Analysing Learner Engagement With Native Speaker Feedback On An Educational Social Networking Site: An Ecological Perspective

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/359279108
Analysing learner engagement with native speaker feedback on an

educational social networking site: an ecological perspective
Article in Computer Assisted Language Learning · March 2022

DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2022.2030364
CITATIONS READS
2 225
2 authors:
Boning Lyu Chun Lai

Xiamen University The University of Hong Kong
12 PUBLICATIONS 231 CITATIONS 73 PUBLICATIONS 2,928 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Boning Lyu on 07 April 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Computer Assisted Language Learning
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
Analysing learner engagement with native speaker

feedback on an educational social networking site:
an ecological perspective
Boning Lyu & Chun Lai
To cite this article: Boning Lyu & Chun Lai (2022): Analysing learner engagement with native
speaker feedback on an educational social networking site: an ecological perspective, Computer
Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2022.2030364
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2030364
Published online: 03 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 77
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
Computer Assisted Language Learning
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2030364
Analysing learner engagement with native speaker

feedback on an educational social networking site:
an ecological perspective
Boning Lyua and Chun Laib
a
Chinese International Education College, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; bFaculty of Education,
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
ABSTRACT
Studies have explored how second language (L2) learners KEYWORDS
engage with peer feedback in instructional contexts. Peer feedback;
However, how learners engage in self-initiated and NS-NNS interaction;
self-directed feedback practices beyond the classroom in learning beyond the
online spaces is largely unknown. Informed by an ecological classroom;
perspective, an in-depth exploration of the dynamics and ecological perspective;
underpinning mechanisms of learners’ engagement with learner agency
written peer feedback on an educational social networking
site for L2 writers was conducted. Longitudinal data on 11
language learners’ interactions on the platform were col-
lected. An analysis of their interactions on the platform over
time and their responses to semi-structured interviews
revealed that how they perceived and acted on feedback
changed over time. Furthermore, these changes were inter-
twined with various individual and contextual factors. The
findings suggest that encouraging socially related feedback,
enhancing certain platform affordances, building a sense of
community belonging and helping learners reconceptualise
the platform in relation to their language learning are critical
elements of enhancing learners’ engagement with peer feed-
back. They also indicate a need for a dynamic and holistic
approach to understanding and supporting learner engage-
ment with peer feedback beyond the classroom.
Introduction
Peer feedback is a type of dialogic interaction between learners in which
knowledge and understanding are shared to enhance learning (Zhu &
Carless, 2018). Peer feedback has great potential to advance learning,
as it benefits both the receivers and providers of the feedback cognitively
and meta-cognitively (Cao, Yu, & Huang, 2019; Zhu & Carless, 2018).
In the second language (L2) learning context, peer feedback as a form
of dialogue between learners can enhance interactions through which
CONTACT Chun Lai laichun@hku.hk

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. LYU AND C. LAI
learners clarify or negotiate meanings with each other, thus enhancing

their language learning (Hyland & Hyland, 2006).
Social networking sites (SNSs), the social media platforms that enable
users to access, create, evaluate, and share media resources with an
emphasis on presenting personal profiles and networking (Ellison,
Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Lamy & Zourou, 2013; Reinhardt, 2017,
2019), have been found to hold great potential to advance language
learning by offering peer feedback (Lin, Groom, & Lin, 2013). Social
media, with its affordance for collective knowledge creation and learning
through connection, is ‘inherently enabling informal learning experiences’
(Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012, p. 4) and allows ‘learning in the wild’
(Haythornthwaite et al., 2018, p. 219). Learning takes place on SNSs in
the informal learning context through explanation, socializing, informa-
tion seeking, providing resources under the rules and norms on the
platforms (Haythornthwaite et al., 2018). Greenhow and Lewin (2016)
further argued that social media are learning spaces with varying infor-
mal and formal learning attributes. Social networking sites for language
learning (SNSLLs), such as Lang-8, Babbel and Livemocha, are a form
social media that combines language tutorials (e.g. instructional learning
material) with social networking functions (e.g. enabling peer interaction,
forming learning groups) to enhance the formal learning attributes so
as to support language learners in the informal learning contexts.
Interaction with native speakers beyond the classroom on SNSLLs may
bring additional opportunities for peer feedback, providing L2 learners
access to authentic linguistic resources (Xue & Churchill, 2019) and
lowering the affective filters for peer feedback practices by supporting
low-risk language and social practices with pseudonymous identities
(Reinhardt & Zander, 2011; Wang & Vásquez, 2012). When social media
shifts the provision of feedback from teachers to authentic audiences
such as peers, how learning from peer feedback unfolds in such a
learning space is worth investigating (Greenhow & Lewin, 2016;
Haythornthwaite et al., 2018).
However, most of the existing studies focused on language learners’
use of technology-mediated peer feedback during teacher-directed learn-
ing activities in instructional contexts (see Chang, 2016). Despite the
wealth of opportunities and venues available for L2 learners to interact
with native speakers in self-initiated learning beyond the classroom on
social media, how L2 learners may engage with feedback from native
speakers in their self-initiated experiences in these online spaces, SNSLLs
in particular, has been relatively less explored. Given that different
learning contexts/spaces may induce different perceptions of and reac-
tions to the peer feedback received (see Díez-Bedmar & Pérez-Paredes,
2012; Gravett, 2020), inquiries that extend to the informal, autonomous
Computer Assisted Language Learning 3
online learning context may provide some insights into learners’ engage-
ment with peer feedback. Therefore, the current study focused on the
informal, autonomous online learning context. An analysis of L2 learners’
engagement with online peer feedback outside the classroom provides
important information on language-learning social media platform design
and the social interaction that is fundamental to the educational potential
of such platforms.
To shed light on this issue, the current study examined learner engage-
ment with peer feedback on an SNSLL, Lang-8, which was designed as
an L2 writing sharing community. Lang-8 provides certain functions in
common with general-purpose SNSs, such as user profiles, friending,
messaging, and posting. Lang-8 also integrates the concept of tandem
learning, in which Lang-8 users play both the role of L2 learners, whose
writings are peer-reviewed by native speakers of their target languages,
and the role of native speakers, who review writings in their native
languages. To encourage peer review, the platform uses a reciprocity
system in which users are awarded ‘L-points’ for providing feedback;
the more L-points one has, the greater the possibility that one’s writings
will be pushed to native speakers for review.
Studies examining learners’ experiences on SNSLLs have discussed
the affordances and limitations of the sites’ design (Cho, 2015; Liu et al.,
2015; Nishioka, 2020), its pedagogical potential to support in-class writ-
ing instruction (Lin, 2015, 2019; Pollard, 2015), learners’ perceptions of
the sites and their perceived learning outcomes (Lin, Warschauer, &
Blake, 2016; Rosell-Aguilar, 2018). In the limited numbers of studies
that did examine learners’ engagement with peer feedback on SNSLLs,
factors that influence learner engagement were discussed in isolation
from one another (e.g. Parrish, 2019), ignoring the fact that learner
engagement with feedback is shaped by the interaction of individual
and contextual factors (Chong, 2021; Han, 2019). Handley and colleagues
(2011, p. 553) have also called for ‘broader systemic insights about
how student engagement evolves over time’. Thus, using an ecological
perspective that highlights a dynamic and holistic approach, this study
examined learner engagement with peer feedback during self-initiated
and self-directed use of Lang-8, by eliciting narrative interview responses
from 11 Lang-8 users who had been using the platform for an average
of 4.5 years and by tracking their interactions on the platform from the
first day. The following two research questions were addressed:
1. What patterns of engagement with feedback did the participants

develop on Lang-8 over time?
2. How did individual and contextual factors interact to shape their
engagement over time?
4 B. LYU AND C. LAI
Literature review
Learner engagement with feedback
‘Learner engagement with feedback’ refers to ‘how learners respond to

the feedback they receive’ (Ellis, 2010, p. 342). According to Ellis (2010),
this concept includes a cognitive dimension (i.e. how learners perceive
and attend to the feedback), a behavioural dimension (i.e. whether and
in what ways learners attend and respond to the feedback) and an
affective dimension (i.e. how learners feel emotionally about the feed-
back). Learners’ engagement with feedback is a manifestation of their
feedback literacy, namely ‘the understandings, capacities and dispositions
needed to make sense of information and use it to enhance work or
learning strategies’ (Carless & Boud, 2018, p. 1316). Feedback literacy
is essential to the realisation of the educational potential of feedback
(Carless & Boud, 2018; Molloy, Boud, & Henderson, 2020). Thus, to
understand the potential of peer feedback on SNSLLs, it is important
to examine the nature of learners’ engagement with peer feedback on
such platforms.
Studies examining learner engagement with feedback have reported
the learning outcomes of such engagement (e.g. Hyland & Hyland, 2006;
Liang, 2010; Ma, 2020), students’ behavioural patterns when interacting
with peer feedback (e.g. Díez-Bedmar & Pérez-Paredes, 2012; Liang,
2010) and the factors that influence learners’ engagement in various
instructional contexts (e.g. Malecka, Boud, & Carless, 2020; Min, 2005;
Nash & Winstone, 2017; Yu & Hu, 2017). Studies (e.g. Hyland & Hyland,
2006; Liang, 2010; Ma, 2020) have documented the various cognitive
and non-cognitive outcomes of learner engagement with peer feedback,
such as enhancing writers’ audience awareness, improving writing quality
in terms of language errors and content, developing pragmatic compe-
tence and boosting learning interest and motivation. Research has further
found that learners’ behavioural engagement with peer feedback is subject
to the characteristics and affordances of the specific learning context.
For instance, Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes (2012) found that students
responded more to language error–related feedback than to socio-affective
feedback on wikis and in forum posts. They explained that the engage-
ment patterns resulting from learners’ intentional learning were condu-
cive to higher achievement in their writing assignments. In contrast,
Liang (2010) found that students engaged more in social feedback during
synchronous online interaction in writing classes for English as a foreign
language (EFL), which may have been due to the nature of synchronous
online spaces, which have better affordances for communicative inter-
action than for correcting errors. Studies have further identified a set
of individual and contextual factors that shape learner engagement, such
as language proficiency, feedback literacy, learning awareness, motives,

