System 80 (2019) 288e303

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective:

The interaction between the context and individual learners
Ye Han
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, Room G416, Harbin Institute of Technology,
Shenzhen, University Town of Shenzhen, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518055, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Previous research has identified a range of learner factors and contextual factors that
Received 24 April 2018 mediate L2 learners' engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF). However, much
Received in revised form 5 December 2018 remains to be known about how these factors impact individual learners' engagement
Accepted 21 December 2018
with WCF in L2 classrooms. To address this issue, the paper draws upon the ecological
Available online 26 December 2018
perspective on language learning to discuss the data collected in a case study on Chinese
university EFL students' engagement with WCF. Data were collected from multiple re-
Keywords:
sources including students' writing, verbal reports, interviews, field notes, and class doc-
Written corrective feedback
Ecological perspective
uments. While the context, ranging from the textual level to the broad sociocultural level,
Affordance was found to provide resources that could afford learning, engagement hinged on whether
Learner agency students were able and willing to perceive and use those affordances. The findings suggest
Engagement that learner engagement with WCF can be conceptualized as a process of perceiving and
acting upon embedded learning opportunities afforded by WCF, and highlight the
importance of establishing an alignment between affordances and learner agency to
enhance individual students’ engagement with written feedback.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Learner engagement with feedback, i.e., how learners process, use, and react to this pedagogical tool, has attracted
increasing scholarly attention in the field of second language (L2) writing (e.g., Zhang, 2017; Zhang & Hyland, 2018; Zheng &
Yu, 2018). Contextualized studies have consistently reported the dynamic and multi-faceted nature of learner engagement
with written corrective feedback (WCF), with multiple learner factors and contextual factors coming into play (Han & Hyland,
2015; Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, 2013; Zhang & Hyland, 2018; Zheng & Yu, 2018). Although some of these factors have been
identified and examined (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Shintani & Ellis, 2015), the crux of the matter, which remains under-
explored, is the ways in which learner factors and contextual factors impact learner engagement in authentic classrooms.
The current understanding of this issue can be extended by taking an ecological perspective on language learning, which
(a) foregrounds the relationship between each individual and the environment, (b) embraces the richness and complexity of
the context (van Lier, 1997, 2000, 2004), and (c) rejects the simplistic, cause-effect relationship in language development
(Anderson, 2016; Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013; Kramsch, 2008). This perspective, however, has drawn little attention in the
research of WCF. To address this gap, the paper draws upon the ecological perspective to discuss data collected from a case

E-mail address: hanye@hit.edu.cn.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.009
0346-251X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303 289

study on Chinese EFL university students, with a focus on how learner factors and contextual factors come together to shape
learner engagement with WCF.

2. Literature review

2.1. Learner engagement with WCF and mediating factors

Ellis (2010) conceptualized learner engagement with CF as how learners respond to that feedback, which involves
cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions. This framework has been enriched in recent studies and now encompasses
how learners cognitively process, behaviorally respond to, and affectively react to WCF (Han & Hyland, 2015; Zhang & Hyland,
2018; Zheng & Yu, 2018). Learner engagement with WCF has been found to be dynamic and vary across individuals (Zheng &
Yu, 2018), mediated by both learner factors and contextual factors simultaneously (Ellis, 2010; Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, &
Wolfersberger, 2010; Murphy & Roca de Larios, 2010).
Murphy and Roca de Larios' (2010) review article identified multiple learner factors affecting engagement with WCF, such
as age (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014), language aptitude (e.g., Sheen, 2011), learning style (Rahimi, 2015), motivation (e.g.,
Goldstein, 2006), goals (e.g., F. Hyland, 2003), and beliefs (e.g., Han, 2017; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). Motivation, goals,
and beliefs could form learners' own agenda, which is not necessarily aligned with the teacher's agenda and thus can lead to
superficial engagement (F. Hyland, 1998). In addition, high L2 proficiency (e.g., Qi & Lapkin, 2001) and a broader repertoire of
learning strategies are conducive to deeper understanding of WCF and more active help-seeking efforts (Han, 2017; Zhang &
Hyland, 2018).
Contextual factors have been grouped in different ways. However, a consensus is that WCF is situated within layers of
contexts, ranging from the most immediate to the broad social and cultural context. Ellis (2010) and Murphy and Roca de
Larios (2010) divided contextual factors into those at the macro level (ESL, EFL, immersion contexts, and learning-to-write
or writing-to-learn settings) and those rooted in the micro-level contexts (the classroom context). Evans et al. (2010)
distinguished situational variables (i.e., contextual factors within and beyond the classroom ranging from the institutional
rationale to classroom atmosphere) from methodological variables (i.e., how WCF is provided to students).
However, little is known about the impact of these contextual factors on learner engagement. Much research has
examined the role of the characteristics of WCF (e,g., explicitness and scope) on one or two aspects of learner engage-
mentdlearner understanding of WCF and revisions, yielding inclusive results (see the review in Bitchener & Ferris, 2012).
Nonetheless, other contextual factors have been overlooked in the research on WCF (Goldstein, 2006). The social-oriented
research on written feedback, on the other hand, contributed to the field with comprehensive and detailed accounts of
the context, covering instructional, interpersonal, interactional aspects of the context, as well as curricular, programmatic,
institutional, and sociopolitical and sociocultural factors (Goldstein, 2006; Hyland & Hyland, 2006a). This body of literature
also highlighted the interaction between different factors arising from different levels of the context. For instance, teacher
provision of WCF can be influenced by institutional, programmatic, and curricular goals (e.g., Lee, 2008).
The wide range of learner factors and contextual factors reflects “the richness and complexity of classroom life”
(Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013, p. 782), and learner engagement with WCF is a part of such life. The complexity arises, as
multiple factors sometimes create synergy to facilitate learning, but they may also exert counterforces to one another (Evans
et al., 2010). The dynamic relationship between learner factors and contextual factors, however, cannot be captured in
experimental or quasi-experimental studies that “single out one factor as main source” (Lee, 2008, p. 157). In contrast, this
issue can be more thoroughly understood from the ecological perspective, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of
individuals and the context while rejecting an approach to examining human activity in isolation.

2.2. The ecological perspective on language learning

The ecological perspective views humans as organisms interrelated with their surrounding environments
(Bronfenbrenner, 1993; van Lier, 2000; Wozniak & Fischer, 1993). This interrelationship is constructed as organisms exercising
their agency to perceive possible actions in the environment (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008; Thoms, 2014), known as affordance
(van Lier, 1997, 2000, 2004, based on Gibson, 1979). Importantly, although resources embedded in the environment afford
actions, actions do not necessarily occur. Individuals need to (a) have the capability to perceive that possible action (Gibson,
1979; Reed, 1993), and (b) intend to act upon them (Reed, 1993; also see the role of motivation in van Lier, 2004). That is, a
“match” between the environment and an agent (van Lier, 2004, p. 96) is needed to realize affordances.
From the ecological perspective, L2 learners are also active agents perceiving the environmental surroundings in relation
to themselves (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; van Lier, 2000) based on their will and capacity (Gao, 2010; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001).
Learner engagement with WCF can be seen as a process in which learners perceive and utilize language learning opportu-
nities afforded by WCF (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). For learning opportunities, or affordances, to be perceived and seized in the
WCF-related context, the “match” between individual learners' will, capacity, and the context is crucial. The opportunities
afforded by feedback may go unheeded if they are beyond an individual learner's developmental level (Aljaafreh & Lantolf,
1994). Also, learners are not willing to act upon some opportunities that are not considered useful, which is illustrated by
two participants' abandonment of a particular type of feedback in Storch and Wigglesworth's (2010) study.
290 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303

