy of being graded only on 6 revised versions of essays. Thus, Enginarlar argued that grading every draft may have negative effects on students. urv ey by Saito (1994) at a Canadian university. The study included 39 students from two ESL intensive courses and an ESL English proficiency ranged from the intermediate level to the advanced level . The questionnaire asked students to t hem preferred their teachers to focus on grammar errors. Students also liked to be given clues rather than explicit WCF to prompt them to correct and revise their papers. Although the students were willing to self - correct if they knew where the error was located, they prefer red teacher feedback over peer review or self - correction . peer or self - correction. If teachers explained their usefulness, Saito argued this would have benefited the students more. Many students did not see that value in revi sion and did not revise their writing even when across different classes. Ferris (1995) surveyed 155 students at California State University in one of two levels of ESL co - draft composition. The survey was an 11 - item questionnaire that focused on multi - draft papers. There were also several open - ended questions with regards to strategies the students use d for interpreting the feedback given . Overall, they found that most students (93.5%) thought that WCF is helpful for them to improve their writing. More relevant to the present study, they found that students remembered positiv e comments from their teachers for their ideas and organization. However, three students reported that motivation and self - suggested th at teachers should offer not only constructive criticism, but comments with encouragement as well. 7 University also survey ed of of their they examined written corrective feedback . The teachers at the center were encouraged to give comments on global issues during the first drafts, and comments on local issues in later drafts. Thirteen teachers and 98 students filled out a questionnaire similar to the ones used by Cohen (1987) and with the frequency of feedback on: ideas and content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. The drafts of the essays were categorized into first and late r drafts; they were also divided into low pass, pass, and high pass depending on the grades they were given. Overall, students seemed to think that their teachers gave a sufficient amount of feedback; however, teachers thought that they were not giving eno ugh. Additionally, teachers underestimated the amount of feedback they gave on local issues, but overestimated the amount of feedback on global issues. Although the teachers were trained to give comments on global issues, teachers gave more local feedback. The authors also found that teachers gave different amounts of feedback to different students, and this was not connected to the proficiency level of the students. For instance, one teacher gave a student 210 comments on grammar and no comments to another student, while both of these students received the same passing grade. The researchers could not account for the difference in the amount of feedback and called for more research to be done to see the effects that different types of comments (praise or cr iticism) have on individual students. In most of these studies, students, in one way or another, seem to put some didactic value on receiving feedback. M Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Saito, 1994; Ferris, 1995) and one study show ed that students were content with the amount of feedback given ( i.e., Montgomery & Baker, 2007). Some students seem to prefer comments on grammar more than on content, organization, and ideas (Coh en, 1987; Ferris, 1995; Leki, 1991; Saito, 1994) while others found value in their comments on global issues (Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988). 8 grammar, but then they said they looked at comments on organization and ideas more closely than the grammar comments. T he types of feedback students prefer to receive also seem to differ greatly. Some students seem open to revising their essays (Cohen, 1987, Engingarlar, 1993; Ferris, 1995; Radecki & Swales, 1988) as long as they are challenged (Saito, 1994) , while others saw it as punishment (Radecki & Swales, 1988) . In three of the studies, students were in favor of implicit coding for marking errors (Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swa les, 1988; Saito, 1994) because it motivated them to revise and they view it as puzzle solving . In order to account for the individual variations in terms of orientation to feedback, some of the studies reviewed above have come up with labels su ch a resistors , receptors , better self - rated students , and the like. These attempts have highlighted the importance of individual differences in this area and are of great value and can reflect some underlying differences among learners. However, these differences may not be well understood if we limit the foc us of our investigations to the orientation s and observed behaviors students have of WCF . The current study is based on the assumption that the orientation to feedback could have motivational underpinnings . Studying the learners reactions to feedback can be more revealing if we frame the study within a strong theoretical framework that highlight s motivational differences among learners. The importance of this approach has be en highlighted by Papi and Teimouri (2014) , who called for research on how fundamental motivational differences result in different language learning behaviors . In order to take a step in this direction and orientation to feedback, I will employ Implicit Theories of Gen eral Intelligence and Achievement Goals based on the approach - avoidance perspective towards motivation , there are two different types of goals among students, namely learning and performance goa ls . performance goal performance, that is, the goal of looking smart and not dumb. In contrast a learning goal is the goal of 9 is, the goal of getting smarter Several studies in the field of educational psychology have shown that students with learning versus performance goals show different learning behaviors (e.g. De Castella & Byrne, 2015; Dweck & Sorich, 1999; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Farrell & Dweck, 1985; Gr ant & Dweck, 2003; Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Mueller & Dweck, 1998) . As an example, Farrell and Dweck (1985) studied junior high students who were taught a challenging new unit. The students with learning goals were more likely to search for and find strate gies compared with those with performance goals who were concerned with validating their ability. In another study, Grant and Dweck (2003) found that students with learning goals were more likely to be engaged with the course material, which was predictive of higher grades. Dweck (19 88 ) learning or performance goals has roots Learning goals are held by individuals who have an incremental the ory about their abilities . Individuals with an incremental theory of intelligence see their intelligence as something that is dynamic and can be developed through effort and experience. Individuals with p erformance goals , on the other hand, have an entity theory about their abilities ; they believe their intelligence i s fixed and unchangeable. The students who have an incremental theory of intelligence may think that they get a low test score because they did not stud y hard . Yet, students who hold an entity theory about their intelligence think that they failed the test because they are not smart enough ( Dweck et al. , 1995). According to Dweck (2004), these theories of intelligence greatly impact students : When students believe that their intelligence is a fixed trait (an entity theory of intelligence), it becomes cri tical for them to validate their fixed ability through their performance. In contrast, when students believe that their intellectual skills are something that they can increase through their efforts (an incremental theory of intelligence), they become less concerned with how their abilities might be evaluated now, and more concerned with cultivating their abilities in the longer term (p.42). Many studies have examined heories of intelligence and found strong evidence for their (e.g., Aronson et al. 2002; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & 10 Dweck, 2007; Dweck & Sorich, 1999; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Farrell & Dweck, 1985; Grant & Dwec k, 2003; Henderson & Dweck , 1990; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). In Aronson et al. (2002) , students at Stanford University who were trained in incremental theory at the beginning of the semester reported a greater enjoyment in their classes and a higher grade point average at the end of the semester . Blackwell et al. (2007) found that students who held an incremental theory over the course of their seventh and eighth grades earned higher grades in math while students with an entity theory had decreasing grades, even though all the students started with equivalent math scores. An intervention teaching treatment in incremental theory was given to the control group; as a result, the students had a positive change in classroom motivation. More relevant to the purpo interest in and reaction to feedback and goal orientations (e.g. Butterfield & Mangels, 2003; VandeWalle, 1997 ; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997 ). Butterfield and Mangels (2003) , for insta nce, studied students reactions to feedback with an electroencephalography (EEG) device . The participants were asked general information questions and they were given two types of feedback: red or green lights indicating if they were correct or incorrect (performance oriented) and the correct answers to the questions (learning oriented). They found that with the learning oriented feedback, there was more activity in the brains of the participants with an incremental theory of intelligence . Those with an en tity theory of intelligence , on the other hand, did not have any brain activity for the learning oriented feedback , suggesting they were less motivated by the feedback. could thus be an indicator of how open they are to w ritten corrective feedback . The present study intends to examine orientations towards WCF by looking at the se motivational orientations . By examining preferences through the lens of motivation, this study can also further our understanding of why written corrective feedback has resulted in inconsistent findings in the literature and open new avenues of research on how we can make feedback more motivating and effective. 11 Research Questions Based on the discussion above, the following research questions have been formulated: 1. implicit theories of intelligence and their orientation to written corrective feedback on their L2 written production? 2. implicit theories of intelligence and their writing motivation? 12 Method Participants The participants of this research were recruited from the English Language Center (ELC) at Michigan State University . Overall, 176 students surveys were collected; however, only 147 were deemed reliable. The students (101 male, 44 female , 2 missing ) are international students learning English as a second language. Their self - rated proficiency level had a mean of 3.4 on a scale of 1 (beginner) to 5 (advanced) . sophomore) with a wide variety of different majors . languages typically include d Chinese (60), Arabic (51), Portuguese (11), Korean (10), and other (11) , with four responses missing . The ages ranged from 18 to 45 years old (mean: 22) . The length of residency ranged from one to 84 months (mean: 15). Instruments T hree questionnaires were used in this re search study that included a total of 7 3 - items concerning motivation, attitudes toward written corrective feedback , and background information. This study was part of a larger study; however, only the variables relevant to this study were included. The motivation questionnaire (Appendix A) included five items measured the theories of general intelligence (Dweck et al., 2004) and another five item s measuring the incremental and entity theories of writing intelligence of students . implicit theories of general I developed writing intelligence (Table 1) . Th ese included a scale measuring the incremental theory of writing intellige 13 writing intelligence write like a native speak ) . Table 1 implicit theories of general intelligence and adapted implicit theories of writing intelligence Implicit Theories of General Intelligence Implicit Theories of Writing Intelligence 3. You have a certain amount of intelligence, and 30. You can improve your English writing skills, 10. Your intelligence is something about you that 6. As an Eng lish learner, you have a limited amount of talent for developing your English change it. 17. You can always greatly change how intelligent you are. 12. With enough practice you will be able to write like a n ative speaker of English. change your basic intelligence. 25. No matter how hard you try, as an English language learner you can never write like a native speaker. 27. No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it a lot. 20. No matter who you are, you can always learn to write as well as native speakers of English. T he second questionnaire ( Appendix B) contain ed 33 - items measuring learner s orientation towards written corrective feedback . This questionnaire was developed using items from previous WCF studies (e.g., Cardelle & Corno, 1981; Cohen, 1987; Enginarlar, 1993; Ferris, 1995; Goldstein, 2005; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Leki, 1991; Saito, 1994; Rad ecki & Swales, 1988 ) and some items that were specifically developed for th e purpose of the present study (Table 2 ) . These items were made from an item pool and piloted before the study. ed expressed that they not only saw value in WCF, but they thought that it made them stronger writers overall. On the other hand, some students did not see the value in WCF, and therefore item 9 needed to be motivation items, which were adapted from Taguchi, Magid, and Papi (2009) (Table 3), included 14 Table 2 Sources for Feedback Seeking Orientation and Feedback Avoiding Orientation I tems Item Number Sources Feedback Seeking comments, I talk to him/her. Radecki and Swales (1988) 7. I like when my teacher corrects all of my mistakes (grammar, content, organization, spelling, punctuation). Leki (1991); Saito (1994) 11. I like when my teacher uses correction symbols to show me my mistakes. Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1994); Radecki and Swales (1988) 12. When I get my papers back, I read all of the comments carefully. Ferris (1995) 17. Written corrective feedback from my teacher helps me to be a better writer. Newly developed 31. I like when my teacher writes questions on my paper to make me think about my writing (not just gives me the answer). Leki (1991) Feedback Avoiding 4. I like when my teacher only writes a grade and not comments on my paper. Cardelle and Corno (1981) 9. When comments, I ignore them. Newly developed 15. After peer review, I never look at my Newly developed 25. When I get my papers back, I only look at the grade. Cardelle and Corno (1981) Table 3 Writing motivation items adapted from Taguchi, Magid, and Papi (2009) Original items Adapted items I really enjoy learning English. 1. I enjoy writing in English. I am working hard at learning English. 8. I am making progress toward become a stronger writer in English. Studying English is important to me 21. Writing in English is very important to me. I always look forward to English classes. 18. I always look forward to my writing classes in English. I w ould like to spend lots of time studying English. 28. I would like to spend lots of time learning to write in English. I would like to concentrate on studying English more than any other topic. 32. I would like to concentrate on learning to write in English more than any other topic. I am prepar ed to expend a lot of effort in learning English. 30. I actively think about what I have learned in my English writing class. I t hink that I am doing my best to learn English. 14. I really try to learn how to write English. 15 For the s e two questionnaires , a six - point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( never ) to 6 (always) w ere used for each item . The surveys were translated into Chinese, Arabic and Portuguese by applied linguistics graduate students (native speakers of the language s ) in order to make the items eas il y understandable for students at all levels of proficiency . An English survey was given to the speakers of other languages. The last questionnaire include d background information questions with regards to the ve lang uage, length of time in the United States , length of studying English, year in college, m ajor of study, and proficiency (Appendix C) . Procedure The data w ere collected during week s five and six of the spring semester . After securing IRB approval, teachers who were currently teaching English as a Second Language classes at the ELC were emailed with details of the research and asked for their voluntary participation . The researcher went to each individual class and ask ed students to fil l out the surveys, at the end of class. The three questionnaires only took about 10 - 15 minutes to complete. The surveys were anonymous , but the researcher asked them to write fake names on their surveys . gift cards were given to three students whose fake names were drawn from a raffle. 16 Data Analysis Reliability Analysis T he reliability of the scales through Cronbach alpha analysis were run showing coefficie nts that were higher than the minimum acceptable value of .60 (Dörnyei, 2007) . Means and standard deviations of all the scales expect items related to written corrective feedback, which were further analyzed (see below) appear in Table 5 . Table 4 Variables Independent Variables Incremental theory of intelligence Entity theory of intelligence Dependent Variables Feedback seeking orientation Feedback avoiding orientation Writing motivation Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations. Composites of variables with Cronbach Alpha coefficients, means and standard deviations. Scale Item no. Cronbach Alpha Mean/std. deviation Theory of Writing Intelligence 6, 12, 20, 25, 30 .65 4.42/.91 Theory of General Intelligence 3, 10, 17, 23, 27 .64 4.30/.91 Incremental Theory of Writing Intelligence 17, 27 .72 4.65/1.09 Entity Theory of Writing Intelligence 3, 10, 23 .64 2.76/1.08 Writing Motivation 1, 8, 21, 18, 28, 32, 30, 14 .86 4.48/.94 Note. Scale: 1 = Never; 6 = Always. Principal Component Analysis The data from the items on the questionnaires related to written corrective