learning beliefs, types of assignment, classroom culture and social tra-
ditions (Malecka et al., 2020; Min, 2005; Nash & Winstone, 2017; Yu
& Hu, 2017).
Interaction on social networking platforms has been identified as
providing additional affordances for peer feedback, as the feedback may
offer not only language learning support but also social and emotional
support (e.g. Jin, 2015, 2018; Xue & Churchill, 2019). How learners
respond to and perceive feedback from native speakers on SNSLLs in
informal learning contexts, however, has been discussed less frequently.
It has been noted that the volitional nature and informality of out-of-
classroom learning may induce different perceptions of and reactions
to peer feedback compared with that encountered in the classroom
(Díez-Bedmar & Pérez-Paredes, 2012). For example, researchers have
found that online environments decrease learners’ anxiety levels in inter-
acting with native speakers and thus may allow learners to focus less
on language errors (Freiermuth, 2001; Wang, Crooks, & Borst, 2017).
Language learners can access native speakers through SNSs beyond
the classroom in the digital wilds (e.g. Jin, 2018; Özdemir, 2017), there-
fore, particular attention is paid to the self-directed and self-initiated
learning contexts in this study to better understand and support L2
learners’ engagement with peer feedback from native speakers.
An ecological approach to understanding learner engagement with peer

feedback
An ecological approach views human development in relation to the

surrounding contexts, and regards human experience as involving mutu-
ally constitutive relationships between individuals and their environments
through which both people and environments are transformed
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979,1994; Engeström, 1987). In L2 research, an eco-
logical approach involves taking a holistic view of the interaction between
the various factors that shape how learners take action with respect to
the learning opportunities around them (van Lier, 2004). The increasing
fluidity of learning boundaries, especially boosted by technology, gives
rise to new resources, actions, relationships and contexts and new forms
of learning that demand a theoretical transformation of ecological per-
spective to examine learning in this multidimensional, polyhedral, and
complex digital wild (González-Sanmamed et al., 2019; Sangrà, Raffaghelli,
& Veletsianos, 2019). Education researchers introduce the concept of
learning ecology that highlights learning as creation of new spaces that
transcend time and space, bridging different learning settings such as
formal, non-formal and informal learning contexts in personal life course
6 B. LYU AND C. LAI
and timeline (Barron, 2006; González-Sanmamed et al., 2019; Sangrà

et al., 2019). Focusing on learning in the informal lifelong learning
contexts, Goodyear (2021) argued that learning events are ‘triply situated:
physically (digitally and materially), socially and epistemically’ (p. 1597),
and learners take agency to dynamically (re)configure these elements to
create one’s epistemic environments. Technology are epistemic devices
that are ‘constitutively entangled in “meshworks” of activity’ (p. 1601).
Similarly, González-Sanmamed et al. (2019) also argues that technological
resources, as one of the components in the learning ecologies, are closely
related and interwoven with other components in learning dispositions
(i.e. learning conceptions, motivations, and expectations) and learning
processes (i.e. relationships, actions, and context).
In the learning process, the learner’s agency is critical to their per-
ception of and acting upon potential learning opportunities (van Lier,
2004). Therefore, only when the learning opportunities embedded in
feedback are perceived and acted upon by language learners can the
learning potential of feedback be realised (Han, 2017; Han & Hyland,
2015). This perspective underscores the importance of understanding
learners’ agentic role in engaging with feedback. This echoes a
learning-centred framework for understanding feedback literacy in which
the learner’s role in processing feedback is conceptualised as more than
simply that of an information receiver (Molloy et al., 2020).
‘Learner agency’ refers to ‘the socioculturally mediated capacity to
act’ (Ahearn, 2001, p. 112). To examine learner agency in feedback
processing, its situated nature should be noted. An ecological view of
learner agency in feedback processing suggests that the dynamic inter-
action between individual and contextual factors shapes learners’ will-
ingness and capacity to engage with feedback and influences how they
make use of the feedback to support their language learning (Bitchener
& Storch, 2016; Ellis, 2010; Han, 2019). From an ecological perspective,
the changing relationships between individual and contextual factors
over time influence learner agency in processing peer feedback and thus
may lead to changes in learners’ engagement with feedback (Chong, 2021).
For instance, in a recent study, Han (2019) adopted an ecological
perspective to analyse two ESL learners’ engagement with teachers’ cor-
rective feedback on their writing, examining the alignment and/or mis-
alignment between the participants’ willingness and capacity to engage
in the learning opportunities embedded in the feedback. The results
suggested that a set of individual factors influenced the participants’
engagement with the feedback. Specifically, language abilities, metalin-
guistic knowledge and prior knowledge of feedback influenced the par-
ticipants’ capacity to act on the feedback, whereas the learners’ beliefs
and motivation influenced their willingness to act on the feedback.
Furthermore, the individual factors that shaped the participants’ agency

were mediated by four dimensions of contextual factors: textual (i.e. the
characteristics of language errors and feedback), interpersonal and inter-
actional (i.e. the interpersonal relationship between teacher and student
and the availability and focus of Q&A with the teacher after class),
instructional (i.e. the curriculum and instruction and the students’ access
to online resources) and sociocultural (i.e. socioculturally shaped views
of the role of teachers and students and of learning strategies). Han
(2019) concluded that learners’ engagement with feedback is multi-faceted
and dynamic.
Thus, the ecological perspective conceptualises learners’ engagement
with peer feedback as potentially changing over time and as being sit-
uated at the nexus of the relationships between the various individual
and contextual factors and their changes over time. Studies have provided
evidence of the relational aspect of learner engagement with peer feed-
back in the instructional context. Self-directed learning beyond the
classroom presents an alternative and increasingly important context in
second language learning (Reinders & Benson, 2017). An exploration
of informal online learning experiences may provide implications for
instructors. As Lehtonen (2017, p. 57) commented, ‘the classroom should
somehow imitate learning in informal ways’. Therefore, the current study
paid particular attention to the self-directed learning context beyond
the classroom when examining learners’ feedback engagement.
Informed by an ecological perspective, this study adopted a
learner-centred view to examine the dynamic and relational nature of
learner engagement with peer feedback on an educational SNS, Lang-8.
Longitudinal data from a group of L2 learners on the platform over a
substantial period of time and narrative interview data were collected
to shed light on how L2 learners perceive and act on the learning
opportunities embedded in feedback from native-speaking peers on this
platform.
Method
Participants
Eleven existing and active Lang-8 users were recruited for an examination
of their longitudinal learning trajectories on the platform in terms of 1)
their engagement with written feedback from native speakers on the site
and 2) the individual and contextual factors that influenced their engage-
ment with feedback. Given the research focus on the dynamic and rela-
tional nature of learner engagement with peer feedback, sustained users
of the platform were targeted. Two recruitment criteria were used. First,
8 B. LYU AND C. LAI
the target participants were required to be existing users of Lang-8. Second,

they were required to be active users who appeared on the Lang-8 plat-
form leader board as top contributors of blog entries and comments on
the platform. These two recruitment criteria were applied with the goals
of collecting rich data on self-initiated and self-directed online learning
over time and shedding light on their dynamic experience of engaging
with peer feedback. By focusing on participants who persevered in using
the platform’s system, the study sought to shed light on the most import-
ant factors contributing to sustained engagement on educational SNSs,
which has been reported to be a major challenge in the realisation of the
educational potential of instructional SNSs (Lin et al., 2016).
Invitation messages, which included the purpose and an outline of
the study’s procedure, were sent to 84 potential participants who appeared
on the site’s leader board. Ultimately, 11 candidates volunteered to par-
ticipate in this study. Table 1 presents the profiles of the participants.
Lang-8
L2 learners’ engagement with peer feedback on an educational SNS, Lang-8

(www.Lang-8.com), was examined. Lang-8 allows users to post their L2
writing on their dedicated blog spaces, and their posts are reviewed by
native speakers of the target language who are also users of the platform.
As shown in Figure 1, after the writing (article) is posted, sentences in
the article are automatically recognised sentence by sentence in the dis-
cussion forum for each blog post. Text formatting functions similar to
those available in word processing programmes (e.g. bold, italic, underline,
strikethrough and colour) are available in the discussion forum for native
speakers to revise sentences. Users are also able to add explanations or
comments to their corrective feedback (see Figure 1). Although the users
on the site are not necessarily well-trained L2 teachers, studies have
Table 1. Participant profiles.

