Abstract

The present multiple-case study, based on the multi-dimensional perspective on student engagement with Corrective Feedback (CF) proposed by Ellis (2010), set out to scrutinize students’ behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) provided by two different sources: teacher WCF and automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Writing Mentor. To this end, four Iranian EFL learners – two limited proficient and two modestly proficient writers – were selected purposefully from two sections of an academic writing course, one providing teacher WCF and the other AWCF. Participants in both sections wrote five argumentative essays during an academic term, received feedback on grammar, usage, and mechanics, and made revisions. The results demonstrated that the participants had different engagement levels and were categorized as highly engaged, moderately engaged, and minimally engaged students. In section 1, both participants who received teacher WCF were behaviorally and cognitively engaged with the feedback; however, one participant spent more time, used more resources, and showed more revision acts. Regardless of their behavioral and cognitive engagement level, they both demonstrated deep affective engagement with teacher feedback. In section 2, while one participant who received AWCF demonstrated deep and active engagement in all three dimensions, the other participant was reluctant to respond to the feedback and demonstrated a minimal level of engagement. Findings indicate that students’ engagement with WCF, whether provided by a teacher or automated writing evaluation system, is influenced by students’ beliefs and attitudes toward feedback and the sources of that feedback. Students’ writing proficiency was not clearly or consistently related to their degree of feedback engagement.

Suggested citation