In addition to the variations in individual learners’ capacity and will, their surrounding environments also vary. Similar to
the layered structure of the context reviewed in Section 2.1, the ecological perspective also conceptualizes the context as a
nested ecosystem covering a set of sub-systems, ranging from the most immediate settings to the macro-level social and
cultural context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993; Peng, 2012, 2014; van Lier, 2003, 2004). van Lier (2003) recognizes that even
learners who are in the same classroom may still receive different instructions, engage in different activities (also see
Coughlan & Duff, 1994), and be exposed to different learning resources outside classroom. Given that resources obtained by
individual learners vary, it is not unexpected that specific learning opportunities accessible to individual learners also differ in
WCF-related situations.
Since both learner agency and accessible resources arising from the context vary, what constitutes a “match” for one
student may become a “mismatch” for another. This dynamic relationship between learner factors and contextual factors
helps to explain individual variations in students' engagement with feedback. Bitchener and Storch (2016, pp. 98e99) briefly
discussed how the notion of affordance can explain individual variations in learner engagement with WCF, but this ecological
perspective has barely been used on an empirical basis. To narrow the research gap, this paper looks at two Chinese EFL
university students’ engagement with WCF through the lens of an ecological perspective, guided by the following questions:

a) What learner factors and contextual factors influence learner engagement with WCF?
b) In what ways do the two sets of factors together influence learner engagement with WCF?

3. Methods

3.1. Research context

To understand learner engagement in situ, a sketch of overall sociocultural characteristics of the Chinese context is in
order, before introducing the classroom context.

3.1.1. The sociocultural context

Two features of the Chinese context are relevant to the current inquiry. The first is the Chinese culture of learning, which is
deeply rooted in Confucian philosophy (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). Students are expected to respect teachers as authority and to
follow their instructions meticulously and not to challenge their teaching or authority (Ho & Crookall, 1995; Peng, 2014).
Second, the favored teaching and learning mode is knowledge-transmission, which encourages repetition, reviewing,
memorization with understanding, and reproduction (Hu, 2002; Watkins & Biggs, 2001). Despite these characteristics of the
Chinese context, due to the diversity of the Chinese society and the dynamicity of culture (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006), researchers
cautioned against hasty generalizations about Chinese EFL classrooms (e.g., Hu, 2002; Peng, 2014). Detailed descriptions at
the program and classroom levels are necessary to understand the research context thoroughly.

3.1.2. The institution, the curriculum, and the classroom

The study was situated in a first-tier university in southeastern China. In China, universities and colleges are classified into
three tiers on merit, with the first tier being the highest. Undergraduate students who were not English majors were placed
into one of five course levels (preparatory to level four) according to their performance in the in-house placement test upon
their arrival at the university. They were required to pass level four to obtain their bachelor's degree. The class on which the
paper focuses was a level-four class, which covered a range of language skills but emphasized writing. All writing tasks were
five-paragraph argumentative essays. In each task, students read an argumentative essay first and wrote a critique to analyze
the logical problems thereof. An example of the prompts is given in Appendix A. However, only the first essay (E1) was
produced outside classes and involved two complete drafts, whereas the other essays were single-draft compositions
completed within 30 min in class. Since the prompts of the second essay (E2) was reused later in the semester, teachers of this
course collectively decided that students could only study teacher feedback on E2 in class and take notes. That is, E2 with
feedback was collected again immediately after a brief period of feedback reading and note taking. Similar opportunities to
study feedback and/or take notes were no longer offered later in the semester. Therefore, the current analysis focused
exclusively on learner engagement with WCF on E1 and E2.
The course also involved instruction on five focal grammatical structures stipulated in the syllabus: (a) plurality/singu-
larity; (b) subject-verb agreement; (c) countable and uncountable nouns; (d) fragments; and, (e) use of articles before
countable, uncountable, and proper nouns, and zero article. The teacher used PowerPoint slides to present explicit in-
struction, exemplar sentences, and form-focused blank-filling and error correction exercises.

3.2. Data collection

The study took a case-study approach to understand students' experiences as lived in their context, which is essential for
research taking the ecological perspective (van Lier, 2003). Data were collected over a 16-week semester from multiple
sources, including students' drafts with written feedback (all feedback was handwritten), semi-structured interviews,
retrospective verbal reports, classroom observations, and class documents. Interviews were conducted at the beginning and
 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303 291

Table 1
Timeline of data collection.

Timeline Data collection procedures

Week 1 Diagnostic writing
Week 2e3 The first interview
Week 5e6 E1 assigned and collected
Week 8e9 E1 returned with teacher feedback
The first retrospective verbal report
E2 completed in class
Week 10e11 E2 returned with teacher feedback
Students took notes of feedback in class
The second retrospective verbal report
Midterm writing test
Week 15 E3 completed in class
Week 16 Final interview
Throughout the semester Classroom observations
Collection of class documents

at the end of the semester with each participant based on the interview guide (see Appendix B). Participants decided in which
language each interview was conducted. English was chosen by the teacher participant, whereas Chinese mandarin was
chosen by all student participants. Retrospective verbal reports took place immediately after each student finished revising
E1, and again after the class session in which they received feedback on E2. The students were given explicit instruction (see
Appendix C) at the beginning of each session. The students’ drafts with teacher feedback, as well as their revisions, were used
as prompts. The researcher read aloud WCF and each error and the individual student recalled and verbalized thoughts when
he or she was reading this piece of feedback and handling the particular error. Some emergent, follow-up questions were
raised by the researcher at the end of verbal reports.
While the focus was on the students' engagement with WCF on E1 and E2, all class sessions were observed because the
researcher (a) needed to stay open to the emergent issues related to learner engagement, and (b) could not predetermine if
the teacher would change the syllabus and other writing tasks. Field notes recorded (a) teacher instruction about L2 writing,
grammar, feedback, and revision, and (b) the student participants’ in-class performance and their actions during class breaks.
Related documents, e.g., writing prompts, the syllabus, handouts, teaching slides, were collected. Table 1 presents the data
collection timeline.

3.3. Participants

3.3.1. The teacher participant and her WCF practices

The teacher, Natalie (all names are pseudonyms) is from the US and had more than 20 years' experience teaching English in
the US, Asia, and Europe. Since the program had no guidelines on feedback, Natalie provided feedback on students’ writing as
she preferred. Since teachers of the level-four course decided that all the writing tasks should involve just one or two drafts,
multiple drafts were often not practical. Natalie thus provided content feedback as well as WCF on the same draft.
She employed a range of WCF strategies, with indirect WCF (i.e., indicating errors but withholding target forms) being the
most frequently provided, followed by coded WCF (i.e., using codes to identify the categories of errors), direct WCF (i.e., overt
correction), and indirect WCF with metalinguistic explanations. However, Natalie neither explained her WCF strategies nor
provided keys to coded WCF before returning E1 to students. Although she claimed to focus on the five focal structures in the
interview, her WCF covered a wider variety of error categories. After E1 was returned with feedback, students were required
to submit a revised draft in a week. After E2 was returned, Natalie walked around the classroom answering questions from
individual students, while her students were studying her feedback and taking notes.