Language proficiency at Years using
Native Target onset of platform use Adult/Student Lang-8 when
Participant language language (self-reported) (Course)a data collection
P1 Korean Chinese Advanced Adult (No) 4 (2015–)
P2 English Chinese Intermediate Student (Yes) 3 (2016–)
P3 Japanese Chinese Advanced Adult (Yes) 7 (2012–)
P4 Japanese Chinese Upper beginner Adult (No) 5 (2013–)
P5 Korean Chinese Intermediate Adult (Yes) 9 (2010–)
P6 Chinese Japanese Beginner Student (No) 3 (2016–)
P7 Chinese Japanese Intermediate Adult (No) 4 (2015–)
P8 Chinese Japanese Upper beginner Student (Yes) 7 (2013–)
P9 Chinese Japanese Intermediate Adult (No) 2 (2017–)
P10 Chinese English Advanced Student (Yes) 5 (2014–)
P11 Chinese English Advanced Student (Yes) 1 (2018–)
Note: For ‘Course,’ ‘Yes’ indicates that the participant was taking a language course at a formal institution,
and ‘No’ indicates that they were not.
Figure 1. Example of the Track Changes functionality of Lang-8.
reported that learners perceive the feedback received as useful in most

cases (e.g. Cho, 2015; Parrish, 2019). The integration of Lang-8 into
writing instructions has been found to improve writing motivation and
quality, and lessen learners’ writing anxiety (Lin, 2015, 2019; Pollard,
2015). The platform appeals to language learners/native speakers from
over 190 countries and enables them to learn over 90 languages.1
Data collection
A dual data collection process was used. First, the platform’s archived
data on the interactions between the participants and native speakers
were collected. Textual data were collected, starting from the day the
participants signed up for the platform. In total, 25,189 peer feedback
posts and 11,573 feedback responses were collected (see Table 2).
After the platform’s archived data had been collected, a narrative inter-
view was conducted with each participant. The interview required the
learners to provide narratives of their learning histories since starting to
10 B. LYU AND C. LAI
use the platform. A narrative interview is a person’s account of their

long-term experiences (Syed & Nelson, 2015), in this case covering a
range of timescales to allow depictions of the learners’ learning trajectories
(Chik, 2011). The interviews delved into not only the participants’ learning
experiences on the platform but also the learning settings they had expe-
rienced beyond the platform in various periods. The participants were
asked to identify key factors that may have induce changes in their engage-
ment with peer feedback (i.e. their motivations, learning beliefs, and
interaction with peers). By combining the learners’ narratives as gleaned
from the interviews with their behavioural data, the study aimed to obtain
a richer picture of their engagement with feedback on the platform as
well as the factors influencing their engagement from an ecological per-
spective (Barkhuizen, Benson, & Chik, 2014; Lee, 2006; Shenton, 2004).
Interviews were conducted in either the participant’s native language
or the language the participant preferred to use2 via a communication
platform (WeChat, Line or Skype). Each interview lasted approximately
1.5 hours and was recorded. One participant (P2) was interviewed twice,
first when he was about to finish his studies as an exchange student in
China and once more after he had returned to his hometown in the
United States. Numerous follow-up conversations were conducted with
all of the participants via online messaging for clarification and supple-
mentary explanations. The interviews were transcribed verbatim.
Data analysis
The current study operationalised behavioural engagement as learners’

actions upon feedback (involving whether and how to respond to feed-
back) (Ellis, 2010), affective engagement as the emotional reactions and
attitudinal responses (involving willingness to respond to the feedback
and the emotions displayed upon receiving peer feedback) (Fan & Xu,
2020; Han & Hyland, 2015; Koltovskaia, 2020) and cognitive engagement
as mental effort in processing peer feedback (involving the level of
Table 2. Descriptive data.

Number of responses to
Participant Number of blog posts Number of peer feedback posts peer feedback
P1 793 907 354
P2 130 160 63
P3 370 1,557 935
P4 1,974 2,381 976
P5 5,620 10,392 4,171
P6 175 211 126
P7 1,619 4,275 2,492
P8 212 507 166
P9 948 3,112 1,461
P10 1,524 1,417 728
P11 250 270 101
Total 13,615 25,189 11,573
noticing the feedback as well as cognitive and meta-cognitive operations)

(Han & Hyland, 2015; Yu et al., 2019). Behavioural engagement relates
to actual behavioural interaction with feedback, whereas affective and
cognitive engagement relates to intentions, feelings and thinking (Ellis,
2010). Willingness to engage, which was conceptualised as ‘readiness-to-en-
gage’ by Handley and colleagues (2011), does not necessarily lead to
action (Handley, Price, & Millar, 2011). Therefore, information on affec-
tive and cognitive engagement was mainly derived from the interview
data. Textual extracts written by the participants were mainly analysed
to document actual behavioural engagement. However, because these
three elements are interconnected (Fan & Xu, 2020), the participants’
behavioural data and their self-reported interview data were triangulated
for the presentation of the findings to enhance the trustworthiness of
the study (Creswell & Poth, 2016).
A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed, aimed at
developing a story through emerging salient themes (Neuendorf, 2018).
The study adapted and revised the coding scheme from Fan and Xu
(2020). The participants’ affective engagement with feedback was elicited
regarding (1) the emotions displayed upon receiving peer feedback (e.g.
‘I feel encouraged’ or ‘I do not feel comfortable’) and (2) their will-
ingness to respond to the feedback (e.g., ‘I am not interested in dis-
cussing things like that on this learning platform’). Cognitive engagement
was elicited regarding (1) noticing peer feedback (e.g. ‘I focused more
on corrective feedback rather than those comments on my topics’), (2)
cognitive operations in processing feedback (e.g. ‘asking for further
explanation’, ‘looking up the words in online dictionaries’) and (3)
meta-cognitive operations involving monitoring and regulating their
language learning when processing feedback (e.g. ‘using the feedback
to find learning materials’, ‘I’d like to chat with the native speakers
through Skype rather than on [the] Lang-8 discussion forum’). Fan and
Xu (2020) operationalised behavioural engagement as revision strategies
in their coding scheme. However, the current study identified few
self-revisions following feedback, which may be due to the self-directed
learning context. Thus, in line with Ellis (2010), the study operation-
alised behavioural engagement as (1) whether the learners responded
to feedback (e.g. ‘I didn’t discuss my personal life with online users’)
and (2) in what way learners responded to feedback (e.g. ‘I reply to
their comments, sometimes maybe typing a smiling face’, ‘I only discuss
errors with online peers’).
To analyse written exchanges between the learners and native speakers,
a content analysis, which is a systematic coding and categorizing approach
aimed at revealing the trends, patterns, and discourses of communication
from large amounts of textual data (Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas,
2013), was performed. Qualitatively, feedback from the native speakers

was categorised as shown in Table 3. Drawing on the categories of
feedback on SNSs used in previous studies (e.g. Díez-Bedmar &
Pérez-Paredes, 2012; Lee, 2010; Liang, 2010), the written exchanges
between the participants and native speakers were coded into the fol-
lowing categories: 1) language form correction, 2) discussion around
ideas and organisation and 3) social talk and affective support. According
to an exploratory study on interaction patterns on Lang-8 (Lyu & Lai,
2020) determined that these codes can be roughly categorised into an
instruction-related dimension and a socially related dimension.
In addition to the categorising the various types of feedback, the
relative percentages of the types of responses to peer feedback (i.e. the
number of a given type of peer feedback comments responded to/the
total number of peer feedback comments received) were assessed to
understand patterns and trends.
To address the second research question, a thematic analysis of the
interview responses was conducted to determine the influencing factors
and the interactions between them over time. The interviews were ana-
lysed inductively and deductively through a cyclical and evolving process
(Saldaña, 2021). In-vivo codes were used in the inductive phase (e.g. ‘I
am not familiar with the online strangers’ and ‘language should be
accurate’). The in-vivo codes were then compared across cases and
categorised into sub-categories through a deductive coding process (e.g.
‘learning beliefs about errors’ and ‘community belonging’) and into
categories (i.e. individual factors and contextual factors) in reference to
the framework adopted by Chong (2021) and Han (2019). Table 4 lists
the factors identified in this study.
The qualitative data were coded independently by two researchers.
The inter-coder reliability was 0.892 (kappa = 0.892; p < .001). The
participants’ self-reported data were also summarised and discussed with
Table 3. Coding scheme of written exchange between learners and native speakers.
Feedback dimension Feedback sub-dimension Example
Instruction-related Language errors NNS: I had a bad thing today.NS: Something bad
happened to me today.
Learning suggestions NS: You should pay more attention on prepositions
of place, such as 在. It’s not like ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘above’ in
English.NNS: Thank you for the suggestions!
Socially related Content discussion NS: What’s in these photos [uploaded with your
posts]?NNS: That’s what I’m asking you guys! How
did I take these photos? It is a surprise. If no one
guesses, I will tell you in a day or two! Hint. It
was taken with natural light, not electric light.
Social talk NS: You really love movies (^-^)NNS: Yes, I love to
watch Chinese movies!
Affective support NS: Good Chinese!NNS: Thank you!
Note: ‘NS’ refers to native speakers and ‘NNS’ refers to non-native speakers.
them as a form of member checking (Zacharias, 2016). The participants

confirmed that the summaries were accurate descriptions of their
experiences.
Findings
Learners’ engagement with peer feedback over time
Affective engagement
Affective engagement with feedback involves the emotions displayed upon
receiving peer feedback and willingness to respond to the feedback (Fan
& Xu, 2020; Tian & Zhou, 2020; Zhang & Hyland, 2018). The interview
data revealed that the participants displayed increasingly positive emotions
and willingness to engage with native speakers’ feedback over time.
For example, one of the participants was an adult learner in Korea
who had been learning Chinese on the platform for approximately nine
years. She shared how she had been initially hesitant about interacting
with native speakers online during the early period of her participation
on the site but became more comfortable as she accumulated experience
with peer feedback on the platform:
Actually, I hesitated to reply to the comments from the native speakers, especially
to those asking about my personal information, such as my hobbies, my jobs,
where I live and so on. We don’t know each other. But I found they were not
bad people, and [then] I felt it was ok to interact with them now. (Extract 1, P5)
Similarly, when recounting their early interactions on the platform, the

participants frequently used phrases such as ‘hesitated’, ‘surprised’, ‘embarrassed’
and ‘not used to [receiving so many comments from native speakers]’ to
describe their emotional attitudes towards receiving peer feedback.
In contrast, when describing their emotions towards peer feedback
in later stages, the participants used phrases such as ‘joyful’ and ‘enjoy’.
The changing emotions could also be elicited from the way the
Table 4. Factors emerging from the interview data.

