Simulated Interview Responses: Bayu vs.

Rani

Rani (Better Behavioral

Bayu (Better Cognitive & Affective
Category Engagement, Weaker Affective
Engagement)
Engagement)
Cognitive Engagement
(Thinking & Processing
Feedback)
"I try to understand why my advisor "I just follow what my advisor
How do you usually
gave that feedback. If I don’t get it suggests. If something is unclear, I
interpret feedback from
right away, I reread my writing and check other examples or similar
your advisor?
compare it with the comments." papers."
"Yes, I think about how the feedback
"Not really. I focus on fixing the
connects to my research. Sometimes, I
Do you analyze feedback specific parts mentioned. I don’t
adjust not just the section being
before making changes? usually change other sections
commented on but also other related
unless my advisor tells me to."
parts."
Do you reflect on past "Yes! I try to remember my advisor’s "Not always. I mostly focus on the
feedback when writing comments and apply them in new feedback I just received and apply
new sections? sections so I don’t repeat mistakes." it to the same section."
Behavioral Engagement
(Actions Taken in
Response to Feedback)
"I immediately start revising
What do you do after "I take notes and plan how to revise
based on the comments, one by
receiving feedback? my work before making changes."
one."
Do you ask your advisor
"Sometimes, but I usually try to figure
for clarification if you "Yes, I prefer to ask right away so
it out myself first. If I’m still confused,
don’t understand the I don’t waste time guessing."
then I ask."
feedback?
"I highlight feedback in my draft and "I check off each comment as I fix
How do you track your
write reflections on what I changed it. Once done, I move to the next
revisions?
and why." section."
Affective Engagement
(Emotional Response to
Feedback)
"It depends. Sometimes I feel
"I feel motivated. Even when the
How do you feel when frustrated, especially when I think
feedback is critical, I take it as a way
you receive feedback? I already did well but still get
to improve."
corrections."
"Yes. Sometimes I feel like no
"Not really. If I feel a bit overwhelmed,
Has feedback ever matter what I do, it’s never
I take a short break and come back to
discouraged you? enough. It makes me doubt my
it with a fresh mind."
writing skills."
"Both. It helps, but sometimes I
Do you see feedback as "Helpful! It makes me see my
feel pressured to always get things
helpful or stressful? weaknesses and how to improve."
right."

Findings on Cognitive Engagement with Feedback and Supporting Literature

The cognitive engagement of Bayu and Rani in processing supervisor feedback highlights
key differences in how learners interact with comments during thesis writing. Bayu
demonstrates a deep cognitive engagement by analyzing and internalizing feedback, while
Rani tends to engage in surface-level processing, applying comments without critically
reflecting on them. These findings align with and expand on previous research regarding
learners' cognitive engagement with feedback, self-regulated learning (SRL), and academic
writing development.

Empirical Evidence Supporting the Findings

Several studies have emphasized the role of cognitive engagement in feedback uptake and
long-term writing improvement. Research by Zheng, B., & Yu, S. (2018) found that
learners who actively analyze feedback and attempt to understand its underlying
rationale tend to develop stronger writing skills over time. Bayu’s statement, "I try to
understand why my advisor gave that feedback. If I don’t get it right away, I reread my
writing and compare it with the comments," closely reflects what Zheng and Yu describe as
deep engagement with feedback—where students critically process and integrate comments
beyond immediate corrections.

Similarly, Han & Hyland (2019) found that students who actively reflect on feedback and
apply it across different sections of their writing are more likely to internalize academic
writing conventions. This aligns with Bayu’s approach of adjusting not just the
commented section but also other related parts, as he mentioned, "Sometimes, I adjust not
just the section being commented on but also other related parts." In contrast, Rani’s strategy
of revising only the specific sections mentioned in feedback is similar to what Han and
Hyland describe as a procedural approach, where learners engage minimally with feedback
and view it as a checklist rather than an opportunity for broader learning.

Furthermore, Boud and Molloy (2013) emphasize that feedback must be meaning-making
rather than task-focused, meaning students should actively interpret feedback rather than
merely responding to corrections. This is evident in Bayu’s ability to transfer past
feedback to new writing sections, stating, "I try to remember my advisor’s comments and
apply them in new sections so I don’t repeat mistakes." In contrast, Rani’s approach—"Not
always. I mostly focus on the feedback I just received and apply it to the same section."—
suggests a lack of cognitive engagement beyond immediate tasks, which aligns with Boud
and Molloy’s finding that some learners remain reactive rather than proactive in feedback
uptake.

