Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
‘Yes,I recall that mistake. I think about it every time I write estos now’: A case study on written corrective feedback and lexical development in L2 Spanish
Despite its widespread use, the efficacy of written corrective feedback (WCF) in foreign language teaching remains a subject of debate. Furthermore, methodological challenges involved in its study, especially concerning vocabulary development, have resulted in contradictory and inconclusive findings in the field. This article assesses the effects of five WCF formats on the lexical development of 21 C1-level adult learners of second language (L2) Spanish in a real classroom setting. On one hand, we analysed four different tasks written by the participants, totaling 84, in terms of lexical sophistication, diversity, density, and accuracy. On the other hand, for every lexical error found, we annotated and tracked its type, the WCF format provided by the teacher, and whether it was subsequently corrected or repeated by the participants. Moreover, through questionnaires and post-intervention debriefings, we collected data on participants’ habits, beliefs, and preferences regarding WCF and further inquired about their understanding and application of the WCF they had received. Our results reveal that the lexical error rate decreased throughout tasks without compromising lexical complexity. Metalinguistic WCF proved to be the most effective and was preferred by participants. The type of error made influenced both the efficacy of the correction format and its recurrence. Additionally, participant habits and preferences were more closely linked to performance than their beliefs were. Therefore, careful consideration of what and how to correct is essential to facilitate language uptake.
Alonso-RamosM.WannerL.VinczeO., et al (2010). Towards a motivated annotation schema of collocation errors in learner corpora. In N.Calzolari (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10) (pp. 3209–3214). European Language Resources Association.
2.
AmrheinH.R.NassajiH. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why?Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127.
3.
AndradeH.ValtchevaA. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 12–19.
4.
ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH (2023). ATLAS.ti Mac: Version 23.4 [qualitative data analysis software]. ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. Available at: https://atlasti.com (accessed August 2025).
5.
BachmanL. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
6.
BaraloM.GenísM.SantanaM.E. (2011). Vocabulario: Nivel medio (B1) [Vocabulary: Medium level (B1)]. Anaya.
BarrotJ.S.AgdeppaJ.Y. (2021). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as indices of college-level L2 writers’ proficiency. Assessing Writing, 47, Article 100510.
10.
BialystokE. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–168.
11.
BitchenerJ. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 207–225). Cambridge University Press.
12.
BitchenerJ.FerrisD. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
13.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
14.
BitchenerJ.StorchN. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
15.
BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
16.
BoudD.MolloyE. (2013). What is the problem with feedback? In BoudD.MolloyE. (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 1–10). Routledge.
17.
BrutonA. (2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136–140.
18.
BultéB.HousenA. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins.
19.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
20.
CanoE. (2014). Análisis de las investigaciones sobre feedback: Aportes para su mejora en el marco del EEES [Analysis of research on feedback: Contributions for improvement within the EHEA]. Bordón, 66, 9–24.
21.
CantosP.AlmelaM. (2017). Colligational effects of collocation: Lexically-conditioned dependencies between modification patterns of the noun cause. In Pace-SiggeM.PattersonK. (Eds.), Lexical priming: Applications and advances (pp. 231–249). John Benjamins.
22.
CarlessD. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23, 143–153.
23.
CarlessD.BoudD. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1315–1325.
24.
Celce-MurciaM.DörnyeiZ.ThurrellS. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 62, 5–35.
25.
CerezoL.ManchónR.M.Nicolás-ConesaF. (2019). What do learners notice while processing written corrective feedback? A look at depth of processing via written languaging. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 171–185). Routledge.
26.
ChahineI.K.UetovaE. (2021). From error annotation to quantitative analysis: Patterns in Russian language learning. Russian Language Journal, 71, 185–216.
27.
ChandlerJ. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
28.
ChaudronC. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.
29.
CorderS.P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161–170.
30.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
31.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
32.
CoyleY.Roca de LariosJ. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 451–485.
33.
CrossleyS.SalsburyT.McNamaraS. (2013). Validating lexical measures using human scores of lexical proficiency. In JarvisS.DallerM.H. (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 105–134). John Benjamins.
34.
Díaz-NegrilloA.Fernández-DomínguezJ. (2006). Error tagging systems for learner corpora. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 19, 83–102.
35.
DilansG. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787–816.
36.
DobsonA.J.BarnettA.G. (2018). An introduction to generalized linear models (4th ed.). CRC Press.
37.
DörnyeiZ. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
38.