Factor Sub-factor Example extracts from participants
Individual factors Community belonging ‘I regard native speakers as my learning peers.
I’d love to communicate with my peers’.
Learning beliefs regarding errors ‘I feel embarrassed when making mistakes, so
I paid full attention to the corrections I
received’.
Perceptions of the platform ‘I regarded the platform as a site to meet
native speakers, so I like to share my points
of view with them’.
Contextual factors Socially related feedback ‘The encouragement from native speakers
eases my hesitation to interact with them’.
Affordances of the platform ‘The platform can’t support instant and
interesting conversations’.
participants expressed thanks in their responses to feedback. For example,

P10, a Chinese learner of English in Australia, expressed his gratitude
using the words ‘thank you’ in his first blog discussion forum (06:58,
8 Jul. 2014). In contrast, in his last blog entry (08:21, 19 Jan. 2020), he
used ‘thank you buddy~’, which illustrates a shift towards more positive
emotions and a sense of intimate affiliation when engaging with native
speakers over time.
Furthermore, the participants reported their increased willingness to
engage with feedback on the platform and interest in doing so with
phrases such as ‘would love to [respond to native speakers]’ and ‘willing
to [give responses]’ in the interviews (the triangulated evidence of their
increasing number of responses is shown in Appendix A):
I did not get used to receiving such [a number] of comments from native
speakers. I was surprised. I just looked through it. […A]fter one month, I was
gradually not being surprised and tended to reply to them (native speakers).
(Extract 2, P4)
In summary, the participants displayed an increasing willingness to

reply to the comments and an increase in positive emotions related to
doing so, over time.
Behavioural engagement
‘Behavioural engagement with feedback’ refers to whether and how
learners respond to feedback (Ellis, 2010). An examination of the par-
ticipants’ affective engagement found increasing willingness to engage
with peer feedback, which was also triangulated in the behavioural data.
Furthermore, the quantitative analysis of the learners’ responses showed
a general trend towards greater engagement with peer feedback over
time. As shown in Table 5, the response rate increased from 40.14% in
the first year to 54.15% in the last year of participation on the learning
platform. This increasing pattern was consistent across the participants.
(Detailed information on all of the participants over the years is pro-
vided in Appendix A.)
In the interview data, the participants also explained how they tended
to respond to the comments received:
I try to respond to every native speaker who gave their comments to me now.
(Extract 3, P6)
Table 5. Proportions of learners’ responses and non-responses to peer feedback.

Period Non-responses Responses
First year 59.86% 40.14%
Last year 45.85% 54.15%
I find I did not interact with the native speakers at beginning, but definitely I
respond to them now. (Extract 4, P7)
Moreover, two behavioural patterns emerged when analysing the par-

ticipants’ actions upon instruction-oriented and socialization-oriented
feedback. As shown in Table 6, the participants in Group 1
(learning-oriented) continued to engage primarily with instruction-related
peer feedback (accounting for approximately 85% of their responses)
over time. In contrast, the participants in Group 2 (socialization-oriented)
tended to dedicate a greater proportion of their responses to socially
related peer feedback (an increase from 24.42% to 55.64%) and a smaller
proportion to instruction-related peer feedback (a decrease from 75.58%
to 44.36%) over time. These contrasting patterns were also consistent
across the individual participants (detailed information on all of the
participants over the years is provided in Appendix B).
For example, one of the participants (P7) in Group 2 reported increas-
ing engagement with socially related feedback from native speakers over
her three years using the platform. In December 2015 (two months into
her use of the platform), she posted a diary sharing some dishes she
had eaten in a restaurant. One native speaker corrected the name she
gave to a dish (‘beef stir-fried’, which was corrected to ‘stir-fried beef
with onion’) and then asked for detailed information about the dish
(‘which part of the beef?’). However, while she followed up on the
language-corrective feedback, she ignored the content-based feedback,
which reduced the opportunity to engage in further authentic commu-
nication with the native speaker about food (see Table 7 for details on
this interaction).
However, as time went by, P7 showed more engagement with socially
related feedback than with instruction-related feedback. For example,
during an interaction in 2017 (3 years into using the platform), one
native speaker gave both instruction-related feedback (explaining the
structure of ‘plan to do’ in Japanese) and socially related feedback (shar-
ing what he did for the Mid-Autumn Festival). P7 responded to the
socially related feedback from the native speaker (see Table 8).
During an interaction in 2018 (see Table 9), this participant even
took the initiative, turning instruction-related feedback into an oppor-
tunity for social interaction. In this example, the online peer corrected
Table 6. Changes in patterns of responses over time.

Period Instruction-related Socially related
Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2
First year 84.34% 75.58% 15.66% 24.42%
Last year 86.54% 44.36% 13.46% 55.64%
Note: Participants in Group 1 were P2, P6, P9, P10 and P11. Participants in Group 2 were P1, P3, P4, P5, P7
and P8.
Table 7. Illustration of focus on instruction-related feedback in an earlier usage period.

Interaction between P7 and native
Date and time speakers Annotation
30 Dec. 2015 13:08 P7: 蔥は牛肉を跳ねることや……三杯 P7’s original text in her blog post.
鶏なとを注文しました。 There was a mistake in the dish’s
(P7: I ordered onion and beef name.
stir-fried … and three-cup chicken.)
30 Dec. 2015 13:34 NS3: 牛肉の葱炒めや……三杯鶏なと NS3 corrected P7’s wording and
を注文しました。牛肉什麼的部分 asked which part of the beef she
我有點不明白。 had eaten.
(NS3: I ordered stir-fried beef with
onion … and three-cup chicken. I
don’t know which part of the beef
[I had eaten].)
30 Dec. 2015 13:45 P7: 另外,‘蔥爆牛肉’的日文不知道 P7’s response to the language
怎麼說？’ learning-orientated comments,
(P7: And, how to say ‘蔥爆牛肉’ asking for further clarification of
(stir-fried beef with onion) in the expression. However, she
Japanese?) ignored the question about what
kind of beef she had eaten.
a mistake in P7’s blog post. P7 expressed her appreciation and her wish
to engage further with this peer in the future. Notably, P7 also used an
emoji (◕‿◕)) to show her friendliness. When asked about that inter-
action during the interview, she noted that she wanted to express her
‘wish of becoming friends with [the online peer] and enhancing bonding
between each other by sending the emoji’. This also provides evidence
of her increasingly positive emotions regarding affective engagement.
In summary, two types of learner profiles regarding behavioural
engagement with feedback emerged over time (see Table 6). The par-
ticipants in Group 1 continued to engage with instruction-related peer
feedback over time, whereas the participants in Group 2 shifted their
engagement away from instruction-related peer feedback to focus on
socially related peer feedback over time.
Table 8. Example of engagement with socially related feedback in a later usage period.
Date and time Interaction between P7 and native speaker Annotation
4 Oct. 2017 12:59 NS5: 打算〜 NS5 explained all of the
〜しよ structures to express ‘plan to
うと思います。 do’ in Japanese but received
〜する予定です。 no response.
〜するつもりです。
(NS5: plan to do ~ [explanation of the
structures to express ‘plan to do’ in
Japanese])
(No response from P7)
4 Oct. 2017 12:59 NS5: 日本も十五夜で、私と叔父一家もお月見 NS5 shared what he did during
しました。(NS5: It was also the the Mid-Autumn Festival.
Mid-Autumn Festival in Japan, I watched
the moon with my uncle’s family, too.)
5 Oct. 2017 03:26 P7: 鶏麗な鶏月を見ることはいいですね～ P7 responded and gave her
(P7: It’s so good to see the beautiful full thoughts.
moon~)
Table 9. Example of actively shifting the nature of conversations with a native speaker.
Interaction between P7 and native
Date and time speaker Annotation
27 Dec. 2018 06:39 NS: 明けましておめでとうご鶏います, 這 NS corrected P7.
個只能在12月31日前用。
(NS: ‘明けましておめでとうご鶏います’
[‘Happy New Year’ in Japanese], can
only be used before 31 December.)a
28 Dec. 2018 00:01 P7: これからもよろしくお願いします。 P7 used a common expression to
◕‿◕ express ‘thank you’ and a polite
(P7: Thank you in advance for your way to ask for other people to
continuous support for the next year.) take care of one in Japanese.
P7 gave a socially related
response to an
instruction-orientated comment.
a
This explanation is not correct; however, the native speaker self-corrected in later conversation.
Cognitive engagement
Cognitive engagement with feedback refers to how learners attend to
the feedback they receive (Ellis, 2010), specifically the noticing of feed-
back as well as cognitive and metacognitive operations (Fan & Xu, 2020;
Han & Hyland, 2015; Zheng & Yu, 2018). The participants who showed
different levels of behavioural engagement with instruction-oriented and
socialization-oriented feedback also displayed different profiles of cog-
nitive engagement.
All of the participants recalled primarily paying attention to
instruction-related peer feedback, such as corrective feedback on their
language errors and language learning suggestions, when they started
using the platform. For example, one participant stated:
My focus was on language learning, I paid more attention to corrections of my
errors. (Extract 5, P10)
They reported a high level of cognitive operations when processing

instruction-related peer feedback, such as ‘asking for further explanation
in the follow-up discussion with native speakers’ (n = 11), ‘checking
whether the corrections were consistent with what [the participants]
wanted to convey’ (n = 11), and ‘seeking for detailed explanations online’
(n = 8). The textual data from the platform triangulates the interview
data. For example, Table 10 shows how P10 addressed a correction he
did not understand. His cognitive operations included ‘asking for further
explanation’ and ‘looking up in a dictionary’. He stated in the interview
that ‘corrective feedback did improve [his] language accuracy, but the
most important thing is understanding the grammatical rules through
the conversations with native speakers’.
They also reported a certain degree of meta-cognitive operations in
terms of monitoring and regulating their language learning when pro-
cessing instruction-oriented feedback. For instance, three participants
Table 10. An example a participant’s cognitive operation.