3.3.2. Student participants

Liu, an average student, and Feng, an under-achieving student, consented to participate. They were selected because their
L2 proficiency levels and L2 writing abilities were similar to those of the majority in the class. Liu's and Feng's performance
levels were determined based on (a) the diagnostic writing task that Natalie planned and administrated in the first class, (b)
observations of in-class performance and participation, and (c) Natalie's recommendation. Additionally, like the majority of
their classmates, neither initiated nor attended a teacher-student writing conference outside classroom, which could have a

Table 2
Background information of student participants.

Name Performance level Major Gender Year of college

Liu Average Public Administration Female Second year
Feng Under-achieving Advertising Male Second year
292 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303

Table 3
The thematic codes of relationship between learner factors and contextual factors that mediates learner engagement with WCF.

Categories Description Examples

Alignment (a) Capacity-appropriate: The learning opportunities embedded ine.g., Liu received coded WCF on morphosyntactical errors in her E1.
She had prior knowledge to decipher and comprehend the feedback
WCF are appropriate for a student given his/her developmental
level; and was able to figure out corrections.
(b) Willingness-appropriate: The learning opportunities
e.g., Liu believed coded WCF was offered to important errors, and
embedded in WCF are perceived as useful and usable was thus willing to understand and revise errors that received this
type of feedback.
Misalignment (a) Capacity-inappropriate: The learning opportunities embedded e.g., Liu failed to understand WCF on word choice errors or figure out
in WCF are beyond a student's developmental level, i.e., stu- revisions.
dents were unable to understand WCF or figure out corrections; e.g., Feng was unable to follow and comprehend Natalie's
explanations of coded WCF in class, leading to his limited
understanding of coded WCF.
(b) Willingness-inappropriate: The learning opportunities e.g., Liu was reluctant to exert effort to process errors receiving
embedded in WCF are perceived as useless and/or unusable indirect WCF.
e.g., Feng regarded content-based revision more urgent and
important than form-based revision, leading to his marginal
attention paid to WCF.

remarkable impact on engagement (Han & Hyland, 2015). No gender strategy was taken when recruiting the students. Table 2
presents Liu's and Feng's background information.

3.4. Data analysis

Data analysis involved analysis of students' written texts to investigate the characteristics of WCF and the quality of
students' revisions, and content analysis (Patton, 2002) of the data collected from interviews, verbal reports, field notes, and
class documents. The text analysis adopted coding schemes for errors, WCF, and student revisions adapted from Ferris (2006)
and F. Hyland (2003). Linguistic errors were identified from the students' drafts and categorized based on Ferris's (2006)
taxonomy of errors. Each intervention of linguistic accuracy was considered as a WCF point (F. Hyland, 2003), categorized
into direct WCF, indirect WCF, coded WCF, and indirect WCF with metalinguistic explanation and quantified. Each WCF point
was then cross-linked to students' revisions in the final draft or in their notes, which were categorized into correct revisions,
incorrect revisions, deletions, substitutions, and no revision.
Interviews and verbal reports were transcribed verbatim. Drafts with written feedback, transcripts, field notes, and
documents related to each student were compiled to form individual case profiles. The first cycle of coding (Miles, Huberman,
& Saldan ~ a, 2013) involved reading case profiles repeatedly and labeling data chunks that informed learner engagement with
WCF. The preliminary codes were combined and revised both grounded on the data and informed by the analytic framework
of learners’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement with WCF (Han & Hyland, 2015; Zheng & Yu, 2018). This cycle of
coding also involved descriptively labeling learner factors and contextual factors that influenced engagement with WCF.
The second cycle of coding mainly involved cross-case comparisons to identify common patterns regarding the rela-
tionship between learner factors and contextual factors in mediating learner engagement with WCF. Two themes emerged
out of the cross-case analysis: alignment and misalignment between learner agency and contextual factors. Each theme were
further broken down into two conditions: capacity-(in)appropriate or willingness-(in)appropriate (see Table 3). The second
round of iterative coding also validated emergent findings and facilitated the construction of case narratives.
Various strategies were employed to maximize the trustworthiness of the data analysis. Triangulation was conducted
through identifying and cross-referencing evidence collected from different sources in support of each theme (Creswell,
2002). Participants' feedback was elicited on preliminary findings. Also, the researcher's prolonged engagement in the
field allowed for an understanding of participants' native perspective. However, to reduce the risk of “adopt[ing] the norms,
values, and behaviors” of the researched (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 404), the researcher constantly recorded
reflections in field notes and memos.

4. Findings

4.1. Liu: perceiving and utilizing learning opportunities afforded by coded WCF and peer support

Liu was an average student in the class. Although she had little intrinsic motivation to learn English and did not see English
playing a significant role in her future career, she was a dutiful student, who took notes carefully, followed teacher instruction
meticulously, and completed homework in a timely fashion throughout the semester.
She received 32 WCF points of various types on her E1 totaling 660 words, along with feedback on content and organi-
zation. Liu did not pay equal attention to different types of WCF. She was much more willing to work on errors receiving coded
WCF than those marked by other type of WCF: “[I]f she (Natalie) did not leave these marks (codes), I probably would just skim
it. […] I felt these (errors with coded WCF) are perhaps more important” (first verbal report).
 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303 293

Fig. 1. Textual excerpt of indirect WCF with metalinguistic explanation on Liu's E1.

Not only was she attentive to coded WCF, Liu was also largely successful in deciphering it, for instance:
Researcher: She wrote “SP” here. What did you think it was?
Liu: SP? She, she believed that I made a spelling mistake. (first verbal report)
Liu's processing of coded WCF was facilitated by her prior knowledge about metalinguistic codes. Her high school English
teachers had provided coded WCF and used metalinguistic codes to write in shorthand. This prior knowledge even helped her
cope with partly illegible metalinguistic feedback. An example of illegible WCF is given in Fig. 1.
Although Liu did not understand the metalinguistic explanation “need parallel,” she compared the metalinguistic codes N
and V and realized Natalie's intention.
Liu: She said this is a noun, and this is a verb. Does it mean … they should be of the same part of speech?
Researcher: Well, did you understand what she wrote here [pointing to ‘need parallel’]?
Liu: I couldn't see it clearly. I couldn't recognize the spelling. (first verbal report)
However, Liu's prior knowledge did not always align with coded WCF on her draft. She was confused by the code “WC”
(word choice). To figure out the problem, she connected the code to Natalie's in-class instruction. Nevertheless, due to Liu's
partial understanding of the instruction, this attempt turned out to be unsuccessful.
WC
… its poor of evidence …
Liu: Just this “poor”; it is also a word choice bias. (first verbal report)
Liu failed to identify the error source because she mistook this lexical error for a logical problem, called word choice bias,
which had been introduced to the class as a common logical problem in argumentative writing and appeared in handouts and
teaching slides. Liu's misinterpretations suggest that, while in-class instruction and teaching materials can be picked up to
process WCF, they may be counterproductive if not thoroughly comprehended.
Although Liu was able to interpret most coded WCF, she was often uncertain about her understanding of error sources and
her revision. She was aware of the external resources that she could consult e online dictionaries, neighboring students, and
the teacher, but Liu intentionally avoided interacting with Natalie. She considered that consulting peers was logistically more
practical with her friends “just seated next to me” (final interview) and psychologically more comfortable: She felt “closer to
them (peers)” and was afraid of “stumbl[ing] a lot” when interacting with a native speaker teacher (first verbal report), who
she considered authoritative.
Liu used an online dictionary occasionally, but the way that she utilized the dictionary led to her misunderstanding of
metalinguistic rules, for instance:
… by the people who have good knowledge in the relative aspect.
Researcher: When you just saw this word, when you just saw the circle around “knowledges,” what were you thinking?
Liu: Um … When I just saw it, I just … because I looked it up before, and I know it has a plural form. In fact, I am not sure
why it is incorrect. So, I was thinking whether it should be singular, so I crossed “-s” out. But I haven't confirmed it yet.
Researcher: How did you find out it has a plural form?
Liu: Youdao. (first verbal report)
Youdao is the name of a bilingual dictionary online. The researcher checked Youdao after the interview, and did not find
such information. Liu might have misread or misremembered the dictionary entry. Despite having doubts about her revision,
Liu did not return to the dictionary and check. Instead, she chose to ask a neighboring classmate to confirm her revision.
In addition to seeking peer support and using an online dictionary, Liu employed another learning strategy–reading aloud
to memorize, as guided by the Chinese culture of learning and her intention to be a dutiful student. “I would read them (codes
and target structures). Sometimes I read them aloud […] when I am by myself. […] It is easier to remember when I read aloud”
(final interview).
In terms of revision, Liu revised E1 more extensively to address content and organization problems that Natalie had
pointed out. While many linguistic errors disappeared after content-based revision, Liu confessed that some extensive
294 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303

