Technology-enhanced socialisation into disciplinary writing in L2: insights from the perceptions of MA TEFL students

ESL/EFL Learners' Responses to Teacher Written Feedback: Reviewing a Recent Decade of Empirical Studies

“…As Table 3 shows, more than 85% of the studies (N = 55) were conducted at the tertiary level including both English major and non-English major ESL/EFL learners; very few were in secondary and primary schools. In tertiary education, the participants in most of the reviewed studies were undergraduates (N = 45); few studies (N = 10) had postgraduates as their participants (Rivens Mompean, 2010;Storch and Wigglesworth, 2010;Mirzaee and Hasrati, 2014;Kim and Kim, 2017;Xu, 2017;Green, 2019;Zheng et al, 2020b;Anderson, 2021;Pitura, 2021;Saeed et al, 2021). The number of studies situated in China was 24.…”

“…The remaining 11 studies also chose university students as their main student participants to investigate learners' responses to TWF by linking them to various theories, covering at various responses in their studies. The theories included: the noticing hypothesis and output hypothesis (Hanaoka and Izumi, 2012); a taxonomy of academic emotions (Han and Hyland, 2019a); selfregulated learning (Xu, 2021); a tripartite definition of written feedback (Chong, 2019); dialogism (Turner, 2021); systemic functional linguistics (Zhang X., 2021); ecology (Lee et al, 2021); L2 socialization theory (Anderson, 2021;Pitura, 2021); a socio-constructivist approach (Rivens Mompean, 2010); the framework of learning-oriented language assessment (Kim and Kim, 2017); and a second language socialization theoretical framework (Anderson, 2021).…”

“…Face-to-face feedback was also more welcomed by EFL undergraduates in an English for academic purpose (EAP) program in a U.S. university in spite of the potential benefits of e-feedback (Ene and Upton, 2018). Six MA students who majored in ESL teaching argued that they preferred both oral in-class and written online out-of-class feedback on their master' thesis (Pitura, 2021).…”

“…Some learners preferred direct detailed feedback (e.g., direct corrective feedback) (Elwood and Bode, 2014;Niu et al, 2021) and others preferred indirect written feedback (e.g., indirect coded correction feedback or such feedback along with short affective comments) (Kim and Kim, 2017;Tang and Liu, 2018;Mujtaba et al, 2020). Similarly, no definite trend was discovered between the choice of selective (focused) feedback (Ferris et al, 2013) and comprehensive (unfocused) feedback (McMartin-Miller, 2014;Sherafati et al, 2020;Lee et al, 2021;Zhang and Cheng, 2021), but feedback that pointed out learners' L2 writing shortcomings (Pitura, 2021), was informative on the content (Bastola and Hu, 2021) or provided metalinguistic explanations for grammatical and orthographic errors was preferred by a certain number of English language learners. Also, learners seemed to prefer WCF in general as written comments (Ene and Kosobucki, 2016), or with the feature being coded (Han, 2019), or being explicit and overt compared with three other WCF types (underlining, error coded, metalinguistic explanation .…”

Data_Sheet_1.docx

“…As Table 3 shows, more than 85% of the studies (N = 55) were conducted at the tertiary level including both English major and non-English major ESL/EFL learners; very few were in secondary and primary schools. In tertiary education, the participants in most of the reviewed studies were undergraduates (N = 45); few studies (N = 10) had postgraduates as their participants (Rivens Mompean, 2010;Storch and Wigglesworth, 2010;Mirzaee and Hasrati, 2014;Kim and Kim, 2017;Xu, 2017;Green, 2019;Zheng et al, 2020b;Anderson, 2021;Pitura, 2021;Saeed et al, 2021). The number of studies situated in China was 24.…”