Date and time Interaction between P10 and native speaker Annotation
8 Jul. 2014 07:37 NS: I had to help her because we had NS corrected P10. The words in
established a relationship based on trust red and with strikethrough
and she was not only my neighbor but also were native speaker’s
my friend. amendments.
8 Jul. 2014 13:53 P10: I check the dict and found the phrase P10’s cognitive operations, such
“trusted relationship”, why can’t I use it as ‘looking up in a dictionary’
here or some other reasons? thanks and ‘asking for further
explanation’.
suggested that they had taken notes while reading the corrections, and
one of them had even printed all the corrections out as a reference source:
I [focused almost] all my attention on the corrections I received. I even printed
all the corrections out, like when I wrote my first 10 or 20 entries. I was thinking,
well, now I have something to refer to next time [I write entries]. (Extract 6, P3)
They further reported limited levels of cognitive and mete-cognitive

operations when receiving social-related peer feedback:
I asked for further explanations when I didn’t understand the corrections made
by the native speakers, but when they started a conversation, like their opinions
on Trump’s talk, I was just not interested. (Extract 7, P6)
Thus, the participants showed a higher level of cognitive engagement

with instruction-related feedback at the early stage of platform use.
However, over time, six of the participants (Group 2), reported their
shifting cognitive engagement with socially related peer feedback,
reflected in the levels of their noticing and meta-cognitive operations
they displayed when processing socially related peer feedback. For exam-
ple, one participant (P8) started using Lang-8 when she was an under-
graduate student majoring in Japanese. At that time, she used the
platform to practise the language she had learnt in class and ‘just looked
at the corrections on language’ in peer feedback. However, over time,
she tried to connect with native speakers online through socially related
discussions. She commented, ‘I find I pay much more attention to the
content when I am discussing [things] with native speakers now’.
Participants in Group 2 further reported using socially related feedback
to regulate their learning after they realised its value. One participant,
for instance, explained that thanks to the content-based conversations,
‘peers online know what I am interested in, such as the songs [and]
movies, so I can find the learning resources in their comments’. Another
participant suggested that while content-based comments may not directly
improve language accuracy, they do enhance cross-cultural awareness:
I didn’t like to chat with them [online native speakers]. It’s weird; I don’t know
them. […] But now, I sometimes look forward to comments from them. I want
to know their opinions [about the topics I posted]. It is actually interesting to
know the different views from people with different cultural backgrounds and
discuss [them] with them. (Extract 8, P5)
Thus, the participants’ cognitive engagement with the peer feedback

on the platform also showed divergent developmental trajectories over
time that were consistent with their behavioural engagement.
In summary, analyses of the behavioural data and the interview
responses reveal that the participants showed a gradual increase in their
willingness to engage with peer feedback. Two behavioural patterns were
detected, showing different changes in the trajectories of the participants’
cognitive engagement with feedback over time.
Factors shaping L2 learners’ engagement with peer feedback
Five key factors shaping the learners’ engagement with peer feedback
emerged from the interview data, as shown in Table 11. In general, the
individual participants’ perceptions of the platform and the nature of
the peer feedback they received there were frequently cited as factors
that shaped their engagement with peer feedback. Quite a few of the
participants reported a sense of belonging to the online community and
the technological affordances and constraints of the platform as influ-
encing factors. Approximately half of the participants also mentioned
that their engagement with peer feedback was influenced by their learn-
ing beliefs with respect to errors.
The interview responses further revealed that the nature of these
individual and contextual factors morphed over time and the factors
interacted with each other to influence the learners’ engagement with
peer feedback, as shown in Table 12. All of the 11 participants reported
that how they positioned the platform in relation to their language
learning shaped their perceptions of the affordances of the platform,
which subsequently influenced their engagement with peer feedback.
Some of the participants also reported that socially related feedback
enhanced their sense of belonging to this online community (n = 5) and
shifted their learning beliefs with respect to errors (n = 5), which boosted
their engagement with peer feedback.
Table 11. Influencing factors reported by the participants (n = 11).

Dimension Factor Explanation Count
Individual factors Community belonging Participants’ sense of community 9
Learning beliefs about errors Participants’ attitude towards 5
their mistakes
Perceptions of the platform Participants’ positioning of the 11
platform in their language
learning
Contextual factors Nature of feedback (socially related) Social communication 11
Affordances of the platform Platform’s technological functions 8
Table 12. Mediating factors and their roles, as reported by the participants (n = 11).
Factor Mediator Count
Socially related feedback Enhanced sense of community belonging 5
Shifting learning beliefs about errors 5
Perceptions of the platform Perceived affordances of the platform 11
Socially related feedback and sense of community

The availability of socially related feedback and the concomitant sense
of community were found to shape the learners’ willingness to engage
with peer feedback. The participants reported that socially related peer
feedback helped ease their anxiety about interacting with native speakers
on the platform and enhanced their sense of belonging to a community,
which resulted in an increase in the number of their responses to native
speakers over time:
Actually, after I began to feel a sense of community because of the positive feed-
back they gave me and discussions on the topics I was interested in, I want[ed]
to build up the connection with them. (Extract 9, P1)
I gradually identified a group of users who regularly read and commented on

my posts. They also shared their life with me on the discussion forum. […] I’ve
never seen them face-to-face, but they ‘talked’ with me like my friends. Now I
regard them as peers rather than teachers or students. (Extract 10, P7)
These extracts suggest that access to socially related peer feedback from
native speakers made the participants reconsider their relations with them.
The positive socially-oriented feedback received on the platform allowed
the participants to develop a stronger sense of personal affiliation with
the native speakers, whom they began to regard as ‘learning peers’ or
‘friends’, and to bond with them on the platform. This resulted in an
increased willingness to respond to feedback received from them.
The interview data were triangulated with the learners’ behavioural
data. Figure 2 shows that the ratio of the participants’ responses to
comments changed in parallel to the amount of socially related feedback
they received from native speakers. This suggests that the more socially
related feedback the participants received from native speakers, the more
likely they were to increase their responses to feedback.
Perceptions of the platform and its technological affordances

The interview and behavioural data further suggested that the perceived
functions of the platform and its technological affordances interacted to
shape the learners’ differentiated engagement with different types of feedback.
Participants who held relatively narrow perceptions of the platform’s
affordances (e.g. perceiving the platform as just a language learning
platform) tended to attend to and respond to only instruction-related
feedback. For example, one participant (P6), a learner who maintained
Figure 2. Proportion of the participants’ responses to total comments received and the
socially related comments received to total comments received from native speakers.
his engagement mainly with instruction-related feedback over time,

mainly perceived Lang-8 as a ‘help-seeking’ platform:
For me, Lang-8 is a help-seeking platform. If I had any questions in my Japanese
learning, for example, phrases I didn’t understand when I read Japanese comics
or lines I missed in some instructional YouTube videos, I posted those questions
online and sought help from the native speakers. Lang-8 is a platform where I
discuss linguistic questions with native speakers. I don’t regard it as a discussion
forum for comics fans. (Extract 11, P6)
Accordingly, he mainly attended to native speakers’ comments on his

linguistic questions rather than those on the content of the Japanese
comics or YouTube videos that he shared.
In contrast, the participants who perceived the platform as both a
language learning platform and a social networking platform tended to
engage with various types of feedback. For example, P1 used phrases
such as ‘writing practice site’, ‘self-expression and emotional regulation
platform’, ‘social networking site to meet native speakers’ and ‘proof-
reading site to support authentic language use’ to describe his perceptions
of Lang-8 at different stages of his use of the platform. He was an adult
learner who had been learning Chinese for over 10 years. He started to
use Lang-8 after he had stopped studying at a Chinese language school.
He explained, ‘I would like to continue my Chinese learning for free.
Lang-8 attracted me because the native speakers could revise my writ-
ings, my grammar and vocabulary mistakes. At that time, Lang-8 was
a platform for writing practice’. Accordingly, he focused on the correc-
tions he received from native speakers; as he reported, ‘I focused on
the errors I made’. However, over time, he broadened his perception of
the platform, viewing it more as a means of meeting native speakers of
Chinese, because he ‘had never studied in China and wanted to get to
know some Chinese people to chat with’. Accordingly, his responses to
socially oriented feedback from native speakers increased over time.
The contrasting case analyses of P1 and P6 suggests that the partic-

