The present study examines how learners’ language mindsets (beliefs about the malleability of language intelligence) and achievement goals predict learners’ preferences for different types of corrective feedback (CF). Questionnaire data were collected from 537 learners of Spanish as a foreign language at two North-American universities. Factor analytic and multiple regression results showed two clear patterns. A growth language mindset (the belief that language learning ability is malleable) predicted preferences for all types of CF whereas a fixed language mindset predicted a preference for conversational recast and absence of CF. A development-approach goal (concerned with improving one’s language competence) positively predicted learners’ preference for the explicit types of CF whereas a development-avoidance goal (concerned with maintaining one’s second language competence) positively predicted the more implicit types of CF. Demonstration-approach (concerned with displaying superior competence) did not predict any CF type and demonstration-avoidance (concerned with avoiding the display of incompetence) predicted a preference for absence of CF. Using an overarching cost–value model, we discuss how learners’ analysis of the self-presentation and ego costs as well as the value of different CF types have led to their preference for one versus another. Future directions and pedagogical implications are discussed.
AgudoJ. (2015). How do Spanish EFL learners perceive grammar instruction and corrective feedback?Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 33, 411–425.
2.
BlackwellL.S.TrzesniewskiK.H.DweckC.S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
3.
BrownA.V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60.
4.
DavisA. (2003). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language learning. Evaluation & Research in Education, 17, 207–222.
5.
DeKeyserR.M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.
6.
DevlooT.AnseelF.De BeuckelaerA. (2011). Do managers use feedback seeking as a strategy to regulate demands-abilities misfit? The moderating role of implicit person theory. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 453–465.
7.
DweckC.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
8.
DweckC.S.ElliottE.S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In MussenP.H.HetheringtonE.M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 4 (pp. 643–691). New York: Wiley.
9.
DweckC.S.LeggettE.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
10.
ElliottE.S.DweckC.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
11.
EllisR.HeX. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–310.
12.
GongY.WangM.HuangJ.-C.CheungS.Y. (2017). Toward a goal orientation-based feedback-seeking typology: Implications for employee performance outcomes. Journal of Management, 43, 1234–1260.
13.
GooJ. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
14.
HanJ.JungJ.K. (2007). Patterns and preferences of corrective feedback and learner repair. 응용언어학, 23, 243–260.
15.
HeT. (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 407–431.
16.
JanssenO.PrinsJ. (2007). Goal orientations and the seeking of different types of feedback information. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 235–249.
17.
JeanG.SimardD. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 465–492.
18.
KaivanpanahS.AlaviS.M.SepehriniaS. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 74–93.
19.
KlineR.B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th edition.New York: Guilford Press.
20.
KornR.M.ElliotA.J. (2016). The 2 × 2 standpoints model of achievement goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12.
21.
LasagabasterD.SierraJ.M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 112–127.
22.
LeeE. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217–230.
23.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
24.
LiS. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143–157). New York: Routledge.
25.
LouN.M.NoelsK.A. (2017). Measuring language mindsets and modeling their relations with goal orientations and emotional and behavioral responses in failure situations. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 214–243.
26.
LouN.M.NoelsK.A. (2019). Sensitivity to language-based rejection in intercultural communication: The role of language mindsets and implications for migrants’ cross-cultural adaptation. Applied Linguistics, 40, 478–505.
27.
LouN.M.NoelsK.A. (2020). Breaking the vicious cycle of language anxiety: Growth language mindsets improve lower-competence ESL students’ intercultural interactions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101847.
28.
LysterR.SaitoK.SatoM. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
MackeyA.PhilpJ.EgiT.FujiiA.TatsumiT. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback in L2 development. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31.
MangelsJ.A.ButterfieldB.LambJ.GoodC.DweckC.S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75–86.
32.
MercerS.RyanS. (2010). A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about the role of natural talent. ELT Journal, 64, 436–444.
OzdemirE.PapiM. (in press). Mindsets as sources of L2 speaking anxiety and self-confidence: The case of international teaching assistants in the US. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching.
35.
PapiM. (2016). Motivation and learning interface: How regulatory fit affects incidental vocabulary learning and task experience. Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
36.
PapiM. (2018). Motivation as quality: Regulatory fit effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 707–730.
37.
PapiM.RiosA.PeltH.OzdemirE. (2019a). Feedback-seeking behavior in language learning: Basic components and motivational antecedents. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 205–226.
38.
PapiM.BondarenkoA.V.MansouriS.FengL.JiangC. (2019b). Rethinking L2 motivation research: The 2× 2 model of L2 self-guides. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 337–361.
39.
PapiM.BondarenkoA.V.WawireB.JiangC.ZhouS. (2020). Feedback-seeking behavior in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing, 33, 485–505.
40.
ParkG.SchmidtA.M.ScheuC.DeShonR.P. (2007). A process model of goal orientation and feedback seeking. Human Performance, 20, 119–145.
41.
PauneskuD.WaltonG.M.RomeroC., et al. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26, 784–793.
42.
RahimiM.ZhangL.J. (2019). Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 32, 761–786.
43.
SaitoK.LysterR. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.
44.
SatoM.CsizérK. (2021). Introduction: Combining learner psychology and ISLA research: Intersections in the classroom. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044237
45.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
46.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2019). Do teachers care about research? The research–pedagogy dialogue. ELT Journal, 73, 1–10.
47.
SatoM.OyanedelJ.C. (2019). ‘I think that is a better way to teach but . . .’: EFL teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 84, 110–122.
48.
SchulzR.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, 343–364.
49.
SchulzR.A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 244–258.
50.
SheenY. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.
51.
TakimotoM. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10, 393–417.
52.
TercanliogluL. (2004). Achievement goal theory: A perspective on foreign-language-learners’ motivation. TESL Canada Journal, 21, 34–49.
53.
ThompsonT.MusketS. (2005). Does priming for mastery goals improve the performance of students with an entity view of ability?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 391–409.
54.
TuckeyM.BrewerN.WilliamsonP. (2002). The influence of motives and goal orientation on feedback seeking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 195–216.
55.
UshiodaE. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 49, 564–577.
56.
VandeWalleD. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 581–604.
57.
VandeWalleD.CummingsL.L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390–400.
58.
WallerL.PapiM. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65.
59.
YangJ. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error. System, 61, 75–86.
60.
YeagerD.S.RomeroC.PauneskuD., et al. (2016). Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 374–391.
61.
ZhaoW. (2015). Learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback and their effects on second language noticing and learning motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University Libraries, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