revisions in the form of deletions and substitutions were driven by the intention of avoidance because she “failed to figure out
how to correct these errors” (first verbal report). Most of the challenging errors either received indirect WCF or were word
choice problems. In contrast, WCF and errors in her E2 were more accessible. Most WCF on E2 was coded WCF, of which she
had prior knowledge. The errors that Natalie marked out in E2 were rule-based morphosyntactical errors. Although word
choice problems still existed, they were not marked by WCF. Liu thus successfully corrected 20 out of 21 errors receiving WCF
in E2.

4.2. Feng: learning opportunities embedded in WCF often going unheeded

Feng was an under-achieving student in class. He said he could not write a completely accurate draft, and feedback, in his
eyes, indicated learning opportunities and teachers’ personal attention. Although he also considered the teacher as
authoritative, he was not at all afraid of interacting with Natalie face-to-face.
Feng received nine WCF points out of 417 words in his E1, together with feedback on content and organization. He focused
primarily on content issues, based on the belief that some errors would be eliminated after content-based revision. The
decision was also driven by his self-confidence in addressing linguistic errors: “If I check carefully, I am able to identify those
tense and word form errors that she marked out. However, as for structure and content [problems], if you don't remind me, I
really cannot figure out proper ways to express my idea” (final interview). Therefore, although Feng approached Natalie after
receiving E2 over a class break, he only discussed organization problems of his draft. He reported that he did not discuss any
linguistic errors with the teacher.
Unlike Liu, Feng was not equipped with the prior knowledge of coded WCF.
WF
So, we can say, it's just the imagine of author.
Feng: I didn't know what she meant by “WF”. (first verbal report)
Since this was the only piece of coded WCF on E1, Feng's failure to interpret this coded WCF did not incur many problems
in producing the final draft of E1. However, he received as many as six pieces of coded WCF on E2 and became befuddled.
Feng: I don't know what this “SP” meant.
Researcher: How about this “PL”?
Feng: I don't know … When Natalie wrote these abbreviations down, I don't know what those meant. (second verbal
report)
Although Natalie was observed to explain such metalinguistic codes as ART (article), PL (plural), and SP (spelling) to the
class when returning E2, Feng's limited listening skills restricted him from applying the English-only instruction to inter-
preting coded WCF. He complained multiple times in the interviews that Natalie had spoken too fast, and stated that he did
not know that the teacher had explained coded WCF. In fact, the first verbal report also shows that Feng was totally unaware
that the teacher had announced the opportunities for one-on-one writing conferences before assigning E1, which was the
very reason that he did not sign up for one. This further supported that Natalie's in-class instruction went unheeded or
sounded incomprehensible for him.
Like Liu, Feng used some learning opportunities that WCF and related learning resources afforded. When revising his
drafts, Feng consulted external resources, mostly online dictionaries and spelling check of word processing software. He used
online dictionaries to confirm some revision, such as “clarified”.
It clarif that air pollution and solid wastes have a deep impact on water pollution, …
Feng: At the very time I saw her circle, I knew it was a wrong form. Then I looked up the difference between clarify and
clarified on the dictionary. [..] In fact, I knew how to correct it even without using the dictionary, but I could be more
certain if I looked it up. (first verbal report)
Feng even stayed critical of direct WCF and did not copy it down mechanically. He used the spelling check of word
processing software to monitor Natalie's suggested correction. When the teacher offered an overt correction “eco-friendly” on
his E1, Feng doubted whether the word should be hyphenated: “I wrote like this (eco-friendly). I don't know whether it is
wrong because there was a hyphen after ‘eco’. But, if I type this on the computer, the computer marks the hyphenated form as
misspelled” (first verbal report). He finally adopted the correction suggested by the computer.
? ¼ to be eco-friendly
… using paper bags is good to friendly environment rather than plastic bags
⇨ … using paper bags is ecofriendly environment rather than plastic bags
However, while Liu considered WCF and corrections as learning materials that can prepare her for future writing, Feng did
not take such initiatives, out of his strong self-efficacy beliefs about his memory capacity. “I never took notes or kept an error
 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303 295

Table 4
Learner factors influencing Liu's and Feng's engagement with WCF.

Categories Explanations Examples

Capacity- Language The students' English performance levels in class (high- Feng complained multiple times in the interviews that he failed
related abilities achieving, average, or under-achieving) to follow Natalie's in-class instruction because of her speech
factors rate. He did not catch Natalie's instruction about the opportunity
for writing conferences and about coded WCF.
Metalinguistic The students' metalinguistic knowledge e.g., Liu did not understand that “knowledge” was uncountable.
knowledge e.g., Feng believed that the plural form of “human” is “humen”.
Prior The students' knowledge about the meaning of codes e.g., Liu learned from her high school English teacher that SP
knowledge of used to indicate linguistic errors meant spelling errors, but Feng did not have that knowledge and
coded WCF were thus confused by the same code.
Willingness- Learner beliefs The students' views, opinions, conceptualizations about: (a) Person-related belief: e.g., Liu was concerned about her
related (a) persons involved in the learning task (self, teacher, abilities to interact with Natalie effectively, so that she avoided
factors and peers), approaching her in person.
(b) the learning task itself (learning English, learning e.g., Feng believed in his ability to memorize common errors and
English writing, and dealing with WCF), and (c) learning chose not to take notes.
strategies and resources (b) Task-related belief: e.g., Liu believed coded WCF was offered
to more severe, important errors.
e.g., Feng believed that content issues should be prioritized over
linguistic accuracy.
(c) Strategies-and-resources-related belief: e.g., Liu believed that
reading aloud to memorize is a natural and effective way to learn
from WCF and errors.
e.g., Feng believed that the online dictionary entries can confirm
possible revisions.
Motivation The students' motivation (or their lack of motivation) to e.g., Liu had little motivation to attend to indirect WCF;
use WCF e.g., Feng had less motivation to attend to linguistic errors
compared to content and structure issues.

log. I just relied on my memory” (final interview). Consistent with his statement, Feng was observed to read his writing with
teacher feedback silently. He took very few notes to summarize major issues about content and organization. Unlike Liu, Feng
did not correct any linguistic errors in his notes, regardless of whether the errors had received WCF.