ipants’ perceptions of the function of the platform shaped their differ-
entiated engagement with different types of feedback.
The participants’ perceived functions of the platform also shaped how
they interpreted and acted with respect to its affordances, which further
influenced their engagement with the feedback they received from native
speakers online. Although the participants all felt that due to its ‘asyn-
chronous nature’, the technological features of the platform did not lend
themselves to socialisation, participants who held a more diversified
position on the platform’s functions, such as P1, could still perceive its
affordances for socialisation.
I once posted my travelling experiences in Hubei Province, and a Chinese lady
commented on my article, saying she is from where I had been to. She also gave
me her WeChat account in her comment, so I friended her. Communication
on WeChat is different from that on Lang-8, the dialogue and the relationship
between us were close and the words were more intimate. But because she
already knew some information about me from my Lang-8 postings, such as my
hobbies [and] my travelling experiences, we had a lot of topics to talk about on
WeChat. After I realised the benefits of Lang-8 regarding deepening interaction
with the native speakers, I became more willing to get involved in meaningful
communication with them on the platform. Lang-8 paved the way for closer
relations. (Extract 12, P1)
Therefore, despite perceiving other communication tools as being

more suitable for instant and in-depth communication, P1 was still able
to perceive and exploit the opportunities Lang-8 provided for in-depth
interaction. Accordingly, he was more willing to respond to socially
related feedback as a means of socialising with native speakers on the
platform. In contrast, P6 did not recognise the potential of the platform
for socialisation: ‘I could use other tools to talk with native speakers;
Line, Facebook, these are better tools for chatting’. It can be concluded
that the participants’ perceptions of the platform influenced how they
perceived its affordances, which further shaped their selective engage-
ment with the feedback they received from native speakers (see Appendix
B for detailed statistic data of the comparison between P1 and P6).
In summary, the perceived functions of the platform directly and
indirectly influenced the participants’ selective engagement with different
types of peer feedback via the platform’s perceived technological
affordances.
Socially related feedback and learning beliefs about errors

The participants’ learning beliefs about language errors were found to
shape their engagement with different types of feedback. The participants
who valued accuracy in language use seemed to engage more with
instruction-related feedback. For example, two participants (P3 and P7)

reported that when they first used the platform, they were very cautious
when posting online and felt embarrassed when making language errors
because they believed that they should try to ‘avoid mistakes’. They tried
to use ‘perfect language’ and therefore paid a lot of attention to
instruction-related feedback during their first year on the platform.
Accordingly, they focused more on and responded more to
instruction-related feedback.
However, their language learning beliefs shifted over time in response
to the socially related feedback they received on the platform. Receiving
socially related feedback on the platform made some of the participants
let go of their original belief in the importance of accuracy in language
use and begin to regard errors as learning opportunities. Having observed
that the native speakers on Lang-8 neither criticised nor laughed at the
participants’ language errors, they gradually began to accept their ‘imper-
fect language’. For instance, P7 recounted in her interview, ‘On Lang-8,
it is totally fine if I make mistakes. The native speakers did not laugh
at me; they just encouraged me. So now I give more focus to the con-
tent rather than language form when interacting with them’. Both P3
and P7 shifted from the belief that they should ‘avoid mistakes’ towards
the belief that they can ‘learn from mistakes’. As a result, they tended
to show increased engagement with socially related feedback on the
platform over the years (see Appendix B for detailed statistic data).
Thus, socially related feedback may have induced ongoing changes in
the participants’ learning beliefs about language errors, resulting in
changes in their cognitive and behavioural engagement with peer
feedback.
Discussion
Adopting an ecological perspective, this study examined language learn-
ers’ self-initiated and self-directed engagement with the peer feedback
they received on a writing-based SNSLL over time. In line with the
previous studies (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Haythornthwaite et al.,
2018), the SNSLL in the study showed its potentials in personalised
learning in the informal learning context. The findings further provide
insights into how language learners’ engagement with peer feedback
changes over time, a longitudinal view that has rarely been adopted in
research on peer feedback in L2 writing. The findings also highlight
the determining roles that learners play in shaping the efficacy of peer
feedback. They show that learners perceive and appropriate peer feedback
differently depending on their changing personal language learning
experience.
The longitudinal data reveal that the educational potential of peer

feedback should not be taken for granted; rather, it is subject to the
agentic interpretations and actions of learners. This result, first and
foremost, argues for a learner-centric view in examining learners’ engage-
ment with peer feedback, as only when language learners perceive and
act upon the learning opportunities embedded in the feedback they
receive from native speakers can they realise the potential of peer feed-
back for writing development (Han, 2017; Han & Hyland, 2015). Thus,
merely facilitating peer feedback and providing opportunities for inter-
action with native speakers are not sufficient; additional efforts are
required to support L2 learners’ willingness and capacity to attend to
and respond to the various types of feedback they receive from native
speakers.
The findings further show how a set of contextual and individual
factors interact to shape learners’ engagement with feedback over time.
The finding that these factors’ influences are intertwined suggests the
need for a dynamic and holistic approach to understanding the influence
of various individual and contextual factors in shaping L2 learners’
engagement with peer feedback, as indicated in Figure 3.
Some of the factors identified in this study are consistent with pre-
vious findings, such as the positive association between a sense of
belonging and learning engagement, the perceived academic, social and
emotional support provided by peer learners (Agosto, Copeland, & Zach,
2013; Berry, 2017); and the relationship between accuracy-driven learning
beliefs and students’ attention and responses to instruction-related feed-
back (García-Gómez & Garc, 2020; Han & Hyland, 2015; Yu & Hu, 2017).
This study also revealed certain factors and their interactions that
are unique to informal online learning spaces. One such factor is the
importance of socially related feedback. The study found that socially
related feedback greatly enhanced the participants’ sense of community
belonging. Studies have suggested that interpersonal relationships between
students and/or between students and teachers may influence feedback
engagement (Chong, 2021; Han, 2019; Xu & Carless, 2017). In the
classroom context, a sense of community may be built up through col-
laborative learning activities (Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006). The findings
of this study suggest that in a self-initiated learning context beyond the
classroom, community belonging in SNSLLs can be induced through
socially related feedback, such as learners’ commenting and sharing their
own points of view on their topics of interest, and eventually boosts
engagement with peer feedback.
Socially related feedback also induced changes in the learners’ learn-
ing beliefs about language errors from a desire to ‘avoid mistakes’ to
a readiness to ‘learn from mistakes’, which in turn changed their focus
Figure 3. Interaction between individual factors and contextual factors in shaping learners’
engagement with feedback from native speakers online.
when engaging with peer feedback. A shift away from accuracy-driven

learning beliefs is significant, as a decreased concern about language
accuracy in communication facilitates more meaningful and authentic
interactions with native speakers through communication technologies
(García-Gómez & Garc, 2020; Lai, Hu, & Lyu, 2018; Trinder, 2016).
The fact that this study identified the critical role of socially related
feedback, in contrast with previous studies, may be related to the unique
learning context studied and the duration of the study. While most
studies (e.g. Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Liang, 2010; Ma, 2020) have been
conducted in the classroom learning context, where peer discourse
around language errors is highly valued for improving writing perfor-
mance, this study was conducted in a self-initiated, informal learning
context, where diversified interactions on topics of personal interest are
key to sustaining learners’ engagement. Furthermore, studies on learner
engagement with peer feedback have primarily been conducted over
short periods. As such, they have failed to shed light on the long-term
effects of socially related feedback. The observation of the critical role
of socially related feedback in this study may result from the study’s
longitudinal approach.
Given the importance of socially related feedback, mechanisms must
be devised to encourage and support such peer feedback on educational
SNSs to foster an attitude of openness towards language errors among
learners. Certain design features are needed in SNSs to boost learner
engagement with peer feedback. For instance, designers could prompt

