Document Type : Research article


1 Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran,

3 Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran


The examination of the literature reveals that scant attention has been paid to L2 graduate students’ engagement with feedback on their academic texts. To fill this gap in the literature, the current study investigated the engagement of 53 TEFL master’s degree students with peer comments using a host of data collection and analysis tools, including eye-tracking, stimulated recall interviews, and content analysis. The participants exchanged computer-mediated comments on an academic writing task (i.e., thesis proposal) and were asked to revise their texts based on these comments while their eye movements were being captured using an eye-tracking application. Then, the eye-tracking videos were employed as stimuli to extract the participants’ reasons for not applying the comments. In addition, the participants’ first and revised texts underwent content analysis, and their feedback incorporation strategies were identified. The findings of this study indicated that the participants applied more than two-thirds of the comments; however, justified elaborated feedback was adopted more than elaborated and concise general feedback. The participants also applied justified elaborated feedback more accurately than the other feedback types. Finally, the results showed that four main feedback qualities (being too general, incomprehensible, inapplicable, and faulty) adversely affected L2 MA students’ feedback incorporation. 


Main Subjects

  1. Amiryousefi, M. (2019). The incorporation of flipped learning into conventional classes to enhance EFL learners’ L2 speaking, L2 listening, and engagement. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching13(2), 147-161.
  2. Aubrey, S., King, J., & Almukhaild, H. (2020). Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study. RELC Journal, 53(3).
  3. Bahari, A., & Gholami, L. (2022). Challenges and affordances of reading and writing development in technology-assisted language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(1), 35-50.
  4. Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2016). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67-81.
  5. Berndt, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2018). Effects of written peer-feedback content and sender’s competence on perceptions, performance, and mindful cognitive processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education33(1), 31-49.
  6. Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2015). Inferring mindful cognitive processing of peer-feedback via eye-tracking: Role of feedback characteristics, fixation durations and transitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning31(5), 422-434.
  7. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education31(2), 219-233.
  8. Cutumisu, M., Turgeon, K. L., Saiyera, T., Chuong, S., González Esparza, L. M., MacDonald, R., & Kokhan, V. (2019). Eye tracking the feedback assigned to undergraduate students in a digital assessment game. Frontiers in psychology10.
  9. Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research17(3), 303-322.
  10. Donia, M. B., Mach, M., O’Neill, T. A., & Brutus, S. (2022). Student satisfaction with use of an online peer feedback system. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education47(2), 269-283.
  11. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349.
  12. Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing50(3), 65-85.
  13. Fernández-Michels, P., & Fornons, L. C. (2021). Learner Engagement with Corrective Feedback Using Think-Aloud Protocols. JALT CALL Journal17(3), 203-232.
  14. Fernando, W. (2020). Moodle quizzes and their usability for formative assessment of academic writing. Assessing Writing46.
  15. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction20(4), 304-315.
  16. Godfroid, A., & Hui, B. (2020). Five common pitfalls in eye-tracking research. Second Language Research36(3), 277-305.
  17. Gu´enette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53.
  18. Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System69, 133-142.
  19. Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes38, 1-13.
  20. Herazo, J. D., Davin, K. J., & Sagre, A. (2019). L2 dynamic assessment: An activity theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal103(2), 443-458.
  21. Hoomanfard, M. H., & Rahimi, M. (2020). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing ability. Journal of Language Research, 11(33), 327-352.
  22. Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science39(3), 387-406.
  23. Lachner, A., & Neuburg, C. (2019). Learning by writing explanations: Computer-based feedback about the explanatory cohesion enhances students’ transfer. Instructional Science47(1), 19-37.
  24. Mohammed, M. A. S., & AL-Jaberi, M. A. (2021). Google docs or Microsoft word? Master's students' engagement with instructor written feedback on academic writing in a cross-cultural setting. Computers and Composition62.
  25. Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education42(2), 266-288.
  26. Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science43(5), 591-614.
  27. Poehner, M. E., & Wang, Z. (2021). Dynamic assessment and second language development. Language Teaching54(4), 472-490.
  28. Ranalli, J. (2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing52
  29. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning45(2), 283-331.
  30. Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. The Modern Language Journal88(2), 192-216.
  31. Ryan, T., & Henderson, M. (2018). Feeling feedback: Students’ emotional responses to educator feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education43(6), 880-892.
  32. Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition29(1), 67-100.
  33. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.
  34. Sedikides, C., Luke, M. A., & Hepper, E. G. (2016). Enhancing feedback and improving feedback: Subjective perceptions, psychological consequences, behavioral outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology46(12), 687-700.
  35. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing22(3), 286-306.
  36. Sinclair, H. K., & Cleland, J. A. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative feedback? Medical education41(6), 580-582.
  37. Stevenson, M. & Phakiti, A. (2019). Automated feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 125-142). Cambridge University Press.
  38. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
  39. Van der Kleij, F. M., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2021). Student perceptions of assessment feedback: A critical scoping review and call for research. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability33(2), 345-373.
  40. Walker, M. (2015). The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education40(2), 232-247.
  41. Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Yao, Z., Yuan, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 50-65.
  42. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2018). The effects of autonomy support on student engagement in peer assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development66(1), 25-52.
  43. Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2022). Automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback: A systematic investigation of college students’ acceptance. Computer Assisted Language Learning35(9), 2817-2842.
  44. Zhan, Y., Wan, Z. H., & Sun, D. (2022). Online formative peer feedback in Chinese contexts at the tertiary Level: A critical review on its design, impacts and influencing factors. Computers & Education176. 
  45. Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing36, 90-102.
  46. Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development37(4), 883-897.