4.3. Summary of findings

The case narratives indicated that, although Liu and Feng were in the same classroom, received the same teacher in-
struction and teaching materials, and undertook the same writing tasks, their engagement with WCF was different, syner-
gistically influenced by a number of learner factors and contextual factors. Learner factors emerging from the cases included
L2 abilities, metalinguistic knowledge, beliefs, and motivation, which could be further grouped into capacity-related factors
and willingness-related factors (see Table 4).
While learner factors mediated Liu's and Feng's agency (capacity and willingness) to use learning opportunities embedded
in the WCF-related context, contextual factors shaped the learning opportunities available to the students. Relevant
contextual factors involved the specific ways in which WCF was provided, the nature of errors, teacher instruction, teaching
materials, peer support, Internet resources, the curricular constraints on the nature of writing tasks, and even prevalent
sociocultural beliefs regarding the teacher's role and learning strategies. These factors can be categorized into four levels as
presented in Table 5.
The second research question explores how learner factors and contextual factors collaboratively mediate engagement.
The data confirm Evans et al.‘s (2010) argument that contextual factors and learner factors sometimes create synergy to
enhance engagement, whereas sometimes they set counterforces to each other. More importantly, the current inquiry un-
covered the centrality of alignment between learner agency and learning opportunities embedded in the context in fostering
learner engagement with WCF. Specifically, the data suggested that a match or congruence between (a) available learning
opportunities that WCF and other resources afforded to the students, and (b) the students' willingness and capacity to
perceive and act upon these opportunities largely contributes to individual students' engagement with WCF. Cross-case
comparisons revealed three conditions under which learning opportunities aligned or misaligned with Liu's and Feng's ca-
pacity and willingness (summarized in Table 6). However, only when learning opportunities aligned with both a learner's
capacity and willingness could deep engagement become possible.

5. Discussion

5.1. Learner factors and contextual factors jointly shaping learner engagement with WCF: the centrality of alignment

Based on the data collected from multiple sources in a Chinese EFL university classroom, the study took an ecological
perspective on language learning to investigate what learner factors and contextual factors shaped L2 learners’ engagement
296 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303

Table 5
Contextual factors influencing Liu's and Feng's engagement with WCF.

Categories (levels of Explanations Examples

the context)
Textual level factors (a) The characteristics of WCF (e.g., quantity, explicitness, e.g., Due to the scarcity of coded WCF on Feng's E1, his lack of
location) understanding of coded WCF did not become a glaring problem
in his revision process. The situation was reversed in his E2.
(b) The characteristics of the error receiving that WCF in relation
to the entire piece of writing (e.g., error categories) e.g., Liu received several pieces of WCF on word choice errors,
which she failed to correct and thus decided to delete or
substitute the problematic texts.
The interpersonal (a) The interpersonal relationship (teacher-student; student- e.g., Liu and her neighboring classmates were friends, so that she
and interactional student) felt more comfortable to consult this classmate.
level factors (b) The interaction between the teacher and the student e.g., Feng approached Natalie immediately after class to clarify
regarding WCF and grammatical errors (the availability and his understanding of content feedback but not linguistic errors
focus of question-and-answer sessions after class)
The instructional (a) The teacher's instruction that have influenced students' e.g., Liu mistook “WC” as word choice bias, a logical fallacy that
level factors engagement with WCF Natalie had introduced in class and had appeared in slides and
(b) Teaching materials that have influenced students' engage- handouts.
ment with WCF e.g., Based on the curricular goals and the assessment (in the
(c) The curricular goals, guidelines, requirements, and form of timed writing), the teachers collectively decided not to
assessment provide students with opportunities to revise their writing
(d) Students' access to online resources outside classrooms after returning each essay (except E1). This
decision restricted Liu's and Feng's engagement with WCF on E2
to reading and note-taking without extensive revision, i.e., the
possibility for extensive revision was ruled out.
e.g., The students had access to online dictionaries, spelling
checks and search engines.
The sociocultural Socioculturally shaped, collectively accepted norms and beliefs e.g., While both regarding the teacher as authoritative, Liu
factors (a) The role of teachers and students; shunned face-to-face interaction with Natalie, but Feng
(b) Widely accepted learning strategies intended to seek extra teacher feedback.
e.g., Reading aloud and memorizing linguistic items is common
in the Chinese culture of learning; it was natural for Liu to adopt
this strategy when she intended to learn from WCF.

Table 6
Three conditions when learning opportunities aligned/misaligned with learner capacity and willingness in WCF situations.

Capacity-appropriate
Capacity-inappropriate
Willingness-appropriate Willingness-inappropriate
Alignment Misalignment
Engagement with WCF: Affordances perceived and used A lack of engagement: Affordances perceived but not
used
Liu's case: Liu's case:
C Perceiving the importance of feedback with meta- C Regarding direct WCF and indirect WCF less
linguistic codes, which she had prior knowledge to important and glancing over it
decipher C Being afraid of possible poor performance when
C Having been equipped with metalinguistic knowl- interacting with the teacher individually and
edge to analyze some morphosyntactic errors choosing to avoid approaching the teacher;
C Perceiving the value of peer support and seeking it C Having doubts of her understanding of dictionary
C Perceiving the value of reading aloud and memo- entries but being reluctant to go back and check
rizing codes and errors and employing this learning
strategy
Feng's case: Feng's case:
C Perceiving the value of teacher instruction and C Regarding content feedback more important and
seeking teacher follow-up feedback on content helpful, thus sidelining most WCF and choosing not
problems; to discuss linguistic errors with the teacher
C Seeing online dictions and spelling check as useful C Choosing not to take notes to record metalinguistic
resources and make use of them to search and codes and errors based on the belief that actual
monitor possible revisions and even those sug- notes were not necessary for him
gested by the teacher (“eco-friendly”)
C Being confident in the sufficiency of taking mental
notes and employed this strategy
Misalignment
A lack of engagement: Affordances not perceived at all or perceived but poorly used
Liu's case
C Lacking prior knowledge of deciphering the code of word choice error (WC)
C Miscomprehending in-class instruction about word choice bias
Feng's case
C Failing to comprehend teacher instruction about the writing conference and about coded WCF
C Lacking prior knowledge of interpreting coded WCF and thus failing to do so when receiving it
 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303 297

with WCF and how. Most of these learner factors emerged in the empirical data (Section 4.3) have been identified in previous
research (e.g., Han & Hyland, 2015; Goldstein, 2006; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010) and review studies (e.g., Ellis, 2010; Evans
et al., 2010; Hyland & Hyland, 2006b, 2006a; Murphy & Roca de Larios, 2010). However, some learner factors that did not
surface in the current data, such as language analytical ability (e.g., Shintani & Ellis, 2015) may play a role in a different context
or with different participants.
Contextual factors that influenced the students' engagement with WCF, as summarized in Section 4.3, emerged at four
levels of context, echoing Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems: textual, interpersonal and interactional,
instructional, and sociocultural levels. At the textual level, for instance, the explicitness of WCF and the type of errors
influenced Liu's attention to linguistic errors (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010); the amount of WCF impacted Feng's under-
standing of and affective reactions to WCF (Han & Hyland, 2015); the proximity of different parts of a WCF point (“N” and “V”
in parallel) helped Liu to interpret Natalie's intention; and the coexistence of content feedback and WCF allowed Feng and Liu
to strategically prioritize content-based revision. At the interpersonal and interactional level of context, for instance, Liu
feared interacting with the teacher and chose to consult a peer, who was at a much more equal status (F. Hyland, 2000),
whereas Feng did not have the same concern and approached Natalie over class break. At the instructional level, Liu's use of
in-class instruction and teaching materials to interpret coded WCF supports K. Hyland and F. Hyland's (2006b) argument that
students can take up what appeared in previous instruction and connect it to written feedback. Moreover, Internet tools and
resources were accessible in the instructional context, so that the students utilized them in the revision process (Zhang &
Hyland, 2018). In addition, the Chinese culture of learning shaped the students' tenacious belief about the teacher's
authoritative role (Ho & Crookall, 1995; Hu, 2002; Peng, 2014). Also, Liu deemed reading aloud to memorize a useful and
natural way to internalize knowledge, in line with the learning strategies advocated in the Chinese culture of learning:
memorization, reading aloud to recite, and repetition (Hu, 2002; Watkins & Biggs, 2001).
The current study also revealed that learner factors, which largely shaped learner agency, and contextual factors, which
mediated learning opportunities available to individuals, need to be congruent in fostering deep engagement with WCF.
When the learning opportunities afforded by WCF and related resources were both capacity-appropriate and willingness-
appropriate, Liu and Feng achieved a more thorough understanding of errors, made successful revision, and took effective
strategies to regulate their revision and even their preparation for subsequent writing when they perceived the learning
opportunities afforded by WCF and related resources embedded in the context and were willing to exert efforts to use these
opportunities. In contrast, the data revealed that superficial engagement, or a lack of engagement, emerged when learner
factors and contextual factors were not congruent. The students' engagement was precluded when learning opportunities
were not perceivable given the students’ ability levels (capacity-inappropriate). For instance, Liu did not even realize that she
had made word choice errors when seeing the code “WC”, and Feng did not even know about the opportunity to attend
writing conferences or that Natalie had explained some metalinguistic codes in class.
In addition, even if learning opportunities embedded in the context were capacity-appropriate, trivial engagement still
occurred when the students were not willing to exert effort to make full use of those opportunities. In Liu's case, learning
opportunities that were cognitively and/or psychologically taxing, such as figuring out appropriate word choice and inter-
acting with Natalie on individual basis, were ignored or discarded. She was also reluctant to allocate as much attention to
errors receiving indirect WCF as to those receiving coded WCF, presuming a close relationship between the type of WCF and
the severity of errors. Similarly, Feng considered content issues more important and challenging than linguistic errors, so that
he did not bring up the latter when consulting Natalie. Other learning opportunities, such as taking notes, were also aban-
doned because of his confidence in his memory capacity.
Admittedly, the contingency of WCF to individual learners' ability levels (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) and the compatibility
between learner perspectives and teacher perspectives on feedback (e.g., Goldstein, 2006; F. Hyland, 1998, 2000, 2003) have
been articulated. However, previous social-oriented research on written feedback has focused primarily on the impact of
learners' beliefs, goals, and motivation on their engagement (see the review in Bitchener & Storch, 2016). The findings build
on and expand this line of literature by stressing that both learners’ capacity and willingness are major aspects of learner
factors that simultaneously influence their engagement with WCF.
The data also suggested that the alignment between the context and the individual learner's agency is constructed rather
than predetermined. For deep engagement to take place, learners need to draw more connections between oneself and re-
sources furnished by the context. In WCF situations, learners need to be able and willing to not only process WCF, but link
WCF to an array of related resources that afford learning, such as teacher in-class instruction, online dictionaries, and peer
support. The underlying reason that misalignment between learner factors and contextual factors obstructs, undermines, or
even precludes engagement is that a close relationship or connection between WCF, other learning resources, and individual
learners is not formed. In this case, learner opportunities could have been perceived and used are, however, unperceived or
discarded.

5.2. Toward an ecological perspective on learner engagement with WCF

Based on the empirical data, the ecological conceptualization of L2 learners’ engagement with WCF is proposed and
illustrated in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 illustrates that learner engagement with WCF is a contextualized process of perceiving and using available resources
with learning potential. Learning resources that have the possibility to facilitate learning, including WCF, teacher instruction,
298 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303

Fig. 2. Learner engagement with WCF from an ecological perspective.

peer support, online resources, and other possibly related resources, arise from four levels of contexts, ranging from the
immediate, local, textual level of context to the broad sociocultural level of context, illustrated by the layers of surrounding
ovals. Learners exercise their agency, based on their capacity and willingness, to perceive and use learning opportunities
afforded by these resources. Learner capacity and learner willingness are also closely related and interact as illustrated by the
double-headed arrow in the solid line: Learners' perceptions, beliefs, and goals are influenced by their abilities, whereas their
abilities are not static but malleable as their willingness to strengthen their abilities changes. Engagement emerges when
learning opportunities embedded in the context aligns with individual learners' willingness and capacity. That is, individual
learners successfully construct relationship between the context and themselves, i.e., successfully perceiving and using
learning opportunities, illustrated by the overlap of two ovals at the center of Fig. 2. In contrast, learning opportunities
misaligned with individual learners' willingness or capacity are not perceived or are discarded. They fail to be converted into
affordances and do not lead to engagement. Finally, it is worth noting that learner agency and layers of contexts also interact
as these two can set influences on each other. For instance, by reaching out to the teacher, Feng changed the interpersonal and
interactional levels of context in which he was situated. In contrast, by avoiding the teacher and consulting peers, she situated
herself in an interpersonal and interactional context that was different from Feng's. This interaction between learner agency
and the context is shown in double-headed arrows in broken lines.

5.3. Pedagogical implications

A lingering concern is how to assist individual learners in perceiving and acting upon learning opportunities afforded by
WCF and relate resources embedded in the context. Since WCF, as well as other resources available in and out of L2 class-
rooms, has the potential to afford learning, students should have abundant exposure to learning resources, including WCF.
van Lier (2000, 2004) argued that the environment has its own semiotic budget, suggesting the amount of meaningful ac-
tivities that a context can afford is limited, rather than infinite. To enable students to perceive and use more learning op-
portunities, teachers should enlarge this budget by expanding their knowledge about feedback (Xu & Brown, 2016) and
increasing students' access to resources such as grammar instruction, training in the use of WCF and reference books, sample
essays or models, and online resources. It is also important to raise students' awareness of the functional value of resources,
prepare them with using resources, and motivate them to use them. This can be done by adjusting WCF, instruction, and other
related teaching materials and teacher-student interactions to individual students' proficiency levels, so that even under-
achieving students can comprehend teacher feedback and instruction. For instance, teachers can use the students' L1, if
possible, to explain to those struggling students what they should do with WCF, what the WCF means, and how to revise with
the help of other learning resources. Another way is to hold individual or small-group tutorials outside classes so that teachers
can more conveniently capture students' responses and reactions to instruction and feedback. In addition, as previous
research has pointed out (e.g., F. Hyland, 1998; K, Hyland & Hyland, 2006b, 2006a; Goldstein, 2006), the mutual under-
standing of teachers' and students' beliefs, expectations, motivation, and goals needs to be established and expanded through
open conversations, writing conferences, or journal entries, to enhance students’ willingness to pick up learning opportu-
nities afforded in and outside classrooms.
 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303 299

6. Conclusion

Taking an ecological perspective to explore two Chinese EFL learners' engagement with WCF, this paper contributes to
WCF research by reconceptualizing the construct of learner engagement and investigating how learner factors and contextual
factors mediate engagement. Learner engagement is understood as individual learners constructing relationship between
themselves and the layered context. This relationship is formed as learners explore learning opportunities afforded by WCF
and other related learning resources (e.g., teacher instruction, the computer, peers, etc.) embedded in the context and act
upon the opportunities that they deem accessible and useful. This perspective highlights the central role of alignment be-
tween the context and the learner in fostering learner engagement with WCF. Learning opportunities afforded by WCF, no
matter how helpful they are from researchers' and teachers' perspective, need to align with individual learners’ abilities and
willingness; otherwise, engagement tends to be lacking or superficial. While the ecological perspective has rarely been used
in the area of WCF, it builds on the legacy of the social-oriented research on WCF and offers an alternative framework to the
mainstream cognitivist-oriented perspective on WCF. It is hoped that this exploration can serve as a heuristic for informing
and prompting more research that conceptualizes WCF as an integral part of the dynamic and multi-layered teaching and
learning context (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012).
Finally, the study has several limitations to be acknowledged. Given the small number of cases and the exploratory, close-
up nature of case study research, one should be cautious about generalizing the findings to a larger group of Chinese EFL
learners, or to foreign language learners in other contexts. Another limitation is that the students only composed one multi-
draft essay, making it impossible to compare individuals’ engagement with WCF at different times over the semester. Future
studies could consider involving learners of other foreign languages from different contexts, and with different linguistic,
educational, cultural backgrounds, and trace their engagement with WCF over a longer term involving more writing cycles.

Acknowledgement

The study was supported by Hong Kong PhD Fellowship granted by the Research Grant Council, travel support for research
postgraduate students from Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong, and Shenzhen Municipal Educational
Research Fund 2017(ybfz17024). I would like to thank the editor, anonymous reviewers, Dr. Fiona Hyland, and Dr. Yueting Xu,
for their insightful comments. My thanks also go to Dr. Huicong Hu for her generous help with the visual aid.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.009.

Appendix A

Writing prompts of the first essay (E1).

(Original formatting, footnotes, and references).
Directions: Write a Critical Analysis of the author's argument below. Remember to check the writer's logic, use of fallacies,
and sources.

Water pollution- What's the solution?

It's common knowledge that pollution is a huge problem ravaging our world today. Horrendous images from cities in
China like Harbin and Beijing display the dense smog of extreme air pollution, while photographs from Mumbai, India depict
mountains of trash and litter in the city streets. These two kinds of pollution are not as bad as the less visible water pollution
that occurs around the world. Water pollution can be devastating because we are contaminating our drinking sources, which
will have negative effects on our health. Environmental groups are struggling to fix this problem, and it is our duty as good
citizens to help them. To prevent water pollution it's important that we stop using plastic bags, limit the use of fertilizers that
contain harmful chemicals, and make laws against hazardous waste disposal in rivers.
The most effective method for people to stop water pollution is to refrain from using plastic bags. After plastic bags are
used they are thrown in the trash and buried in a garbage dump where they disintegrate and release contaminants into the
water in the ground. This process occurs everywhere in the world and is a problem for all countries. Will Smith has promised
to use paper bags for all of his shopping because studies show that a lot more than 30% of all plastic bags come from groceries.1
Therefore, if we stop buying from grocery stores our water sources will become 30% cleaner.
Another way that we can help fight against water pollution is by limiting how many chemicals we use on plants. Although
fertilizers help plants to grow, farmers should stop using them because the chemical components are also harmful to humans.
A study by the University of Hong Kong showed that during heavy rainfall on Hainan Island, water washed in excess of 69% of

1
Tiger, T. T., Crunch, C., Chocula, C., Sam. T., The modern production and usage of plastic bags around the world, Journal of Rigorous Academics, Vol.4, No.6,
2012
300 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303

these fertilizers off of the plants and into the water that we drink. The same study also concluded that the fertilizer is toxic to
humans in amounts greater than 69 g.2 Considering the dangers of this, it is only fair that everyone in China should limit their
use of fertilizer to 100 g per month.
Lastly, we must push our government to prevent the contamination of our precious drinking water by making suitable
laws and standards for hazardous material disposal. Just this last year the Pudong River in Shanghai was polluted with
hundreds of carcasses of dead pigs. These pigs were diseased and their bodies introduced pollutants to a large city's water
source. If this had not been recognized early enough many Shanghai people would have gotten sick, died, and this would have
led to certain economic shutdown throughout China.3 While this is an example of the implications of water pollution it is not
the most common. In fact, companies that sell bottled water proclaim that “We should never worry about water pollution
because there is so much water on Earth,” while dumping raw waste into our rivers and lakes making them undrinkable and
uninhabitable for animals. Of the three main ways to stop water pollution, making laws to prevent those corporate idiots from
ruining nature is the most important.
In conclusion, keeping our water sources clean is of utmost importance, because we need water to survive.4 As dutiful
citizens we are responsible for keeping our country clean and can do so by using paper bags instead of plastic, lowering our
use of fertilizers and chemicals, and by asking our government to make laws and standards for the disposal of hazardous
wastes. These methods are sure to help us have a cleaner environment, which will lead to healthier people.

Appendix B

Interview guide.

The first student interview

Personal experience and goals of English learning and English writing.

1) Tell me about your learning experiences of English writing in high school.

2) How did your high school English teachers help with the grammatical problems in your writing?
3) Tell me about your learning experiences of English writing in the university.
4) How do English teachers in the university help with the grammatical problems in your writing?
5) Share with me about your experiences of Level Four course so far.
6) What is your goal of English learning in college?
7) What role do you think English plays in your future life and career after graduation?

Learner beliefs about and attitudes toward English writing and teacher feedback.

8) In your opinion, how important are writing skills as a part of English learning?
9) In your opinion, what qualities should a good English essay have?
10) What are strengths and weaknesses of your own English writing?
11) How important do you think grammar is in English writing?
12) Teachers may give feedback on grammar errors in student writing. Sometimes they may correct errors for you, un-
derline errors, give comments, or offer some clues. In general, what do you think of teacher feedback on grammar
errors?
13) In your opinion, what the “ideal” teacher feedback on grammar errors look like?
14) What do you think is the main reason why your teacher gives feedback on grammar errors to you?
15) To what extent do you usually understand teacher feedback on grammar errors?
16) Have you ever found teacher feedback on grammar errors confusing or unclear to you? Can you give me an example?
17) What are the reasons why teacher feedback on grammar errors was sometimes difficult to understand?
18) What do you do with the teacher feedback on grammar errors that you did not understand?
19) What resources and strategies do you usually use to revise your draft?
20) How do you feel when you receive feedback from your teacher on grammar errors in your writing?
21) Do you think teacher feedback on grammar errors is helpful for you? Why or why not? Can you give me an example of
useful feedback?
22) Your teacher wants to improve the way he/she gives feedback to you. What advice or suggestions would you give him/
her?
23) Do you have further comments or reflections on English learning and English writing?

2
Rena Ghoades, Fertilizer washoff on Hainan Island, The journal of un-peer reviewed science, Vol.2, 2012
3
Newspaper Article by Shanghai Daily- Would deaths in Shanghai lead to economic problems?- June 2013.
4
Vogue Magazine- What's Dr. Linton Adams wearing this month? e Dec 2013
 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303 301

Final student interview

1) Tell me about your experiences of learning English over the semester.

2) Tell me about your experience of learning English writing over the semester.
3) How do you like your English teacher? What do you think about her?
4) Tell me about your experiences of using teacher feedback on grammar errors over the semester.
5) In general, how much did you understand your teacher's feedback on grammar errors?
6) What kinds of teacher feedback on grammar do you think were easy to understand?
7) What did you usually do if teacher feedback on grammar is confusing to you?
8) How did you use teacher feedback on grammar to revise your drafts?
9) What did you do if you disagree with your teacher's feedback on grammar error?
10) What did you do if you cannot find a solution to a grammar problem when revising your draft?
11) What resources did you usually use to revise your draft?
12) Would you review and correct the part of your text that your teacher did not give any feedback? Why?
13) What did you feel about teacher feedback on grammar in general?
14) In what aspect do you think teacher feedback on grammar has been the most helpful?
15) In what aspect do you think teacher feedback on grammar has been the least helpful?
16) What do you think your teacher should have done differently when she or he provided feedback on your grammar
errors over the semester?
17) Do you have further reflections and comments on teacher feedback on grammar errors, revisions, or English writing in
general?

The first teacher interview

Personal experiences of English writing and English teaching:

1) Tell me about your English teaching experience.

2) What do you remember about how you were taught English writing?
3) Tell me about your experiences of teaching English writing in China.

Teacher beliefs about English learning, English writing, and teaching of English writing.

4) In your opinion, how important are writing skills as a part of English learning?
5) What qualities do you look for when you mark students' essays?
6) What do you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of your students' writing?
7) In your opinion, to what percentage of time should be allocated to English writing in Level Four classes?
8) What approach do you use when you teach English writing to your students in Level Four?

Teacher beliefs about written corrective feedback (WCF) and WCF practices.

9) How do you usually address students' grammatical errors in writing?

10) When a teacher gives feedback on grammatical errors in student writing, this feedback is called written corrective
feedback. There are many types of written corrective feedback, like underlining errors, giving clues, correcting errors,
giving comments, etc. Have you given any written corrective feedback to your students?
11) Do you have a preferred type of written corrective feedback? Why do you prefer this type of written corrective
feedback?
12) What other types of written corrective feedback do you use?
13) Do you tailor your feedback to different learners? Why so or why not?
14) If you tailor your feedback to different learners, in what ways do you do that?
15) When providing written corrective feedback, what factors do you consider?
16) What are some major constraints that you face when giving written corrective feedback?
17) What do you expect students to do with your written corrective feedback?
18) If students do not use your feedback in the way that you expected, what do you do?
19) A new teacher seeks your advice about improving the way he/she gives feedback to his/her students. What advice or
suggestions would you give him/her?
20) Do you have any further comments or reflections on English writing or written corrective feedback?
302 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303

Final teacher interview

1) Tell me about your experience of providing written corrective feedback over the semester.
2) What factors have influenced your provision of written corrective feedback?
3) Can you think of any situations where you found difficult to provide written corrective feedback? Can you give me some
examples?
4) To what extent do you think students have understood your written corrective feedback?
5) To what extent do you think students have addressed linguistic errors with the help of written corrective feedback?
6) To what extent do you think your written corrective feedback has improved students' knowledge of grammar and
vocabulary?
7) Did you notice if any feedback was ignored by the students when they revise the draft? (Show examples) What might
be the reason why students ignored it?
8) What help or instruction do you think can better help students to use your written corrective feedback?
9) How do you think students would feel about your written corrective feedback? Why?
10) Looking back at your experience of providing written corrective feedback over the semester, what would you have done
differently?
11) Do you have any suggestions and comments to share with your colleagues regarding written corrective feedback?
12) Do you have any further comments or reflections on addressing learners' written grammatical errors?

Appendix C

Instructions for Retrospective Verbal Report of Learner Participants in English (Adapted from Ma, 2012).
I am studying how students respond to teacher's feedback on grammar errors in writing. You are going to see the teacher's
feedback on grammar errors in your previous draft, and your revisions made in the final draft. I am interested in what you
were thinking at the time you were reading teacher feedback on these grammatical errors and using the feedback to revise
the draft. I would like to ask you to tell me what you were thinking when you received teacher feedback on grammar errors
and when you revised the draft.
I will point to the feedback that you received on grammatical errors in the first draft, and the revisions you made in the
second draft. Please talk about what was on your mind when you were responding to the feedback and revising your draft.
Please tell me what you were thinking THEN, rather than what you are thinking NOW. You may choose to recall in Chinese
Mandarin, English, or a mixture of both.
During your recall, I will minimize my response to the content of your talk.
Do you have any questions so far? If not, let's start now.

References

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of proximal development. The Modern Language
Journal, 78, 465e483.
Anderson, J. (2016). Affordance, learning opportunities, and the lesson plan pro forma. ELT Journal, 69, 228e238.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409e431.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.),
Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3e44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. X. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classroom in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169e206).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an Activity Theory perspective. In J. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children's reported noticing and output production in a L2
writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 451e485.
Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335e349.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy.
Language Teaching Research, 14, 445e463.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, &
F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81e104). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307e329.
Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback
in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185e205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 779e796.
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 30, 31e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002.
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133e142.
 Y. Han / System 80 (2019) 288e303 303

Ho, J., & Crookall, D. (1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner autonomy in English language teaching. System, 23, 235e243.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language Culture and Curriculum,
15, 93e105.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255e286.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33e54.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focus on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217e230.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language
writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1e19). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39, 77e95.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practice in Chinese culture of learning. Language Culture and Curriculum, 19, 5e20.
Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspective on foreign language education. Language Teaching, 41, 389e408.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29, 645e671.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner
contribution to language learning (pp. 141e158). London: Longman.
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144e164.
van Lier, L. (1997). Observation from an ecological perspective. Tesol Quarterly, 31, 783e787.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning: Recent advances (pp. 245e259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. (2003). A tale of two computer classrooms: The ecology of project-based language learning. In J. Leather, & J. van Dam (Eds.), Ecology of language
acquisition (pp. 49e64). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ma, J. (2012). Chinese EFL university students' decision-making in peer review of second language writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hong Kong SAR,
China: The University of Hong Kong.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldan ~ a, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). Feedback in second language writing: An introduction. International Journal of English Studies, 10, iexv.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peng, J.-E. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40, 203e213.
Peng, J.-E. (2014). Willingness to communicate in the Chinese EFL university classroom: An ecological perspective. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277e303.
Rahimi, M. (2015). The role of individual differences in L2 learners' retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1, 19e48.
Reed, E. S. (1993). The intention to use a specific affordance: A conceptual framework for psychology. In R. H. Wozniak, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in
context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 45e76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences, and second language learning. New York: Springer.
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing?
System, 49, 110e119.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
32, 303e334.
Thoms, J. J. (2014). An ecological view of whole-class discussions in a second language literature classroom: Teacher reformulations as affordances for
learning. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 724e741.
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. In D. A. Watkins, & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner:
Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 3e23). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Wozniak, R. H., & Fischer, K. W. (1993). Development in context: An introduction. In R. H. Wozniak, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and
thinking in specific environments (pp. xiexvi). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149e162.
Zhang, Z. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71, 317e328.
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90e102.
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students.
Assessing Writing, 37, 13e24.