DugastD. (1978). Sur quoi se fonde la notion d’étendue théorétique du vocabulaire? [What is the basis for the notion of theoretical scope of vocabulary?] Le français moderne, 46, 25–32.
39.
EgbertJ.BurchB. (2023). Which words matter most? Operationalizing lexical prevalence for rank-ordered word lists. Applied Linguistics, 44, 103–126.
40.
EllisR. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.
41.
EllisR. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
42.
EllisR.SheenY.MurakamiM.TakashimaH. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
43.
FarrokhiF.SattarpourS. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2, 49–57.
44.
FernándezS. (1997). Interlengua y análisis de errores en el aprendizaje de español como lengua extranjera [Interlanguage and error analysis in Spanish as a foreign language learning]. Edelsa.
45.
Ferreira-CabreraA. (2017). El efecto del feedback correctivo para mejorar la destreza escrita en ELE [Corrective feedback to improve students’ writing skills in SFL]. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19, 37–50.
46.
Ferreira-CabreraA.Elejalde-GómezJ.Vine-JaraA. (2014). Análisis de errores asistido por computador basado en un corpus de aprendientes de español como lengua extranjera [Computer aided error analysis based on a learner corpus of Spanish as a foreign language]. Revista Signos, 47, 385–411.
47.
FerrisD. (1999). The case for Grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.
48.
FerrisD. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.
49.
FerrisD. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press.
50.
FerrisD.KurzerK. (2019). Does error feedback help L2 writers? Latest evidence on the efficacy of written corrective feedback. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 106–124). Cambridge University Press.
51.
FoxJ. (2016). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models (3rd ed.). Sage.
52.
FrantzenD. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329–344.
53.
FrearD.ChiuY.H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.
54.
García-MayoM.D.P.LabandibarU.L. (2017). The use of models as written corrective feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 110–127.
55.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
56.
GerringJ. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press.
57.
GilabertR. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/–here-and-now): Effects on L2 oral production. In García-MayoM.D.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language teaching (pp. 44–68). Multilingual Matters.
58.
GoldsteinL. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185–205). Cambridge University Press.
59.
GrangerS. (2002). A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In GrangerS.HungJ.Petch-TysonS. (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3–33). John Benjamins.
60.
GuénetteD. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.
61.
GuiraudP. (1954). Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire: Essai de méthodologie [Statistical characteristics of vocabulary: A methodological essay]. Presses Universitaires de France.
62.
GunnarssonC. (2012). The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in the written production of L2 French. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 247–276). John Benjamins.
63.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
64.
HanZ. (2021). Corrective feedback from behaviorist and innatist perspectives. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 23–43). Cambridge University Press.
65.
HanaokaO. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459–479.
66.
HandleyK.PriceM.MillarJ. (2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: Investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37, 543–560.
67.
HarrisonX.A. (2015). A comparison of observation-level random effect and beta-binomial models for modelling overdispersion in binomial data in ecology and evolution. PeerJ, 3, Article e1114.
68.
HartshornK.J.EvansN.W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1, 6–34.
69.
HiguerasM. (2006). Las colocaciones y su enseñanza en la clase de ELE [Collocations and their teaching in the SFL classroom]. Arco Libros.
70.
HoeyM. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.
71.
HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins.
72.
HylandF. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.
73.
HylandK.HylandF. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
74.
Instituto Cervantes. (2006). Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes: Niveles de referencia para el español [Curricular plan of the Cervantes Institute: Reference levels for Spanish]. Instituto Cervantes. Available at: https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/plan_curricular/ (accessed August 2025).
75.
JantunenJ.H. (2017). Lexical and morphological priming: A holistic phraseological analysis of the Finnish time expression kello. In Pace-SiggeM.PattersonK. (Eds.), Lexical priming: Applications and advances (pp. 253–271). John Benjamins.
76.
JohnsonW. (1944). Studies in language behavior. I: A program of research. Psychological Monographs, 56.2(255), 1–15.
77.
KamiyaN.NakataT. (2021). Corrective feedback and the development of second language vocabulary. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 387–406). Cambridge University Press.
78.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
79.
KarimK.NassajiH. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3, 28–52.
80.
KepnerC. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313.
81.
KoplenigA. (2019). A non-parametric significance test to compare corpora. PLOS ONE, 14, 1–18.
82.
KormosJ. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.
83.
KulhavyR.W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211–232.
84.
LalandeJ.F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
85.
LauferB. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from form-focused activities. Language Teaching, 42, 341–354.
86.
LiS.VuonoA. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.
87.
