Visibilizing invisible engagement behind students’ no-revision operation to written feedback

Abstract

Student engagement with written feedback (WF) in English as a second language (ESL) / English as a foreign language (EFL) learning has been widely researched from cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions. Students’ textual change is taken as the only indication of their behavioural engagement with feedback. Students’ no-revision operation or their unaction is usually considered as their disengagement or lack of engagement, or excluded from the examination of students’ WF engagement. How students have possibly engaged themselves with WF before they consequently disuptake (used in the context of feedback engagement, as an opposite to “uptake”) it is hardly touched upon in most studies. To visibilize students’ invisible engagement, we contextualized the study in a natural EFL writing class involving students’ writing and revisions after peer review and automatic writing evaluation (AWE). We used stimulated recalls and screen capturing to investigate students’ cognitive, affective and behavioural engagement with unactioned WF (hereafter UAWF). The findings show that 95.9% of the UAWF have been attended. The three participants, of different English proficiency levels, reported to have variably engaged themselves with their UAWF. Our findings also reveal feedback quality and students’ experience in using AWE system greatly influences their engagement with AWE feedback; student’s language proficiency has a stake in their engagement effectiveness; carefully designed peer review activities can make peer reviews more effective to benefit both feedback receivers and providers.

Keywords

automatic writing evaluation EFL writing peer review students’ invisible engagement unactioned written feedback

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aben

J.E.J.

Timmermans

A.C.

Dingyloudi

Lara

M.M.

Strijbos

J-W.

(2022). What influences students’ peer-feedback uptake? Relations between error tolerance, feedback tolerance, writing self-efficacy, perceived language skills and peer-feedback processing. Learning and Individual Differences, 97, 1–11.

Bai

(2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37, 67–81.

Barrot

J.S.

(2023). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36, 584–607.

Bitchener

Ferris

D.R.

(2012) Written corrective feedback in Second language acquisition and writing. 1st edition. Routledge.

Chapelle

Cotos

Lee

(2015). Validity arguments for diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation. Language Testing, 32, 385–405.

Diab

N.M.

(2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16, 274–292.

Ellis

(2010). EPILOGUE. Studies in second language acquisition, 32, 335–349.

Fan

(2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 1–13.

Ferris

D.R.

Liu

Sinha

Senna

(2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329.

10.

Fredricks

J.A.

Blumenfeld

P.C.

Paris

A.H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

11.

Furneaux

Paran

Fairfax

(2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 69–84.

12.

Han

Hyland

(2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.

13.

Handley

Price

Millar

(2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: Investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37, 543–560.

14.

Hyland

(1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.

15.

Hyland

(2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.

16.

Koltovskaia

(2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 1–12.

17.

Lavolette

Polio

Kahng

(2015). The accuracy of computer assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning and Technology, 19, 50–68.

18.

Moore

(1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–6.

19.

D.S.

Lapkin

(2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.

20.

Ranalli

(2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31, 653–674.

21.

Ranalli

(2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 1–16.

22.

Shi

(2021). Exploring learner engagement with multiple sources of feedback on L2 writing across genres. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 758867.

23.

Stake

R.E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

24.

Tian

Zhou

(2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, 1–14.

25.

Schunn

(2023). Passive, active, and constructive engagement with peer feedback: A revised model of learning from peer feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 73, 1–14.

26.

Teng

Cai

(2021). Feedback engagement of Chinese international doctoral students. Studies in Continuing Education, 43, 119–135.

27.

Yin

R.K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd edition. Sage.

28.

Zhang

Zheng

Yuan

Zhang

(2018). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44, 50–65.

29.

Zhang

(2016). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71, 317–328.

30.

Zhang

(2020). Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions. Assessing Writing, 43, 1–14.

31.

Zhang

Hyland

(2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.

32.

Zheng

(2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.