feedback (see Table 2 ) , which were developed in the present study, were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The negatively worded items were reverse - coded (items 15 , 25, 9, 4). Since the variables were expected to measure the same concept (i.e., orientation to written corrective feedback) and would correlate at some level, the analysis was accompanied by direct oblimin with Kaiser Normalization as method of rotation. Because the list - 17 remained in the next phases of analysis, which , considering the common subjects - t o - item ratio of 10:1, seemed to be an adequate sample size. In other w ords, there were 11 questionnaire items but 141 respondents. Additionally, the assumption of factorability was tested and met: Kaiser - Meyer - Olkin < .001, indicating an acceptable data set (Field, 2009). Table 6 Principal Component Analysis based on eigenvalues > 1 Items Structure Matrix F1 F2 F3 7. I like when my teacher corrects all of my mistakes (grammar, content, organization, spelling, punctuation). .74 31. I like when my teacher writes questions on my paper to make me think about my writing and does not give me the answer. .74 17. Written feedback from my teacher helps me to be a better writer. .7 3 11. I like when my teacher uses correction symbols to show me my mistakes. .68 .66 12. When I get my papers back, I read all of the comments carefully. .62 - .59 15. After peer review, I never .81 25. When I get my papers back, I only look at the grade. .65 4. I like when my teacher only writes a grade and not comments on my paper. .83 them. .73 Variance: 49% 33% 16% 10% An initial estimate of the number of factors was made by the commonly used eigenvalues above 1 shown in Table 6 , a three - factor solution was the result of the analysis with the first factor explaining 33% of the variance and all the two other factors explaining 16% and 10%. However, the separation of Factor 2 and Factor 3 did not make theoretical sense since all th e four items represented lack of interest in 18 communalities confirmed that the number of factors was excessive. The PCA was run again this time with two facto rs specified for extraction. Since the two factors were expected to be correlated, the factor scores were calculated using direct Oblimin rotation. The results of the second PCA are shown in Table 7 . As can be seen, except for item 33, all the other items loaded sufficiently on either of the factors. The two factors together explained 48% of the variance with the first one, which I name feedback seeking orientation (FSO), including 6 questionnaire items and explaining 33% of the variance (eigenvalue= 3.2) a nd the second one, which I call feedback avoiding orientation (FAO), including four items and explaining 15% (eigenvalue= 1.5) of the amount. There was a moderate but significant (p <.01) negative correlation between the two factors (r = - alpha reliability coefficient was .79 for the FSO and .57 for FAO, confirming the results of PCA. Multiple regression analyses were run using FSO and FAO as well as writing motivation as outcome variables. Figure 1 Scree Plot 19 Table 7 Result of Princip al Component Analysis (PCA) and means and standard deviation for the items making the Feedback Seeking Orientation (FSO) and Feedback Avoiding Orientation (FAO) factors Items M SD Structure Matrix FSO FAO 31. I like when my teacher writes questions on my paper to make me think about my writing and does not give me the answer. 4.56 1.29 .7 8 7. I like when my teacher corrects all of my mistakes (grammar, content, organization, spelling, punctuation). 5.24 1.11 .75 17. Written corrective feedback from my teacher helps me to be a better writer. 5.23 1.01 .73 11. I like when my teacher uses correction symbols to show me my mistakes. 4.90 1.19 .68 him/her. 4.62 1.29 .62 12. When I get my papers back, I read all of the comments carefully. 5.19 .978 .52 2.67 1.47 .72 25. When I get my papers back, I only look at the grade. 2.76 1.50 .69 9. When I do not understand my them. 2.06 1.21 .59 4. I like when my teacher only writes a grade and not comments on my paper. 1.92 1.33 .59 33. --- --- .79 .57 Variance : 49% 33% 16% Implicit Theories of General Intelligence vs. Implicit Theories of Writing Intelligence The scales for measuring the implicit theories of general intelligence were adapted from Dweck (1999). However, because the topic of the present work focuses on writing, measure s of implicit theories Table 8 presents the results of correlation analysis between the scales for theories of general intelligence and theories of writing intelli gence. As shown, the highest correlation , which is between the entity theory of general intelligence and the entity theory of writing intelligence is .60, which is far from the figure that qualifies them as representing the same construct. Therefore, in th e remaining analyses, the relationships between implicit theories of writing intelligence and the outcome variables are reported . 20 Table 8 Correlation coefficients between implicit theories of general intelligence and implicit theories of writing intellige nce Ent T G I IncT G I IncTWI Incremental Theory of General Intelligence (IncT G I) Pearson Correlation - .23 ** Sig. (2 - tailed) .006 N 147 Incremental Theor y of Writing Intelligence ( IncTWI ) Pearson Correlation - .18 * .24 ** Sig. (2 - tailed) .025 .004 N 147 147 Entity Theory of Writing Intelligence (EntTWI) Pearson Correlation .61 ** - .19 * - .36 ** Sig. (2 - tailed) .000 .023 .000 N 147 147 147 Note. Entity Theo ry of General Intelligence (Ent T G I) Correlations and Multiple Regression Analysis The correlations between predictor and outcome variables can be seen in Table 9 . The incremental theory of writing intelligence significantly and negatively correlates with the entity theory of writing intelligence. Feedback avoiding orientation positively and significantly correlates with the entity theory of writing intelligence and negatively correlates with the incremental theory of writing intelligence although the latter correlation is not significant. Feedback seeking orientation significantly and positively correlates with the incremental theory of writing intelligence; also, it significantly and negatively correlates with feedback avoiding orientation. Writing motivation positively and significantly correlates with the incremental theory of writing intelligence and the feedback seeking orientation; it also negatively correlates with the entity theory of writing intelligence and the feedback avoiding orientation although the latter is not significant. Table 9 Correlations between predictor and outcome variables EntTWI IncTWI FAO FSO Incremental Theory of Writing Intelligence ( IncTWI ) - .36 ** Feedback Avoiding Orientation (FAO) .26 ** - .16 Feedback Seeking Orientation (FSO) - .14 .28 ** - .23 ** Writing Motivation - .14 .45 ** - .14 .66 ** Note. p * < .05, ** < .01, *** < .001 Entity Theory of Writing Intelligence (EntTWI) 21 Three multiple regression analyses were run with the implicit theories of intelligence as predictor variable s and the feedback seeking orientation, feedback avoiding orientation and L2 writing motivation as outcome variables. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 10 . As could be seen all three models were statistically significant suggesting good mod el fitness. For the feedback seeking orientation as the outcome variable , the incremental theory of writing intelligence emerged as a significant positive predictor accounting for 2 0 % of the variance . However, the entity theory of writing intelligence was not a significant predictor although the Beta value was negative . When the feedback avoiding orientation was entered as the outcome variable, the entity theory of writing intelligence predicted a statistically significant amount of variance (20 %) wher eas the incremental theory of writing intelligence showed a negative but not significant tendency . Writing motivation was entered as the third outcome variable. The results of the analyses showed that the incremental theory of writing intelligence predicte d a statistically significant and large amount of variance (40 %) in L2 writing motivation whereas the entity theory of writing intelligence did not turn out to be a significan t predictor . In t he model , the incremental and entity theories of intelligence pr edicted more than 20% of variance ( R ² = .205) in L2 writing motivation, which is a very strong figure. Table 10 Results of three multiple regression analyses with incremental theories of writing intelligence (Incremental TWI) and entity theories of writing intelligence (Entity TWI) as predictor and feedback seeking and feedback avoiding orientations and writing motivation as outcome variables. Outcome Variable Predictor Variable B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Feedback Seeking Orientation (Constant) 4.13 .41 10.16 .000 Incremental TWI .20 .06 .26 3.03 .003 F = 6.15, p = .003 R ² = .08 Entity TWI - .04 .07 - .05 - .56 .578 Feedback Avoiding Orientation F = 5.55, p = .005 (Constant) 2.08 .45 4.60 .000 Incremental TWI - .06 .07 - .07 - .86 .391 R ² = .07 Entity TWI .20 .07 .23 2.7 .008 Writing Motivation F = 18.58, p = .000 (Constant) 2.58 .43 5.97 .000 Incremental TWI .40 .07 .46 5.79 .000 R ² = .21 Entity TWI .02 .07 .02 .30 .768 22 In the next part of the data analysis, the implicit theory of writing intelligence was used a single continuous variable. To do this, the items constituting the entity theory of writing intelligence were reverse - coded and entered with the items constituting the incremental theory of writing intelligence to create a new variable which I implicit theory of writing intelligence A low score on this variable would suggest a more entity theory of writing intelligence while a high score would indicate a more incremental theory of writing intelligence. The same multiple regression ana lyses were run this time with the theory of writing intelligence as the predictor variable and the feedback avoiding and feedback seeking orientations and L2 writing motivation as outcome variables. The results of the analyses, presented in Table 1 1 , show that all three tested models are significant suggesting good model fitness . In addition, t he theory of writing intelligence positively and significantly predicted both f eedback seeking orientation and L2 writing motivation explaining 2 1 % and 3 3 % of varianc e respectively . Moreover, it predicted a statistically significant but negative amount of variance ( - 26%) in the feedback avoiding orientation . Table 11 Results of three multiple regression analyses with the implicit theory of writing intelligence (TWI) as predictor and feedback seeking and feedback avoiding orientations and writing motivation as outcome variables Outcome Variable Predictor Variable B Std. Error Beta T Sig. Feedback Seeking Orientation F = 8.16, p = .005 R ² = .05 (Constant) 4.02 .33 12.2 .000 TWI .21 .07 .23 2.86 .005 Feedback Avoiding Orientation F = 10.55, p = .001 R ² = .07 (Constant) 3.47 .36 9.63 .000 TWI - .26 .08 - .26 - 3.25 .001 Writing Motivation F = 16.29, p = .000 R ² = .10 (Constant) 3.03 .37 8.26 .000 TWI .33 .08 .32 4.04 .000 23 Discussion The present study drew on (1988, 2004), in order to gain more insight into their orientation towards written corrective feedback. According to Dweck, students who have an incremental theory of intelligence view their intelligence as growing and dynamic. In contrast, students with an entity theory of intelligence see their intelligence as fixed and unchanging. These implicit theories of intelligence have been found to influence many lea orientation to feedback ( Butterfield & Mangels, 2003; De Castella & Byrne, 2015; Dweck & Sorich, 1999; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Farrell & Dweck, 1985; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Mueller & Dw eck, 1998 ). The present study examined the link between L2 writing intelligence , their writing motivation, and their orientation to written corrective feedback . The results of this study confirmed the hypotheses that the implicit theories of intelligence have significant effects on writing motivation and orientation to written corrective feedback. When the incremental and entity theories of intelligence were treated as separate variables, t he incremental (and feedback seeking orientation, whereas the entity (but not the incremental) theory of intelligence emerged a significant predictor of the feedback avoi ding orientation. When the theories of intelligence were combined to form a single continuous variable with a low score suggesting more of an entity theory of intelligence and a high score indicating a more incremental theory of intelligence, the results w ere ev en stronger . The singular implicit theory of writing intelligence was a significant and positive predictor of the feedback seeking orientation but a significant and negative predictor of the feedback avoiding orientation. The results suggest that th e students who have an incremental theory of writing intelligence are willing to receive more written corrective feedback and use it as a learning opportunity . On the other hand , those who have an entity theory of writing intelligence tend to focus on thei r grades and ignore written corrective feedback . 