Language proficiency, beliefs, feedback literacy and learning objectives moderate students' engagement with and uptake of WCF¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students with low target linguistic knowledge and limited feedback literacy are incapable of understanding linguistic problems and correcting errors, and are less cognitively engaged with WCF uptake. → Liu 2025

Evidence¶

Liu 2025¶

Liu, W. (2025). A bibliometric analysis of written corrective feedback in second language writing. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 49, 133-150. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2025.49.07

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports, citing Zheng and Yu (2018), that low linguistic knowledge and limited feedback literacy reduce cognitive engagement and uptake; it also cites learning objectives, beliefs, and English proficiency as identified individual-difference factors (Han, 2017; Pearson, 2022; Han & Xu, 2021; Zhang & Hyland, 2018).

"students who have low target linguistic knowledge and limited capability of feedback literacy are incapable of understanding linguistic problems and correcting errors (Zheng & Yu, 2018)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• English-Learner Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Student engagement with WCF is the current research hotspot, with engagement analyzed as cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions — related
• Low- and high-proficiency EFL learners differ significantly in self-efficacy, intrinsic goal orientation, and test anxiety — related
• Review reports that collaborative feedback tasks improved students' writing accuracy for both low and highly proficient students (Tang & Tithecott) — reports the opposite
• EFL proficiency significantly shapes chatbot interaction: high-proficiency learners over-engage in dialogue while low-proficiency learners over-rely on feedback requests — related