Student engagement with written feedback (WF) in English as a second language (ESL) / English as a foreign language (EFL) learning has been widely researched from cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions. Students’ textual change is taken as the only indication of their behavioural engagement with feedback. Students’ no-revision operation or their unaction is usually considered as their disengagement or lack of engagement, or excluded from the examination of students’ WF engagement. How students have possibly engaged themselves with WF before they consequently disuptake (used in the context of feedback engagement, as an opposite to “uptake”) it is hardly touched upon in most studies. To visibilize students’ invisible engagement, we contextualized the study in a natural EFL writing class involving students’ writing and revisions after peer review and automatic writing evaluation (AWE). We used stimulated recalls and screen capturing to investigate students’ cognitive, affective and behavioural engagement with unactioned WF (hereafter UAWF). The findings show that 95.9% of the UAWF have been attended. The three participants, of different English proficiency levels, reported to have variably engaged themselves with their UAWF. Our findings also reveal feedback quality and students’ experience in using AWE system greatly influences their engagement with AWE feedback; student’s language proficiency has a stake in their engagement effectiveness; carefully designed peer review activities can make peer reviews more effective to benefit both feedback receivers and providers.

中文翻译：

---

学生无修改操作背后的无形参与可视化为书面反馈

学生在英语作为第二语言（ESL）/英语作为外语（EFL）学习中的书面反馈（WF）参与度已从认知、情感和行为维度进行了广泛的研究。学生的文本变化被视为他们行为参与反馈的唯一指标。学生的不修改操作或不作为通常被视为脱离或缺乏参与，或被排除在学生WF参与度的检查之外。在大多数研究中，很少涉及学生在最终放弃（在反馈参与的背景下使用，与“吸收”相反）之前如何参与WF。为了体现学生的无形参与，我们将研究置于自然的英语写作课中，涉及学生在同行评审和自动写作评估（AWE）后的写作和修改。我们使用刺激回忆和屏幕截图来调查学生对不采取行动的 WF（以下简称 UAWF）的认知、情感和行为参与。调查结果显示，95.9%的UAWF都参加了。三位英语水平不同的参与者表示，他们对 UAWF 的参与程度各不相同。我们的研究结果还揭示了反馈质量和学生使用 AWE 系统的经验极大地影响了他们对 AWE 反馈的参与度；学生的语言能力与他们的参与效率息息相关；精心设计的同行评审活动可以使同行评审更加有效，使反馈接收者和提供者都受益。