Contrasting Evidence and Alternative Perspectives

While the findings support the notion that deeper cognitive engagement leads to better
writing development, some research suggests that task-oriented feedback processing, like
Rani’s approach, can still be effective under certain conditions. For instance, Ellis (2009)
found that direct feedback, even when applied without deeper reflection, can lead to
improvement in grammatical accuracy and coherence in writing over time. This suggests
that even though Rani does not actively engage with feedback at a higher level, her
systematic revisions may still contribute to improvement in specific writing aspects.
However, the limitation of this approach is that it may not foster independent problem-
solving skills, meaning she might struggle when writing without direct guidance.
Moreover, Truscott (1996) argues that excessive cognitive engagement with feedback—
especially in early drafts—may sometimes lead to overcorrection or frustration, causing
students to become overly dependent on feedback instead of developing their own writing
voice. This perspective suggests that Bayu’s deep engagement, while beneficial, might also
have potential drawbacks if it causes him to rely too much on feedback rather than
developing confidence in his own judgment.

Theoretical Framework: Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and Feedback Engagement

The differences in Bayu and Rani’s engagement can be interpreted through Zimmerman’s
(2002) Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) model, which highlights three key phases:

1. Forethought phase: Planning and setting goals for improvement.

2. Performance phase: Implementing strategies and engaging with tasks.
3. Self-reflection phase: Evaluating progress and adjusting strategies.

Bayu demonstrates higher cognitive engagement because he moves through all three SRL
phases—he reflects on feedback, applies it strategically, and evaluates its impact. Rani, on
the other hand, focuses more on the performance phase (implementing feedback) but lacks
the self-reflection phase, limiting her ability to use feedback for long-term writing
development.

Additionally, Nelson and Schunn’s (2009) Feedback Processing Model suggests that
students engage with feedback at different cognitive levels:

 Understanding (basic comprehension of feedback)

 Transformation (modifying work based on feedback)
 Transfer (applying feedback to future work)

Bayu reaches the transfer level, meaning he applies feedback across different sections of his
writing. Rani, however, remains at the transformation level, focusing only on localized
revisions. This suggests that to support students like Rani, educators should encourage
metacognitive strategies that help students internalize feedback beyond immediate
corrections.

Conclusion

The findings from Bayu and Rani’s engagement with feedback align with existing research
on self-regulated learning and feedback processing. Bayu’s deeper cognitive engagement
allows him to analyze, transfer, and internalize feedback, which supports long-term writing
improvement. Rani, while efficient in revising based on direct feedback, lacks critical
engagement, which may limit her independent writing skills. While some research suggests
that procedural feedback application can still lead to improvements, the literature
overwhelmingly supports the idea that higher cognitive engagement fosters more
sustainable learning and self-regulated writing development.

