In sum, results of statistical analyses provided clear answers to the three research questions that guided this study. First of all, all three groups, instructed under the assessment-for-learning framework, regardless of having goals or being provided with a strategy list or not, improved from each draft to each associated revision, and the improvement was all significant. But the draft-to-revision improvement among three groups was indistinguishable. This means that single improvements from draft to revision, as long as the “assessment for learning” design of instruction was present, were not strengthened by either the addition of goal setting or strategy list.
Furthermore, when student performance was compared across three tasks, we found that the draft scores among the three groups were not significantly different. However, the differences among three revisions were. To be more specific, the AfL + Goal + Strategy Group performed better than the AfL Only Group, which in turn performed significantly better than the AfL + Goal Group.
The results bear significance in both theory and practice. First, the consistent significant improvement from drafts to revisions for all three groups in all three tasks suggested that the “assessment for learning” ideal as advocated in the literature worked well for EFL learners who were learning to improve their essay writing. We have learned from past L2 writing studies that learner revisions are not always better than their drafts (e.g. Lee, 2007; Silver & Lee, 2007). Oftentimes the revisions are not
33
better than the drafts, even when teachers provided individual feedbacks. However, in this study, although individual feedbacks were not given to students, the instructional design as shown in Figure 2 worked. Students, after being guided to understand the quality desired and to assess the quality of their own works, were given detailed explanations on pervasive patterns of problems identified by the instructor. They were then given a chance to revise selected experts and discuss the revisions. This type of instruction was meant to empower learners to apply the principles into their own learning, diagnosing own problems and finding solutions. This is an encouraging finding as teachers may have a chance to be liberated from the laborious commenting of individual work and instead to focus on teaching learners better ways of revision.
Secondly, we learned from the answer to the second research question that the addition of goal setting and the provision of a strategy list did not make a difference when each revision was examined. That is to say, learners performed equally in revising their drafts, either with goals or not and either with a strategy list or not. This result seemed to suggest that the three groups were the same. But we have to look at the question in more depth. Research question two, when examined together with questions three and four, revealed important messages. The last two questions allowed us to investigate this study across different learning tasks over time. Although there was no difference among three groups when draft-to-revision improvements were examined separately for three tasks, if the effect is present when all three writings were considered, it has important implications. Our answer from research question three was a negative one, suggesting that there was no group effect from one draft to another. But the answer to question four was a positive one. AfL + Goal + Strategy Group performed the best, followed by the AfL Only Group, and further by the AfL + Goal Group. It means that the addition of goal setting plus a strategy list was most helpful in facilitating learner revision. The addition of goal only, however, was the worst among the three groups, rendering inferior results than the AfL Only Group.
This finding coincides with previous findings in theories and from other studies in different learning situations and will be discussed below.
Goal setting, as suggested by Kanfer and Ackerman (1989), Seijts and Latham (2005), and Seijts, Latham, Tasa, and Latham (2004), may bring potential damages.
When the task is complex and requires learning and when the performer lacks necessary strategy and skills, performance outcome goal may become a source of anxiety and lower the performance. It would be worse than not having a goal at all.
That is why scholars advise the addition of strategies to augment goals. In this study, the findings confirmed past conclusions in the EFL writing revision situations.
Although the difference among treatments was not found when revisions were examined separately, it was obvious when three tasks were considered aggregately.
The impact was not robust enough to be seen in any single writing task or across three drafts. But when three rounds of revisions were considered together, the effect of learning from one task to another in the AfL + Goal + Strategy Group was observed.
Learners benefited most by goals and strategies. And goals alone resulted in the least favorable result as it may have already aroused stress in learners for the complicated revision task they were required to do. It was better not to set goals if a strategy list is not provided.
This study was probably one of the very few that applied goal setting theories in foreign/second language learning contexts, in particular EFL writing revision. The combination of assessment for learning with goal setting has its theoretical
background and the results indicated that this is a viable direction for EFL teachers to consider using these strategies in instruction to empower students as self-regulated learners. Goal setting, when applied in learning situations, is much more complicated than in work settings, because learning goals could be defined in various ways and many learning tasks are comparatively more complex than work-related tasks. The results are encouraging and warrant more study in this direction.
35
References
Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication, 28(1), 70-96.
Fleming, V. M. (2002). Improving students’ exam performance by introducing study strategies and goal setting. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 2, 115-119.
Johnson, L., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). The effects of goal setting and self-instruction on learning a reading comprehension strategy: A study of
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 80-91.
Klein, H. J., & Lee, S. (2006). The effects of personality on learning: The mediating role of goal setting. Human Performance, 19, 1, 43-66.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001).
The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis.