CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Exploring Students’ Engagement with Peer-and Teacher Written Feedback in an EFL Writing Course: A Multiple Case Study of Iranian Graduate Learners

Open access
Department of Foreign Languages, Iran University of Science and Technology, Farsani, Mohammad Amini, Aghamohammadi, Nahid·2021·Mextesol Journal
DOI 10.61871/mj.v45n4-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent studies have highlighted the significance of learners’ engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF). However, comparative studies exploring graduate students’ engagement (i.e., cognitive, affective, and behavioral) with peers and teachers’ feedback in an L2 writing course is scarce. Hence, this multiple case study, using various sources such as a semi-structured interview, a narrative inquiry sheet, a peer feedback sheet, and students’ writing tasks, explored Iranian EFL graduate students’ engagement with peer- and teacher feedback. The findings revealed that all of the learners were engaged with the WCF they received from both their peers and instructor. However, the intensity of each dimension of engagement with peer and teacher WCF was different. Specifically, as for peer-feedback engagement, we found that behavioral engagement was the most frequent engagement type. The second most frequent was cognitive engagement and the least common was affective engagement. As for teachers’ feedback engagement, the findings revealed that cognitive engagement was the most frequent engagement type. The second most frequent was affective engagement, and the least common engagement type was behavioral engagement. Implications and recommendations with regards to learners’ engagement with peer and teacher written feedback are discussed in the light of the findings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.61871/mj.v45n4-1

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P. & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research. Routledge.
  2. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
  3. Carless, D. (2017). Students' experiences of assessment for learning. Springer.
  4. Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: Borderland spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Sage.
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2 nd ed.). Sage.
  6. Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168810375367 · DOI
  7. 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(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543074001059 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. De Gruyter.
  9. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F003465430298487 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Johnson, R. B., Christensen, L., (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (7 th ed.). Sage. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
  11. Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2017). Writing academic English as a doctoral student in Sweden: Narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.12.004 · DOI
  12. Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education. Academic Press.
  13. Saeli, H., & Cheng, A., (2019). Student writers' affective engagement with grammar-centered written corrective feedback: The impact of (mis)aligned practices and perceptions. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 109-132. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/28660/1882524846
  14. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzi & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Sage.
  15. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249- 276. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543068003249 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (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 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Department of Foreign Languages, I. U. O. S. A. T., Farsani, M. A., & Aghamohammadi, N.
Affiliations
Iran University of Science and Technology (IR)
ORCID
Farsani, Mohammad Amini
Venue
Mextesol Journal
Publisher
Asociación Mexicana de Maestros de Inglés MEXTESOL A.C.
Published
2021-11-01
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
1-17
ISSN
2395-9908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.61871/mj.v45n4-1
OpenAlex
W4399878345
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
Mextesol journal. (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
written corrective feedback, peer feedback, teacher feedback, student engagement, EFL writing, graduate students, cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, Iranian learners

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review