Implications for Feedback Practice

1. Encouraging Reflection on Feedback: Instructors can ask students to write short

reflections explaining how they interpret and apply feedback.
2. Providing Metacognitive Prompts: Instead of only giving corrective feedback,
advisors can ask, "How does this feedback connect to your argument?"
3. Training Students in Feedback Transfer: Workshops can focus on teaching
students to apply past feedback to new sections of writing, helping them develop
higher cognitive engagement strategies.
Behavioral engagement refers to the visible actions and effort that learners put into
responding to feedback, such as revising their work, seeking clarification, and implementing
changes consistently. In this study, both Bayu and Rani demonstrated high self-regulated
learning (SRL) in their behavioral engagement with feedback. However, Rani exhibited
stronger behavioral engagement than Bayu, as she was more consistent, disciplined, and
structured in implementing feedback, even though her cognitive engagement was lower.
Behavioral Responses to Feedback: Frequency and Consistency
When asked about how they incorporate feedback into their writing, both Bayu and Rani
reported actively revising their work after receiving feedback twice a week from their
advisor. However, Rani’s approach was more structured and immediate, while Bayu was
slightly more selective in his revisions. Rani described her process:
"I always revise my work as soon as I get feedback. If I don’t understand something, I look it
up or ask my advisor right away. I don’t like delaying my revisions."
In contrast, Bayu admitted that while he revises regularly, he sometimes prioritizes
understanding the feedback before making changes, stating:
"I don’t always revise immediately. Sometimes I take time to reflect on the comments and
think about how they fit into my writing before applying them."
These responses indicate that Rani’s behavioral engagement is more proactive and
systematic, as she immediately applies corrections without hesitation. On the other hand,
Bayu is more reflective but slightly less active in quickly responding to feedback. This aligns
with research by Carless (2019), which found that students with high behavioral
engagement revise more frequently and follow feedback instructions more thoroughly,
even if their cognitive engagement varies.
Seeking Clarification and Interaction with Feedback Providers
Another key aspect of behavioral engagement is how students interact with their advisors
to seek clarification or confirm their understanding of feedback. Rani actively seeks
assistance, stating:
"If I don’t understand something, I ask my advisor in the next meeting or check other
sources. I don’t want to make mistakes."
Bayu, on the other hand, is more independent in processing feedback, explaining:
"I try to figure it out myself first. If I still don’t understand, then I’ll ask my advisor."
These findings suggest that Rani exhibits higher behavioral engagement because she
actively interacts with her advisor and seeks additional input to ensure she applies feedback
correctly. Bayu’s approach, while still engaged, is more self-reliant and selective in when he
seeks clarification. Hyland & Hyland (2006) found that students who actively communicate
with their feedback providers tend to show greater behavioral engagement, as they treat
feedback as an interactive learning tool rather than a one-way directive.
Rewriting and Revising: Depth of Behavioral Engagement
Beyond just following feedback, behavioral engagement also includes how thoroughly
students revise their work. Rani tends to apply all feedback without hesitation, making
precise, incremental corrections in each draft. She explained:
"I make sure I follow every suggestion from my advisor. I don’t want to miss anything, so I
check and revise everything carefully."
Bayu, however, is more selective in his revisions, sometimes choosing not to implement
certain feedback if he believes it does not fit his argument:
"I follow most feedback, but if I think something doesn’t make sense or doesn’t match my
ideas, I might not change it."
This difference suggests that while Rani is more behaviorally engaged in revising all
feedback, Bayu is more critical and selective, which is linked to his stronger cognitive
engagement. Research by Evans (2013) indicates that students who implement all feedback
immediately may develop stronger writing habits, but those who critically evaluate
feedback before applying it demonstrate deeper learning. Thus, while Rani’s behavioral
engagement is higher, Bayu’s self-regulation skills allow him to engage with feedback in a
more strategic manner.
Empirical Evidence Supporting the Findings
The findings align with previous studies on feedback engagement and self-regulated
learning. Research by Jonsson (2013) suggests that students who consistently act on
feedback and make revisions as soon as they receive comments tend to have stronger
behavioral engagement. This is evident in Rani’s approach, where she treats feedback as an
immediate task to be completed, ensuring that every comment is addressed quickly and
efficiently.
Additionally, Winstone et al. (2017) identified feedback receptivity as a crucial factor in
behavioral engagement. Their study found that some students, like Bayu, may choose to
selectively implement feedback based on their own reasoning, demonstrating higher
cognitive engagement but slightly lower behavioral engagement. This supports the idea
that while Rani is highly behaviorally engaged, her approach is more passive in terms of
deeper reflection, whereas Bayu shows a balance between acting on feedback and critically
assessing it.
However, contrasting studies suggest that high behavioral engagement does not always
lead to deep learning. For example, Lipnevich & Smith (2018) argue that students who
revise immediately without critically processing feedback may improve their work in the
short term but struggle with independent writing in the long run. This perspective suggests
that while Rani’s consistent engagement with feedback is beneficial, her lack of deeper
cognitive processing might limit her ability to transfer feedback knowledge to new writing
tasks.
Theoretical Framework: Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and Feedback Engagement
The findings can be analyzed through Zimmerman’s (2002) Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
model, which highlights how students regulate their engagement with learning tasks. In this
case:
 Rani’s behavioral engagement is strong in the performance phase, where she
actively implements feedback and seeks help when necessary. However, she may
lack the self-reflection phase, as she follows corrections without deeply analyzing
them.
 Bayu, on the other hand, balances the performance and self-reflection phases,
meaning he revises his work but also takes time to evaluate feedback before
applying it.
Affective engagement refers to the emotional and motivational responses that learners
experience when receiving and interacting with feedback. It includes their reactions to
criticism, levels of motivation, confidence, frustration, and overall attitude toward
feedback. In this study, Bayu displayed stronger affective engagement, showing a positive,
resilient attitude toward feedback, while Rani exhibited lower affective engagement,
sometimes feeling discouraged or frustrated by critical comments.

Emotional Reactions to Feedback

Bayu generally perceives feedback as a constructive tool for improvement. He expressed a

growth-oriented mindset, stating:

"Even when I get a lot of corrections, I don’t see it as a bad thing. It means I still have things
to improve. I try to see feedback as something that helps me, not something that criticizes me
personally."

