Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:28:45.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

By
Neomy Storch
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
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 theoryaffective variablescontextual variablesengagementresponse to feedbackgoalsbeliefsemotionsrelationships
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 581 - 597
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.)

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×