users to comment on the content of posts in addition to giving language
feedback. Awards, such as special badges and extra points on leader
boards, could be distributed based on the nature of the interaction
between users. Reports on learners’ engagement with different types of
feedback could also be provided to promote their self-reflection and
self-regulation. To create opportunities for authentic, meaningful and
socially driven communication, technological designers could create a
variety of learning groups based on shared interests and learning goals
or on such profile aspects as age and target language.
Another factor influenced feedback engagement identified in this study
is learners’ agentic positioning of the functions of the learning platform.
This factor influenced the participant learners’ engagement with peer
feedback, both directly and indirectly, via the technological affordances
of the platform that they perceived. This finding supports the proposition
that learning experiences are open to learner interpretation (Balaman &
Sert, 2017; Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Lantolf, Poehner, & Swain, 2018;
van Lier, 2004). This study shows that learners may define the same
platform differently in relation to their overall language learning expe-
rience and needs. Some may regard it solely as a language learning site,
while others may regard it as having more diversified functions, such
as enabling learners to meet native speakers and to use authentic lan-
guage. How the participants perceived the platform further shaped their
cognitive foci and behavioural engagement with different types of peer
feedback. The findings support a learner-centric view – that is,
learner-defined technological use based on learner needs and interests
– in understanding the language learning potential of educational tech-
nologies (Arndt & Woore, 2018; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012; Lai, Hu, & Lyu,
2018; Vanderplank, 2016). Therefore, it is important for the learners to
define the technological resources in relation to the learning that is
meaningful to them. Goodyear’s (2020) autoethnographic study also
showed the importance of learners’ capabilities to configure the suitable
learning contexts to them, which may lead to successful life-long learners.
More importantly, the participants’ perceptions of the language learn-
ing affordances of the platform varied depending on how they positioned
the platform, which further shaped their differential engagement with
different types of peer feedback. Therefore, to maximise the potential
of educational SNSs and encourage and sustain diversified engagement
with such platforms, it may be necessary to guide language learners in
their interpretation and positioning of the platform. For instance, users
could be encouraged to share and discuss their perceptions of the plat-
form to inspire and expose others to diverse interpretations and differ-
ential uses of the platform.
Conclusion
This study adopted an ecological approach to examine L2 learners’
engagement with feedback from native speakers on an instructional SNS
beyond the classroom. The findings reveal that the participant language
learners’ affective, cognitive and behavioural engagement with peer feed-
back was dynamic and that they varied according to the type of peer
feedback. The study also identified influential factors and interactions
between them that were unique to this learning context. Specifically,
the availability of socially related peer feedback and the learners’ per-
ceptions of the functions of the platform were significant factors in
shaping learner engagement with peer feedback in this learning context.
The findings also highlight the need for these two factors to be taken
into account in both platform design and learner preparation.
The findings of this study should be considered in conjunction with
certain limitations. First, the scale of the study was limited. The findings
were based on only 11 cases. However, a case study may be considered
‘generalizable to theoretical propositions’ (Yin, 2003, p. 10). In the future,
large-scale survey studies could be carried out to test the influential
factors and interventional studies could be conducted to examine how
the manipulation and intervention of the studied variables may enhance
learners’ engagement with feedback. Second, the study was based on the
self-reports of active users of the studied platform with an average length
of five years’ experience using it. This may have biased the research
findings, as the individual and contextual factors that shaped these active
and persistent L2 users’ engagement on the platform may differ from
those of inactive users. Therefore, future studies could include both active
and inactive learners to obtain a more comprehensive view. Third, the
longitudinal data in this study consisted of narrative interviews and
archived behavioural data on the platform. Further studies may collect
other data, such as learning journals, over time to track students’ learning
trajectories and tap into the factors that might influence their dynamic
engagement with peer feedback over time.
Notwithstanding these limitations, this small-scale exploration of L2
learners’ engagement with feedback beyond the classroom provides
insights into the dynamic nature of engagement on an educational SNS
and into how changing engagement is subject to the influence of a set
of intertwined individual and contextual factors. The findings suggest
that a dynamic and holistic approach to understanding and supporting
learner engagement with peer feedback is needed. Future studies could
include explorations of the quality of feedback engagement in a
self-directed learning context beyond the classroom as well as the factors
influencing such engagement.
Notes
1. At the time of writing, new sign-ups for Lang-8 are suspended (Lang-8.com, retrieved
in January 2021).
2. The languages used included English, Chinese, Japanese and Korean. The interview-
ers (also as researchers and authors) are proficient users of these languages.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
Fujian Provincial Federation of Social Sciences (Project No. FJ2021C055); Center for
Language Education and Cooperation of Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic
of China (Project No. 21YH47D).
Notes on contributors
Boning Lyu is an Assistant Professor at the Chinese International Education College,
Xiamen University. She received her Ph.D. degree at the Faculty of Education, the
University of Hong Kong. She is particularly interested in technology enhanced language
learning. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6858-2738
Chun Lai is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong
Kong. Her research interests include self-directed language learning beyond the classroom
and technology enhanced language learning. Her research agenda is to understand the
nature of learners’ out-of-class language learning with technology and the influencing factors
so as to inform educators on ways to support language learners in constructing quality
out-of-class language learning experience. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7915-113X
ORCID
Chun Lai http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7915-113X
References
Agosto, D. E., Copeland, A. J., & Zach, L. (2013). Testing the benefits of blended
education: Using social technology to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing in
face-to-face LIS courses. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,
54(2), 94–107.
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1),
109–137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109
Arndt, H. L., & Woore, R. (2018). Vocabulary learning from watching YouTube videos
and reading blog posts. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 124–142.
Balaman, U., & Sert, O. (2017). Development of L2 interactional resources for online
collaborative task accomplishment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7),
601–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1334667
Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching
and learning research. Routledge.
Berry, S. (2017). Building community in online doctoral classrooms: Instructor prac-

tices that support community. Online Learning, 21(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.24059/
olj.v21i2.875
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development.
Multilingual Matters.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Harvard Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the
Development of Children, 2(1), 37–43.
Cao, Z., Yu, S., & Huang, J. (2019). A qualitative inquiry into undergraduates’ learning
from giving and receiving peer feedback in L2 writing: Insights from a case study.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stue-
duc.2019.08.001
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling
uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Chik, A. (2011). Learner autonomy development through digital gameplay. Digital
Culture & Education, 3, 30–45.
Cho, Y. (2015). Exploration of a social networking site from L2 learners’ perspectives:
The case of Lang-8. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 11–40.
Chong, S. W. (2021). Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological per-
spective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 92–104. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1730765
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 (pp. 173–193). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches. Sage Publications.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and
self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning.
The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
Díez-Bedmar, M. B., & Pérez-Paredes, P. (2012). The types and effects of peer native
speakers’ feedback on CMC. Language Learning and Technology, 16(1), 62–90.
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective
feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0272263109990544
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’:
Exploring the relationship between college students’ use of online social networks
and social capital. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 1143–1168.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity—theoretical approach to de-
velopmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.
Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writ-
ing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775
Freiermuth, M. R. (2001). Native speakers or non-native speakers: Who has the floor?
Online and face-to-face interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 169–199. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.14.2.169.5780
García-Gómez, A., & Garc, A. (2020). Learning through WhatsApp: students’ beliefs,
L2 pragmatic development and interpersonal relationships. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1799822
González‐Sanmamed, M., Muñoz‐Carril, P. C., & Santos‐Caamaño, F. J. (2019). Key

components of learning ecologies: A Delphi assessment. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 50(4), 1639–1655. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12805
Goodyear, P. (2021). Navigating difficult waters in a digital era: Technology, uncertain-
ty and the objects of informal lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 52, 1594–1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13107
Gravett, K. (2020). Feedback literacies as sociomaterial practice. Critical Studies in
Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1747099
Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the
boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1),
6–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement
with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sys-
tem.2017.07.003
Han, Y. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The inter-
action between the context and individual learners. System, 80, 288–303. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.009
Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: Investigating the con-
cept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 543–
560. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.604951
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective
feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing,
30, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
Haythornthwaite, C., Kumar, P., Gruzd, A., Gilbert, S., Esteve del Valle, M., & Paulin,
D. (2018). Learning in the wild: coding for learning and practice on Reddit. Learning,
Media and Technology, 43(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1498356
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing.
Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Jin, L. (2018). Digital affordances on WeChat: Learning Chinese as a second language.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1–2), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588
221.2017.1376687
Jin, S. (2015). Using Facebook to promote Korean EFL learners’ intercultural compe-
tence. Language Learning and Technology, 19(3), 38–51.
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback
(AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). How should the higher education workforce adapt to
advancements in technology for teaching and learning? The Internet and Higher
Education, 15(4), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.002
Lamy, M., & Zourou, K. (Eds.). (2013). Social networking for language education. Berlin:
Springer.
Lantolf, J. P., Poehner, M. E., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of
sociocultural theory and second language development. London: Routledge.
Lai, C., Hu, X., & Lyu, B. (2018). Understanding the nature of learners’ out-of-class
language learning experience with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
31(1–2), 114–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1391293
Lehtonen, T. (2017). You will certainly learn English much faster at work than from
a textbook. System, 68, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.013
Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing:
Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45–64.
Lin, M. H. (2015). Learner-centered blogging: A preliminary investigation of EFL student

writers’ experience. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 446–458.
Lin, M. H. (2019). Language blogging community: Fostering the learning attitudes and
writing skills of EFL students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(3), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n3p1
Lin, M. H., Groom, N., & Lin, C.-Y. (2013). Blog-assisted learning in the ESL writing
classroom: a phenomenological analysis. Educational Technology and Society, 16(3),
130–139.
Lin, C.-H., Warschauer, M., & Blake, R. (2016). Language learning through so-
cial networks: Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1),
124–147.
Liu, M., Abe, K., Cao, M. W., Liu, S., Ok, D. U., Park, J., Parrish, C., & Sardegna, V.
G. (2015). An analysis of social network websites for language learning: Implications
for teaching and learning English as a second language. Calico Journal, 32(1), 114–
152. https://doi.org/10.1558/calico.v32i1.25963
Lyu, B., & Lai, C. (2020). Interacting with native speakers of Chinese through online
learning communities: A case study with East Asian learners. Global Chinese, 6(2),
215–235. https://doi.org/10.1515/glochi-2020-0012
Ma, Q. (2020). Examining the role of inter-group peer online feedback on wiki writing
in an EAP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 197–216. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1556703
Malecka, B., Boud, D., & Carless, D. (2020). Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback:
Mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teaching
in Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2),
293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred frame-
work for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4),
527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
Nash, R. A., & Winstone, N. E. (2017). Responsibility-sharing in the giving and re-
ceiving of assessment feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.01519
Neuendorf, K. A. (2018). Content analysis and thematic analysis. In Advanced research
methods for applied psychology (pp. 211–223). Routledge.
Nishioka, H. (2020). Learning to write Japanese using a SNS designed to develop
writing proficiency: Affordances and constraints. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 17(2), 405–420.
Özdemir, E. (2017). Promoting EFL learners’ intercultural communication effectiveness:
A focus on Facebook. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 510–528. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1325907
Parrish, C. M. (2019). Irritating but helpful”: Using a social media tool for peer and
user writing feedback in a Spanish language course [Doctoral dissertation]. The
University of Texas at Austin.
Pollard, A. (2015). Web-based journals in the classroom: Motivation and autonomous
learning. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.17509/
ijal.v4i2.680
Reinders, H., & Benson, P. (2017). Research agenda: Language learning beyond the
classroom. Language Teaching, 50(4), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444817000192
Reinhardt, J. (2017). Social Network sites and L2 education. The Encyclopedia of