24 Moreover, the incremental theory of writing intelligence but not the entity theory of writing intelligence was a statistically significant predictor of L2 writing motivation . In other words, students who ha ve a n incremental theory of writing inte lligence are more motivated than the learners who endorse an entity theory of writing intelligence. These findings support the other studies in the field of educational psychology that have found that the implicit t and level of engagement in the classroom ( e.g., Butterfield & Mangels, 2003; Dweck, 2003; Dweck & Sorich, 1999; Farrell & Dweck, 1985). develop can thus result in not only higher writing motivation but also in perceiving written corrective feedback as opportunities for learning. On the other hand, entertaining the belief th a fixed amount which could not cha written corrective feedback. Studies have shown t hat learners who adopt an inc remental theory of intelligence are also more likely to develop learning goals (which is the goal of inc ) verses performance goals (which is ) whereas learners who develop an entity theory of intelligence of their abilities have been found to adopt performance goals. In other words, while learners with a n incremental theory of intelligence come to the class with the motivation to master the content of the course, students with an entity theory of intelligence enter the class in order to prove their abilities to others by adopti ng performance goals. Written c orrective feedback, thus, is seen by learners with an incremental theory of intelligence as an opportunity for learning but perceived by students with an entity theory of intelligence as an attack on the positive image of the ir abilities they have been working unless teacher s intervene to modify such attitudes prior to instruction, much valuable teacher time and effort are bound to be Enginarlar, 1993, p. 203). The results also provide a possible explanation for why students treat feedback differently in the - third of the students surveyed felt that feedback 25 improved both their motivation and final performance, and the higher performing students preferred more themselves as better learners paid more attention to feedb ack than the those who did not rate themselves so favorably. Not unlike the present study, Radecki and Swales (1988) divided their participants into lea rners in any learning situation who are either neutral or negative to the type of feedback teachers would explanation has been provided as to why there are s uch differences. The results of the present study provide empirical evidence that these differences could be largely motivational and have roots in the o write in a second language. Pedagogical Implications Many teachers feel as though written corrective feedback is time - consuming and sometimes, even disheartening. tten performance could have different reasons. One of the underlying causes of such indifference could be T he results of the present study showed that those learners with an incremental th eory of intelligence take advantage of written corrective an entity theory of intelligence are the ones who are more likely to look at the grade and put the ir papers straight into their bags . Changing the negative and fixed mindsets towards ability and fostering an incremental theory of writing ability could thus make written corrective more effective and beneficial to both teachers and students. According to Dweck, theories of intelligence can be changed and result in better learning outcomes. She suggests giving students questionnaires to find out their theories of intelligence. Then, intervention of their abilities and foster a more incremental theory in the classroom ( e.g., Aronson et al. 2002; 26 Blackwell, Trzesniewski & Dweck, 2007 ; Jonsson et al., 2012 ) . For example, in Aron son et al. (2002), Stanford University participants in the experimental condition were trained to see their intelligence as expa ndable. For example, the participants were instructed The participants were asked to inspire these young students the idea that intelligence can be changed and grown like a muscle, and intelligence can expand with hard work. The participants were then shown a short video clip about brain researchers discover ing how the brain can grow in response to intellectual challenge . These training program resulted in enjoyment of their academic process, engagement in their classes, and higher grade point averages . In Blackwell, Trzesniewski & D weck (2007), seventh grade students participated in incremental theory sessions for 25 minute periods spanning over 8 weeks After this training, it was found that students tra nsform ed their entity theory of intelligence into incremental theories of intelligence , which resulted in higher math grades. Establishing an incremental theory of intelligence motivation and their views of written corrective feedback resulting in better learn ing processes and outcomes in the classroom . 