Written Corrective Feedback and Learners’ Objects, Beliefs, and Emotions

doi:10.1017/9781108589789.028

27 - Written Corrective Feedback and Learners’ Objects, Beliefs, and Emotions

from Part VII - Learners’ and Teachers’ Feedback Perspectives, Perceptions, and Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2021

Neomy Storch

Edited by

Hossein Nassaji and

Eva Kartchava

Show author details

Hossein Nassaji: Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava: Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Research on written corrective feedback (WCF) has tended to focus on the product; that is, the impact of WCF on learners’ accuracy in revised or new texts. In this chapter I use activity theory (AT) as a theoretical framework to consider learners’ response to feedback as a situated social activity. I argue that in order to understand how and why learners respond to teacher written corrective feedback (WCF), we need to consider the individual affective variables that drive human behavior and their interaction with contextual elements inherent in the immediate and broader social context in which the feedback activity takes place. Drawing on the small body of available research, I consider three key affective factors, namely learners’ goals and perceived language needs, captured by the term object in AT; learners’ beliefs about L2 writing and what constitutes effective feedback; and learners’ emotional reaction to the nature and quantity of the feedback received. I then discuss the interaction of these affective factors with contextual elements such as interpersonal relationships, power hierarchies, and expectations. I conclude by suggesting pedagogical practices and areas of future research that will provide us with a greater understanding of the processing and outcomes of WCF on L2 writing.

Keywords

Activity theory affective variables contextual variables engagement response to feedback goals beliefs emotions relationships

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 581 - 597
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.028 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, N. L. (2014). “Get it off my stack”: Teachers’ tools for grading papers. Assessing Writing, 19, 36–50.Google Scholar

Barbalet, J. (2002). Emotions and sociology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Benesch, S. (2012). Considering emotions in critical English language teaching: Theories and praxis. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Karchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 129–140). New York: Routledge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.Google Scholar

Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Han, Y. & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.Google Scholar

Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217–230.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171–182.Google Scholar

Hyland, F. (2011). The language learning potential of form-focused feedback on writing: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. In Manchón, R. (ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 159–180). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in ESL writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL classroom. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 278–292.Google Scholar

Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 4–18.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. P. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In Breen, M. (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp.141–158). London: Longman.Google Scholar

Lee, G. & Schallert, D. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher–student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 165–182.Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2007). Preparing pre-service English teachers for reflective practice. ELT Journal, 61(4), 321–329.Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2008b). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201–2013.Google Scholar

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218.CrossRef Google Scholar

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch, J. V. (ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar

Liu, Q. & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.Google Scholar

Mahfoodh., O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72.Google Scholar

Mahfoodh, O. H. A. & Pandian, A. (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.Google Scholar

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction controversy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389.Google Scholar

Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262–277.Google Scholar

Storch, N. & Aldossary, M. (2019). Peer feedback: An activity theory perspective on givers’ and receivers’ stances. In Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 123–144). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(3), 303–334.Google Scholar

Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010b). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: the role of learner agency/beliefs. In Batstone, R (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207.Google Scholar

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304.CrossRef Google Scholar

Värlander, S. (2008). The role of students’ emotions in formal feedback situations. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(2), 145–156.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17.Google Scholar

Zhu, W. & Mitchell, D. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.