Language and Education, 9, 389–400.
Reinhardt, J. (2019). Social media in second and foreign language teaching and learn-
ing: Blogs, wikis, and social networking. Language Teaching, 52(1), 1–39. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0261444818000356
Reinhardt, J., & Zander, V. (2011). Social networking in an intensive English program
classroom: A language socialization perspective. Calico Journal, 28(2), 326–344.
https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.326-344
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2018). Autonomous language learning through a mobile application:
A user evaluation of the busuu app. Language Learning, 31, 854–881.
Sangrà, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., & Veletsianos, G. (2019). Lifelong learning ecologies:
Linking formal and informal contexts of learning in the digital era. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1615–1618. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12828
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense
of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet
and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005
Syed, M., & Nelson, S. C. (2015). Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding nar-
rative data. Emerging Adulthood, 3(6), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815587648
Tian, L., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feed-
back and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
Trinder, R. (2016). Blending technology and face-to-face: Advanced students’ choices.
ReCALL, 28, 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344015000166
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic
analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health
Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
Vanderplank, R. (2016). Effects of ’ and ‘effects with’ captions: How exactly does watch-
ing a TV programme with same-language subtitles make a difference to language
learners? Language Teaching, 49(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000207
Wang, Y., Crooks, S. M., & Borst, S. (2017). Chinese language learners’ anxiety toward
chat partners in computer-mediated communication. Chinese as a Second Language,
52(2), 127–147.
Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does
the research tell us? Calico Journal, 29(3), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.11139/
cj.29.3.412-430
Xu, Y., & Carless, D. (2017). Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: Cognitive
scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1082–1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
2016.1226759
Xue, S., & Churchill, D. (2019). A review of empirical studies of affordances and de-
velopment of a framework for educational adoption of mobile social media.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1231–1257. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11423-019-09679-y
Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Understanding university students’ peer feedback practices in
EFL writing: Insights from a case study. Assessing Writing, 33, 25–35. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.03.004
Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Yuan, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). Understanding student
engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 50–65.
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated
feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asw.2018.02.004
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, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification
and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–
897. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417
Appendix A. Ratio of participants’ (non)responses to total

comments received
Participant Period Non-response Response

P1 1st year 84.24% 15.76%
2nd year 75.75% 24.25%
3rd year 34.86% 65.14%
P2 1st year 58.25% 41.75%
2nd year 100.00% 0.00%
3rd year 53.49% 46.51%
P3 1st year 70.83% 29.17%
2nd year 68.75% 31.25%
3rd year 58.33% 41.67%
4th year 53.44% 46.56%
5th year 40.58% 59.42%
6th year 38.46% 61.54%
7th year 34.08% 65.92%
P4 1st year 69.43% 30.57%
2nd year 65.30% 34.70%
3rd year 63.12% 36.88%
4th year 53.23% 46.77%
5th year 51.22% 48.78%
P5 1st year 72.38% 27.62%
2nd year 71.23% 28.77%
3rd year 68.53% 31.47%
4th year 65.43% 34.57%
5th year 63.26% 36.74%
6th year 61.21% 38.79%
7th year 59.97% 40.03%
8th year 58.22% 41.78%
9th year 53.22% 46.78%
P6 1st year 48.15% 51.85%
2nd year 35.38% 64.62%
P7 1st year 53.66% 46.34%
2nd year 44.20% 55.80%
3rd year 34.65% 65.35%
P8 1st year 76.67% 23.33%
2nd year 72.41% 27.59%
3rd year 69.12% 30.88%
4th year 66.22% 33.78%
5th year 65.28% 34.72%
6th year 61.54% 38.46%
7th year 67.65% 32.35%
P9 1st year 56.39% 43.61%
2nd year 50.21% 49.79%
P10 1st year 56.62% 43.38%
2nd year 52.46% 47.54%
3rd year 48.28% 51.72%
4th year 46.36% 53.64%
5th year 45.96% 54.04%
P11 1st–6th months 63.25% 36.75%
6th–12th months 62.09% 37.91%
Appendix B. Proportion of responses of various types by each

participant
Group Participant Period Instruction-related Socially related

Group 1 P2 1st year 86.05% 13.95%
2nd year 100.00% 0.00%
3rd year 90.00% 10.00%
P6 1st year 76.19% 23.81%
2nd year 78.57% 21.43%
P9 1st year 84.29% 15.71%
2nd year 84.59% 15.41%
P10 1st year 86.44% 13.56%
2nd year 84.48% 15.52%
3rd year 88.89% 11.11%
4th year 95.65% 4.35%
5th year 94.87% 5.13%
P11 1st–6th months 88.37% 11.63%
6th–12th months 91.38% 8.62%
Group 2 P1 1st year 81.25% 18.75%
2nd year 60.49% 39.51%
3rd year 16.60% 83.40%
P3 1st year 57.14% 42.86%
2nd year 70.00% 30.00%
3rd year 60.00% 40.00%
4th year 43.44% 56.56%
5th year 36.59% 63.41%
6th year 29.17% 70.83%
7th year 12.04% 87.96%
P4 1st year 67.80% 32.20%
2nd year 65.28% 34.72%
3rd year 55.34% 44.66%
4th year 47.70% 52.30%
5th year 32.38% 67.62%
P5 1st year 53.70% 46.30%
2nd year 52.48% 47.52%
3rd year 50.92% 49.08%
4th year 46.25% 53.75%
5th year 43.30% 56.70%
6th year 41.29% 58.71%
7th year 38.35% 61.65%
8th year 38.11% 61.89%
9th year 37.85% 62.15%
P7 1st year 81.26% 18.74%
2nd year 80.96% 19.04%
3rd year 75.57% 24.43%
P8 1st year 85.71% 14.29%
2nd year 81.25% 18.75%
3rd year 80.95% 19.05%
4th year 80.00% 20.00%
5th year 80.00% 20.00%
6th year 76.00% 24.00%
7th year 72.73% 27.27%
View publication stats

Analysing Learner Engagement With Native Speaker Feedback On An Educational Social Networking Site: An Ecological Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysing Learner Engagement With Native Speaker Feedback On An Educational Social Networking Site: An Ecological Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Analysing learner engagement with native speaker feedback on an

Article in Computer Assisted Language Learning · March 2022

Boning Lyu Chun Lai

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Analysing learner engagement with native speaker

Boning Lyu & Chun Lai

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2030364

Published online: 03 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Analysing learner engagement with native speaker

CONTACT Chun Lai laichun@hku.hk

learners clarify or negotiate meanings with each other, thus enhancing

1. What patterns of engagement with feedback did the participants

‘Learner engagement with feedback’ refers to ‘how learners respond to

as language proficiency, feedback literacy, learning awareness, motives,

An ecological approach to understanding learner engagement with peer

An ecological approach views human development in relation to the

and timeline (Barron, 2006; González-Sanmamed et al., 2019; Sangrà

Furthermore, the individual factors that shaped the participants’ agency

the target participants were required to be existing users of Lang-8. Second,

L2 learners’ engagement with peer feedback on an educational SNS, Lang-8

Table 1. Participant profiles.

Figure 1. Example of the Track Changes functionality of Lang-8.

reported that learners perceive the feedback received as useful in most

use the platform. A narrative interview is a person’s account of their

The current study operationalised behavioural engagement as learners’

Table 2. Descriptive data.

noticing the feedback as well as cognitive and meta-cognitive operations)

2013), was performed. Qualitatively, feedback from the native speakers

them as a form of member checking (Zacharias, 2016). The participants

Similarly, when recounting their early interactions on the platform, the

Table 4. Factors emerging from the interview data.

participants expressed thanks in their responses to feedback. For example,

In summary, the participants displayed an increasing willingness to

Table 5. Proportions of learners’ responses and non-responses to peer feedback.

Moreover, two behavioural patterns emerged when analysing the par-

Table 6. Changes in patterns of responses over time.

Table 7. Illustration of focus on instruction-related feedback in an earlier usage period.

They reported a high level of cognitive operations when processing

Table 10. An example a participant’s cognitive operation.

They further reported limited levels of cognitive and mete-cognitive

Thus, the participants showed a higher level of cognitive engagement

Thus, the participants’ cognitive engagement with the peer feedback

Factors shaping L2 learners’ engagement with peer feedback

Table 11. Influencing factors reported by the participants (n = 11).

Socially related feedback and sense of community

I gradually identified a group of users who regularly read and commented on

Perceptions of the platform and its technological affordances

his engagement mainly with instruction-related feedback over time,

Accordingly, he mainly attended to native speakers’ comments on his

The contrasting case analyses of P1 and P6 suggests that the partic-

Therefore, despite perceiving other communication tools as being

Socially related feedback and learning beliefs about errors

instruction-related feedback. For example, two participants (P3 and P7)

The longitudinal data reveal that the educational potential of peer

when engaging with peer feedback. A shift away from accuracy-driven

engagement with peer feedback. For instance, designers could prompt