Although research on written corrective feedback has proliferated over the past decades, scant attention has been paid to how dyadic interaction pattern influence English-as-a-foreign-language learners’ behavioral engagement with feedback. This study explored the extent to which patterns of interaction affect the degree of learner engagement with teacher corrective feedback, learners’ revision behavior, and revision outcome. Forty learners of English as a foreign language on an advanced writing course participated in the study. Learners were provided with comprehensive teacher feedback on six writing tasks and were required to collaboratively process feedback over a 4-month semester. The qualitative analysis of recorded learner talk revealed that although the learners were at the same proficiency level, they adopted a variety of patterns of interaction including collaborative, expert/novice, dominant/dominant, and dominant/passive. By analyzing learners’ pair talk, revised texts, and retrospective interviews, the study revealed that, first, the pattern of dyadic interaction affects the degree of learner engagement with feedback, with collaborative pairs exhibiting a substantially higher amount of extensive engagement with feedback than non-collaborative pairs; second, the pattern of dyadic interaction affects learners’ revision behavior, with non-collaborative, particularly dominant–dominant pairs, showing several instances of unrevised and abandoned errors; and third, the pattern of dyadic interaction affects the outcome of revisions—the collaborative pairs revised their writings significantly more successfully than the non-collaboratives. Furthermore, learners’ perception of their partner’s proficiency was found to be a key factor contributing to a non-collaborative relationship between pair members. These findings are discussed based on relevant literature.
AlharthiS.M. (2025). Examining EFL learners’ quantity and quality of uptake of teacher corrective feedback on writing across three different editing settings. Assessing Writing, 63, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100911
2.
AllanD. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford University Press.
3.
Al-MalkiE.A.A.GulnazF.Zahid JavidC.ChaudhryM.Z. (2022). An empirical investigation of the EFL learners attitudes toward the effectiveness of cooperative learning. SAGE Open, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221141699
4.
AlsahilA.Abdel LatifM.M.M.AlsuhaibaniZ. (2024). Exploring EFL learner engagement with different teacher feedback modes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2374785
5.
BitchenerJ. (2012). A reflection on “the language learning potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006.
6.
BitchenerJ. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129–141). Routledge.
7.
BitchenerJ.FerrisD.R. (2012). Written corrective feedback: Second language acquisition and writing. Taylor & Francis.
8.
BitchenerJ.StorchN. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
9.
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. 171–176). Routledge.
10.
ChengX.LiuY. (2022). Student engagement with teacher written feedback: Insights from low-proficiency and high-proficiency L2 learners. System, 109, Article 102880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102880
11.
ChengX.LiuY.WangC. (2023). Understanding student engagement with teacher and peer feedback in L2 writing. System, 119, Article 103176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103176
12.
ChoH.KimY.J.ParkS. (2022). Comparing students’ responses to synchronous written corrective feedback during individual and collaborative writing tasks. Language Awareness, 31(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1937194
13.
CostleyJ.ZhangH.CourtneyM.ShulginaG.BaldwinM.FanguyM. (2023). Peer editing using shared online documents: The effects of comments and track changes on student L2 academic writing quality. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(5), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2233573
14.
CrawfordW.J. (2021). Multiple perspectives on learner interaction: The corpus of collaborative oral task. Walter de Gruyter.
15.
DamonW.PhelpsE. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X
16.
De GuerreroM.C.M.VillamilO.S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/328586
17.
DevosN.J. (2016). Peer interactions in new content and language integrated settings. Springer.
18.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ.P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex.
19.
EllisR. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44488131
20.
EllisR. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley.
21.
EllisR.ShintaniN. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
22.
FrearD.ChiuY. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Hamano-BunceD. (2022). The effects of direct written corrective feedback and comparator texts on the complexity and accuracy of revisions and new pieces of writing. Language Teaching Research, 29(6), 2460–2479. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221127643
25.
HanY. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.003
26.
HanY. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80, 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.009
27.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
28.
HanY.HylandF. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003
29.
HanZ.H. (2021). Corrective feedback from behaviorist and innatist perspectives. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching (pp. 23–43). Cambridge University Press.
30.
HanjaniA.M.LiL. (2014). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, 44, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.004
31.
HedgcockJ.LefkowitzN. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language writing, 1(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006
32.
HinkelE. (2022). Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning. Taylor & Francis.
33.
HylandF.HylandK. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
34.
HylandK. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
35.
KahyalarE.YılmazF. (2016). Teachers’ corrective feedback in writing classes: The impact of collaborating with a peer during the editing process on students’ uptake and retention. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 148–160.
36.
KartchavaE.NassajiH. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. Taylor & Francis.
37.
KartchavaE.NassajiH. (2024). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press.
38.
KimH.R.BowlesM. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think-alouds. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.522
KimY.EmeliyanovaL. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406 (Original work published 2021)
41.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388711
42.
KosT. (2023). Exploring peer support among young learners during regular EFL classroom lessons. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12456
LantolfJ.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
45.
LipnevichA.A.ToJ.Tan Heng KiatK. (2023). Unpacking students’ engagement with feedback: Pedagogy and partnership in practice. Routledge.
46.
