This research utilized Zhang and Hyland’s framework on learner engagement with writing feedback as its theoretical basis. It employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative analyses, to examine English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement with three types of corrective feedback: feedback provided by an automated writing evaluation (AWE) system, peer feedback, and teacher feedback. The study was conducted among 32 sophomore English majors at a Chinese university. The results reveal that students generally exhibited high levels of engagement with corrective feedback, which supports the educational effectiveness of the integrated “AWE + peer + teacher feedback”model.

Yue Feng. Research on EFL Learners’ Engagement with Feedback in English Writing. Frontiers in Educational Research (2025), Vol. 8, Issue 4: 127-134. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2025.080419.

[1] Yu S, Zhang Y, Zheng Y, et al. Understanding Student Engagement with Peer Feedback on Master’s Theses: A Macau Study [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2019, 44(01): 50-65.

[2] Zhang Z V. Engaging with Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) Feedback on L2 Writing: Student Perceptions and Revisions [J]. Assessing Writing, 2020, 43: Article 100439. 

[3] Zhang Z V, Hyland K. Student Engagement with Teacher and Automated Feedback on L2 Writing [J]. Assessing Writing, 2018 (36): 90-102.

[4] Handley K, Price M, Millar J. Beyond ‘Doing Time’: Investigating the Concept of Student Engagement with Feedback [J]. Oxford Review of Education, 2011, 37(4): 543-560.

[5] Lunt T, Curran J. ‘Are You Listening Please?’The Advantages of Electronic Audio Feedback Compared to Written Feedback [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2010, 35(7): 759-769.

[6] Tyler, R W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instructions [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.

[7] Fredricks J A, Blumenfeld P C, Paris A H. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence [J]. Review of Educational Research, 2004, 74(1): 59-109.

[8] Ellis R. Epilogue: A Framework for Investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2010, 32(2): 335-349.

[9] Koltovskaia S. Student Engagement with Automated Written Corrective Feedback (AWCF) Provided by Grammarly: A Multiple Case Study [J]. Assessing Writing, 2020, 44: Article 100450. 

[10] O’Donovan B, Rust C, Price M. A Scholarly Approach to Solving the Feedback Dilemma in Practice [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2016, 41(6): 938-949.

[11] Mulliner E, Tucker M. Feedback on Feedback Practice: Perceptions of Students and Academics [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2017, 42(2): 266-288.

[12] Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking Models of Feedback for Learning: The Challenge of Design [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2013, 38(6), 698-712.

[13] Harland T, Wald N. The Assessment Arms Race and the Evolution of a University’s Assessment Practices [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2021, 46(1): 105-117.

[14] Ding L, Zou D. Automated Writing Evaluation Systems: A Systematic Review of Grammarly, Pigai, and Criterion with a Perspective on Future Directions in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence[J]. Education and Information Technologies, 2024, 29(11): 14151-14203.

[15] Chan S, Lo N, Wong A. Leveraging Generative AI for Enhancing University-Level English Writing: Comparative Insights on Automated Feedback and Student Engagement[J]. Cogent Education, 2025, 12(01): 2440182.

[16] Fu Q K, Zou D, Xie H, et al. A Review of AWE Feedback: Types, Learning Outcomes, and Implications[J]. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2024, 37(1-2): 179-221.

[17] Henderson M, Ryan T, Phillips M. The Challenges of Feedback in Higher Education [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2019, 44(8): 1237-1252.

[18] Adams A M, Wilson H, Money J, et al. Student Engagement with Feedback and Attainment: The Role of Academic Self-Efficacy [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2020, 45(2): 317-329.

[19] Christenson S, Reschly A L, Wylie C. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement [M]. New York: Springer, 2012.

[20] Han Y, Hyland F. Exploring Learner Engagement with Written Corrective Feedback in a Chinese Tertiary EFL Classroom [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2015 (30): 31-44.

[21] Ferris, D. Does Error Feedback Help Student Writers? New Evidence on the Short- and Long-Term Effects of Written Error Correction [A]. In: Hyland K, Hyland F, eds. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 

[22] Faigley L, Witte S. Analyzing Revision [J]. College Composition and Communication, 1981, 32(4): 400-414.

[23] Stevenson M, Phakiti A. The Effects of Computer-Generated Feedback on the Quality of Writing [J]. Assessing Writing, 2014 (19): 51-65.

[24] Fokides E, Peristeraki E. Comparing ChatGPT’s Correction and Feedback Comments with that of Educators in the Context of Primary Students’ Short Essays Written in English and Greek[J]. Education and Information Technologies, 2025, 30(02): 2577-2621.

[25] Taylor G. A Student’s Writing Guide: How to Plan and Write Successful Essays[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2009.