In contrast, Rani sometimes takes feedback more personally, feeling discouraged when she
receives a lot of comments from her advisor. She mentioned:

"Sometimes, when I see a lot of red marks on my writing, I feel overwhelmed. It makes me
think I’m not good enough."

This difference in response suggests that Bayu is more emotionally resilient and can handle
feedback without feeling personally attacked, whereas Rani struggles with self-confidence
and finds excessive feedback demotivating. This aligns with research by Rowe (2011),
which found that students with positive affective engagement tend to view feedback as an
opportunity for learning, while those with negative affective engagement may feel
anxious or demotivated when receiving criticism.

Motivation and Feedback Responsiveness

Another key aspect of affective engagement is motivation—whether students feel

encouraged to revise their work based on feedback or whether they lose motivation due to
critical comments. Bayu showed a higher motivation to improve, explaining:

"Feedback makes me want to do better. If my advisor points out mistakes, I take it as a

challenge to improve my writing next time."

Rani, however, indicated that feedback sometimes lowers her motivation, stating:

"If I get too much feedback, I feel like I’m not making progress. It’s frustrating when I think
I’ve done my best, but my advisor still finds a lot of mistakes."

These responses suggest that while Bayu sees feedback as a challenge to overcome, Rani
sometimes views it as a setback, which can hinder her motivation. Winstone et al. (2017)
highlight that students who internalize feedback as a learning tool tend to remain
motivated, while those who interpret feedback as negative judgment may disengage.

Confidence in Writing and Feedback Uptake

Confidence is another important factor in affective engagement. Bayu feels more confident
in his writing despite receiving critical feedback, stating:

"Even if my advisor gives a lot of comments, I don’t doubt my ability. I know I can improve if
I keep working on it."

Rani, however, tends to doubt her abilities when she receives too much feedback:

"Sometimes, I feel like no matter how much I try, my writing is still not good enough. It
makes me anxious about submitting drafts."

This difference suggests that Bayu’s stronger self-confidence helps him handle feedback
more positively, while Rani’s lower confidence leads to frustration and discouragement.
Research by Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006) emphasizes that feedback should build
students’ confidence by focusing on both strengths and areas for improvement, as overly
critical comments can negatively impact motivation and engagement.

Empirical Evidence Supporting the Findings

The findings align with previous research on affective responses to feedback. Studies by
Pekrun et al. (2002) suggest that students who experience positive emotions toward
feedback (e.g., interest, enjoyment, or challenge) are more likely to engage deeply and
persistently with feedback, while those who feel anxious, frustrated, or threatened are
more likely to disengage.

Additionally, research by Boud & Molloy (2013) highlights the importance of feedback
literacy, which includes helping students develop an emotional resilience to critique.
Bayu demonstrates higher feedback literacy, as he can separate feedback from personal
judgment, while Rani struggles with this distinction, sometimes feeling personally affected
by negative comments.

However, contrasting studies suggest that negative affective responses do not always
hinder progress. For example, Hyland (2011) found that some students initially feel
discouraged by feedback but later use that frustration as motivation to improve. This
suggests that while Rani’s immediate reaction is negative, she may still benefit from
feedback in the long run—especially if she receives support in processing feedback
constructively.

Theoretical Framework: Emotion and Feedback Engagement

The findings can be analyzed through Control-Value Theory (CVT) of Achievement

Emotions (Pekrun, 2006), which suggests that students’ emotional responses to feedback are
influenced by:

1. Control beliefs: Whether they feel capable of improving based on feedback.

2. Value beliefs: Whether they perceive feedback as useful for their learning.

Bayu exhibits strong control and value beliefs, meaning he believes in his ability to
improve and sees feedback as valuable. Rani, however, has weaker control beliefs, feeling
that no matter how much she tries, she still receives a lot of criticism—leading to frustration
and lower engagement.

Another relevant theory is Dweck’s (2000) Mindset Theory, which distinguishes between:

 Growth mindset learners (who view mistakes as learning opportunities)

 Fixed mindset learners (who see mistakes as indicators of failure)

Bayu demonstrates a growth mindset, embracing feedback as a tool for learning. Rani, on
the other hand, leans toward a fixed mindset, feeling discouraged when receiving criticism.
Research suggests that educators can help students shift toward a growth mindset by
framing feedback as constructive guidance rather than judgment.

Conclusion