Lira-GonzalesM.NassajiH. (2023). The differential effects of focused and comprehensive corrective feedback on accuracy of revision and new writing. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 79(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2021-0061
47.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BhtiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–454). Academic Press.
48.
MaM. (2025). L2 students’ engagement with written corrective feedback. In J.I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–7). Wiley.
49.
MahfoodhO.H.A.PandianA. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p14
50.
MaoZ.LeeI. (2024). Student engagement with written feedback: Critical issues and way forward. RELC Journal, 55(3), 810–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221150811
51.
MohammedM.A.S.AlharbiM.A. (2022). Cultivating learners’ technology-mediated dialogue of feedback in writing: Processes, potentials and limitations. Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(6), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1969637
52.
MoserA. (2020). Second language learning and teaching. Springer.
53.
MozaffariS.H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 496–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816641703
54.
MujtabaS.M.ReynoldsB.L.ParkashR.SinghM.K.M. (2021). Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision. Assessing Writing, 50(4), Article 100566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100566
55.
NguyenC.D. (2024). Scaffolding student engagement with written corrective feedback: Transforming feedback sessions into learning affordances. Language Teaching Research, 28(5), 1918–1939. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211040904
56.
Obanos-GilM.P.VillarrealI. (2025). Collaborative writing and written languaging: Effects on accuracy. In García MayoM.d.P. (Ed.), Investigating attention to form and individual differences: Research with EFL children (pp. 185–215). Springer.
57.
OhtaA.S. (2001) Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Erlbaum.
58.
PanJ.ChenH.YuanS. (2023). A comparative study of the engagement with written corrective feedback of Chinese private college students. Asian Journal of Second Foreign Language Education, 8(18), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00191-8
59.
ParkE.KimO. (2019). Learners’ engagement with indirect written corrective feedback: Depth of processing and self-correction. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 212–226). Routledge.
60.
PengC.X. (2024). Beyond accuracy gains: Investigating the impact of individual and collaborative feedback processing on L2 writing development. Assessing Writing, 61, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100876
61.
PengC.X.StorchN.KnochU. (2023). Greater coverage vs. Deeper processing? Comparing individual and collaborative processing of teacher feedback. Language Teaching Research, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231214910
62.
PolioC. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
63.
PoortI.JansenE.HofmanA. (2020). Does the group matter? Effects of trust, cultural diversity, and group formation on engagement in group work in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1839024
64.
QiD.S.LapkinS. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7
65.
Roca de LariosJ.CoyleY. (2021). Learners’ engagement with written corrective feedback in individual and collaborative L2 writing conditions. In PolioC.ManchónR. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 81–93). Routledge.
66.
RogoffB. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.
67.
SachsR.PolioC. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039
68.
SaeedM.A.AlharbiM.A. (2023). Towards fostering Saudi EFL learners’ collaborative engagement and feedback literacy in writing. Assessing Writing, 56(7), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100721
69.
SatoM.Dussuel LamC. (2021). Metacognitive instruction with young learners: A case of willingness to communicate, L2 use, and metacognition of oral communication. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 899–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211004639
70.
SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learner’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007
71.
ShenR.ChongS.W. (2023). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL and EFL contexts: A qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468
72.
SinhaT.S.NassajiH. (2022). ESL learners’ perception and its relationship with the efficacy of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12378
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Channel View Publications.
75.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
76.
SunH.WangM. (2022). Effects of teacher intervention and type of peer feedback on student writing revision. Language Teaching Research, 29(3), 1094–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221080507
77.
SuzukiW. (2018). Negotiation of meaning versus negotiation of form. In LiontasJ.I. (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Wiley.
78.
SuzukiW.NassajiH.SatoK. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
79.
SwainM. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In ByrnesH. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). Continuum.
80.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Longman.
81.
TabariM.A.SatoM.WangY. (2023). Engagement with written corrective feedback: Examination of feedback types and think-aloud protocol as pedagogical interventions. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231202574
82.
TajabadiA.AhmadianM.DowlatabadiH.YazdaniH. (2020). EFL learners’ peer negotiated feedback, revision outcomes, and short-term writing development: The effect of patterns of interaction. Language Teaching Research, 27(3), 689–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820951207
83.
TayH.Y.LamK.W.L. (2022). Students’ engagement across a typology of teacher feedback practices. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 21, 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-09315-2
84.
Tocalli-BellerA.SwainM. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00078.x
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press.
87.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1743712
88.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005.
89.
YangL.YangM. (2018). Exploring the power of teacher feedback in Chinese students: Testing the relationships between students’ feedback beliefs and student engagement. In LiemG.A.TanS.H. (Eds.), Asian education miracles in search of sociocultural and psychological explanations (pp. 155–173). Routledge.
90.
YangL.ZhangL.J. (2023). Self-regulation and student engagement with feedback: The case of Chinese EFL student writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 63, Article 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101226
91.
YoungA.TedickD.J. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). John Benjamins.
92.
ZhangZ. (2022). Promoting student engagement with feedback: Insights from collaborative pedagogy and teacher feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1933900
93.
ZhangZ.HylandK. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004.
94.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
95.
ZhengY.YuS.LiuZ. (2020). Understanding individual differences in lower-proficiency students’ engagement with teacher written corrective feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(2), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1806225.