27 Conclusion theories of intelligence into the field of second language acquisition and pedagogy. The results provide preliminary evidence for the how learners perceive and act upon teacher s feedback. The study also offers practical ways on how to for and attention to written corrective feedback through changing their detrimental but chronic theories of intelligence , thereby improving the quality of language instruction and learning . The introduction of the concept of the i mplicit theories of intelligence to the field of second language acquisition also contributes to our understanding of lack of motivation on the par t of many language learners. This research hopes to motivation through changing their beliefs about intelligence and setting helpful learning goals that motivate learners to put in sufficient efforts to learn a second language. The study links the motivation research to the actual processes of language lear ning and shows how the processing of written corrective feedback could have motivational reasons. There were several limitations in this study. First of all, self - report surveys can always present several risks. Although they are commonly used in our field , the items is not always reliable even though the surveys were translated into their native languages (for most of the participants) . Moreover, the scales developed in the present study for measuring feedback or ientations only met the minimum psychometric characteristics. Developing psychometrically stronger find better results in future studies . The data were collected from one univers ity in the US. The results could not be generalized to the entire population of English learners in the absence of enough empirical evidence from different socio - educational contexts. feedback teachers gave concluded, ng but to student writ ers 28 97). When research first started on written corrective feedback, the researchers paid more attention to individual differences and motivation. However, we have lost that focus. Instead, research on WCF for reactions (e.g., Cohen, 1987; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Leki, 1991; Montgomery & Baker, 2007). Perhaps we need to go back to our original instincts and take a magnifying glass to look more closely at the individual differ orientation to WCF. We need to focus not only on the orientations orientations happen. Introducing these theories to the field of SLA could help us understand many individual differences in this complicated learning process. For instance, more e xperimental studies (i.e. Blackwell et al., 2007) on promoting an incremental theory of intelligence could be done to i learning motivation and their des ire for corrective feedback . Future research on the implicit theories of language intelligence could also shed light on the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback . Investigating teachers nd how t hose theories of intelligence influence (e.g., Jonsson et al., 2012; Shim et al. 2013). 29 APPENDICES 30 Appendix A Language Learner Questionnaire Items (Questionnaire 1) Theories of General Intelligence 17. You can always greatly change how intelligent you are. 27. No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it a lot. Theories of Writing Intelligence 6. As an English lea rner, you have a limited amount of talent for developing your English writing 12. With enough practice you will be able to write like a native speaker of English. 20. No matter who you are, you can always learn to write as well as native speakers of English. 25. No matter how hard you try, as an English language learner you can never write like a native speaker. . 31 Appendix B Written corrective feedback Questionnaire (Questionnaire 2) Please read each of the following statements. Circle the answer that best describes what you think. Do not leave any blank answers. Answer each one as honestly as you can. The results will not be shown to your teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Never Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Often Always 1. I enjoy writing in English. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. I like to have many opportunities to revise my writing for a grade. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. I like when my teacher comments on only my writing strengths. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. I like when my teacher only writes a grade and not comments on my paper. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. You did it right 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. I like when my teacher corrects all of my mistakes (grammar, content, organization, spelling, punctuation). 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. I am making progress toward become a stronger writer in English. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. You did not make any mistakes 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. I like when my teacher uses correction symbols to show me my mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. When I get my papers back, I read all of the comments carefully. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. I like to receive feedback on my writing from my classmates (peer review). 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. I really try to learn how to write English. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32 15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. I would like to be told only what I did wrong in my paper. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Written corrective feedback from my teacher helps me to be a better writer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. I always look forward to my writing classes in English. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. I like to receive feedback only on my organization and development of my ideas in my writing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. I like when my teacher comments only on my writing weaknesses. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Writing in English is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. I revise and save my papers, even if it is not for a grade. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. I like to receive feedback only on grammar, spelling, and vocabulary errors in my writing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. When I get my papers back, I only look at the grade. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. I would like to be told only what I did right in my paper. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. I remember the mistakes my teacher points out to me and I try not to make them again. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. I would like to spend lots of time learning to write in English. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. I like to receive feedback only on my ideas and content in my writing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. I actively think about what I have learned in my English writing class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. I like when my teacher writes questions on my paper to make me think about my writing and does not give me the answer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32. I would like to concentrate on learning to write in English more than any other topic. 1 2 3 4 5 6 33. papers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 33 Appendix C Background Information (Questionnaire 3) 1. Age: _______________________ 2. Gender: Male Female 3. What is your native language? _______________________ 4. How long have you been in the U.S.? Years ________ Months ________ 5. How long have you been studying English? Years ________ Months ________ 6. Year in college: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior MA/Ph.D. 7. Major field of study: _______________________ 8. Please rate on a scale of 1 - 6 your current ability in English writing (circle the number below). 1= beginner 2= p re - intermediate 3= intermediate 4= upper - intermediate 5= advanced 6= native - ike Please add any additional comments you may have. 34 BIBLIOGRAPHY 35 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 38(2), 113 - 125. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development , 78 (1), 246 - 263. Butterfield, B., & Mangels, J. A. (2003). Neural correlates of error detection and correction in a semantic retrieval task. Cognitive Brain Research , 17(3), 793 - 817. Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in written corrective feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Quarte rly , 15(3), 251 - 261. Cohen, A. D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. Learner Strategies in Language Learning , 57 - 69. Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom , 155 - 17. De Castella, K., & Byrne, D (2015). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: the revised implicit theories of intelligence (self - theory) scale is a better predictor of achievement, m otivation, and student disengagement. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 1 - 23. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry , 6(4 ), 267 - 285. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social - cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review , 95(2), 256. Dweck, C. S., Mangels, A. J., & Good, C. (2004). Motivational effects on attention, cognition, and performance . In D.Y. Dai, & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: integrated perspectives on intellectual functioning (pp. 41 55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbraum. Dweck, C. S., & Sorich, L. (1999). Mastery - oriented thinking. Coping , 232 - 251. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80(3), 501 - 519. Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System , 21(2), 193 - 204. 36 Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Tuioti, E. A. (2010). Written corrective feedback: Practitioners' perspectives. International Journal of English Studies , 10 (2), 47 - 77. Farrell, E. W. & Dweck, C. (1985). The role of motivational processe s in transfer of learning (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education). Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly , 29(1), 33 - 53. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short - and long - term effects of written error correction. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues , 81 - 104. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using S PSS . London: Sage publications. Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press/ELT. Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of perso nality and social psychology , 85(3), 541. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing , 3(2), 141 - 163. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (199 6). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal , 80(3), 287 - 308. Henderson, V. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Achievement and motivation in adolescence: A new model and data. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), (1990). At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 308 - 329). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Hendrickson, J. M. (1978) . Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal , 62 (8), 387 - 398. Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written corrective feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing , 7(3), 255 - 286. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues . Cambridge University Press. e: Influences from different disciplines and scientific theories. European Journal of Teacher Education , 35 (4), 387 - 400. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing , 13(4), 285 - 312. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals , 24(3), 203 - 218. 37 Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher - written corrective feedback: Student perceptions, te acher self - assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82 - 99. Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(1), 33. Papi, M., & Teimouri, Y. (2014). Language learner motivational types: A cluster analysis study. Language Learning , 64(3), 493 - 525. Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written wo rk. System , 16(3), 355 - 365. 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 - 70. Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and teachers' views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals , 29(3), 343 - 364. theories of intelligence. The Journal of Experimental Education , 81 (1), 84 - 104. Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self - system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 66 - 97. VandeWalle, D. (2004). A goal orientation model of feedback - seeking behavior. Human Resource Management Review , 13(4), 581 - 604. VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal o rientation on the feedback - seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82(3), 390. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly , 19(1), 79 - 101.