López-SolàI.WannerL.López-FerreroC. (2025). Deconstructing the Library of Babel: Analysis of linguistic complexity in Spanish graded readers and literary works. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaf017
88.
MalvernD.RichardsJ.B.ChipereN.DuránP. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Palgrave MacMillan.
89.
ManchónR.M. (2011). Writing to learn the language. In ManchónR.M. (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). John Benjamins.
90.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.
91.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS. (2013). From intrinsic to extrinsic issues of lexical diversity assessment: An ecological validation study. In JarvisS.DallerM.H. (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 45–77). John Benjamins.
92.
NesselhaufN. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. John Benjamins.
93.
NicolD.MacFarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218.
94.
Nicolás-ConesaF.ManchónR.M.CerezoL. (2019). The effect of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feedback on rewritten texts and new texts: Looking into feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 103, 848–873.
95.
NittaR.BabaK. (2015). Self-regulation in the evolution of the ideal L2 self: A complex dynamic systems approach to the L2 motivational self-system. In DörnyeiZ.MacIntyreP.HenryA. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 367–396). Multilingual Matters.
96.
NittaR.BabaK. (2018). Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective: The case of a writing task. In BygateM. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (279–309). John Benjamins.
97.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
98.
OrtegaL. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.
99.
OrtegaL. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge. Original work published 2009.
100.
RamaprasadA. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28, 4–13.
101.
RobbT.RossS.ShortreedI. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–95.
102.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
103.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.
104.
RogersJ.RévészA. (2019). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. In McKinleyJ.RoseH. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 133–143). Routledge.
105.
SchmidtR.W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
106.
ScholzR.W.TietjeO. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage.
107.
SeawrightJ. (2016). Multi-method social science: Combining qualitative and quantitative tools. Cambridge University Press.
108.
SelinkerL. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209–232.
109.
SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
110.
SheenY. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
111.
SheenY. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer.
112.
SheenY.WrightD.MoldawaA. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569.
113.
SheppardK. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference?RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.
114.
SkehanP. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 37–62.
115.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
116.
StefanouC.RévészA. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282.
117.
StoneL. (2018). Research ethics and a case of positionality. In SmeyersP.DepaepeM. (Eds.), Educational research: Ethics, social justice, and funding dynamics (pp. 55–72). Springer.
118.
StorchN.TapperJ. (2009). The impact of an EAP course on postgraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 207–223.
119.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
120.
StroupW.W. (2013). Generalized linear mixed models: Modern concepts, methods, and applications. CRC Press.
121.
SuzukiW. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62, 1110–1133.
122.
TibshiraniR. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 58, 267–288.
123.
Treffers-DallerJ. (2013). Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French: An exploration of the validity of D, MTLD, and HD-D as measures of language ability. In JarvisS.DallerM.H. (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 79–103). John Benjamins.
124.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
125.
TruscottJ. (1999). The case for ‘the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.
126.
TruscottJ. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
127.
TruscottJ. (2010). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38, 329–335.
128.
TruscottJ.HsuA.Y.p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
129.
TweedieF.J.BaayenR.H. (1998). How variable may a constant be? Measures of lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 32, 323–352.
130.
UscinskiI. (2017). L2 learners’ engagement with direct written corrective feedback in first-year composition courses. Journal of Response to Writing, 3, 36–62.
131.
Van BeuningenC.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
132.
Van BeuningenC.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
133.
WilkinsD.A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. MIT Press.
134.
WindA.M.HardingL. (2020). Attractor states in the development of linguistic complexity in second language writing and the role of self-regulation: A longitudinal case study. In WanderL.MichelM.Rousse-MalpatA.KeijzerM.SteinkraussR. (Eds.), Usage-based dynamics in second language development: In celebration of Marjolijn Verspoor (pp. 130–154). Multilingual Matters.
135.
WinterB. (2020). Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. Routledge.
136.
XuC. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270–275.
137.
XuT.S.ZhangL.J.GaffneyJ.S. (2023). A multidimensional approach to assessing the effects of task complexity on L2 students’ argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 55, Article 100690.
138.
YinR.K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
139.
ZhangL.J.ChengX. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, Article 101043.
140.
ZhangT.ChenX.HuJ.KetwanP. (2021). EFL students’ preferences for written corrective feedback: Do error types, language proficiency, and foreign language enjoyment matter?Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 660564.
141.
ZhangZ.HylandK. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing, 51, Article 100586.
142.
ZhengY.YuS. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.
143.
ZimmermanB. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
