While previous studies on online resource use in L2 writing have focused on the overall writing quality, limited attention has been paid to its effects on linguistic complexity and real-time writing processes. Addressing this gap, the present study explored how online resource use influences both the processes and products of L2 writing. Forty-nine intermediate L2 learners completed two computer-mediated argumentative writing tasks, either with or without the use of online resources. Writing behaviors were captured via keystroke logging and screen recording, and analyzed for search activity, fluency, pausing, and revision quantity. Cognitive processes were examined through stimulated recall interviews, and written products were evaluated for both quality and linguistic complexity. The results showed that participants spent an average of 14 % of task time using online resources, with considerable individual variation. Mixed-effects modeling revealed that resource use facilitated the production of more sophisticated words, with marginal influence on writing quality or syntactic complexity. Resource use was also associated with longer between-word pauses, fewer within-word pauses, and reduced revisions. These findings highlight the potential of online resource use to enhance the authenticity of L2 writing assessment tasks without compromising test validity, while encouraging the use of more advanced vocabulary in writing. • Learners spent 14 % of the total writing task time using online resources. • Online resource use had no significant impact on L2 writing quality. • Online resource use improved lexical sophistication, not syntactic complexity. • Online resource use reduced within-word pauses and aided spelling retrieval. • Online resource use led to fewer revisions but did not affect fluency.

While existing research on second or foreign (L2) feedback has predominantly focused on the effectiveness of various feedback practices and their impacts on writing performance, limited attention has been devoted to learners’ proactive role in seeking feedback, and how this important yet underexplored construct correlates with conative and affective variables remains insufficiently examined. To help fill that void, we sought to explore the concept of feedback-seeking behavior and its antecedents in L2 writing by examining the correlations with future L2 writing selves and emotions, particularly unpacking the mediating effect of emotions in the emotion-driven chain of “motivation→emotion→increased or decreased behavior” among 225 undergraduate English major students. Structural equation modeling unveiled that ideal and ought-to L2 writing selves directly and significantly influenced emotions, and emotions impacted the two dimensions of feedback-seeking behavior significantly. More importantly, ideal L2 writing self indirectly influenced feedback monitoring and feedback inquiry through the mediation of writing enjoyment. Nevertheless, writing boredom exercised no significant mediating effect on future L2 selves and feedback-seeking behavior. These findings reinforced the learner-centered perspective that positions students as proactive agents and provide some notable implications for L2 writing instruction to advance our understanding of teacher feedback. • Learners with heightened L2 selves deployed more feedback-seeking strategies. • Experiencing L2 enjoyment fostered distinct feedback-seeking behaviors. • No variations in L2 boredom existed in the link between L2 selves and behavior. • More high-quality research evaluating L2 learners as proactive agents is needed.

Despite the growing body of research on feedback provided to L2 learners on their writing, few studies have investigated the use of a scaffolded approach to feedback. Sociocultural scholars argue that for feedback to be effective it needs to be scaffolded – dynamic and aligned to the learner’s ability to correct their errors (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). Although research on scaffolded feedback have found it to improve L2 writing accuracy, most of this research has been small-scale, using one-on-one conferences. This larger classroom-based study aimed to examine the effectiveness of scaffolded written feedback and students’ perceptions of this feedback approach. The study was quasi-experimental and implemented over one academic semester. The participants were 71 male students of intermediate English proficiency, majoring in English at a large Saudi university. They were divided into two groups: one group received scaffolded feedback; the other group received unscaffolded (indirect) feedback. The feedback targeted eight grammatical structures. Findings from the immediate and delayed post-tests showed that both groups improved in their overall writing accuracy over time, with no difference evident between the two groups. Moreover, both groups showed similar improvements in six of the eight targeted grammatical structures. The scaffolded feedback group showed greater improvement than their counterparts only on two structures: subject-verb agreement and singular-plural agreement. Interview findings showed that the scaffolded feedback group liked this approach mainly because of its novelty but preferred scaffolding only when it increased in explicitness. We conclude by considering whether and how scaffolded feedback can be provided in classroom settings. • Scaffolded and unscaffolded written corrective feedback (WCF) both enhance EFL writing accuracy. • Scaffolded WCF shows limited superiority in improving writing accuracy compared to unscaffolded WCF. • Saudi EFL students preferred scaffolded WCF, with explicit feedback being more appreciated over time. • Implicit WCF posed challenges for Saudi EFL students, leading to reduced response rates as feedback became more implicit.

Despite the burgeoning research on exploring learner engagement with feedback, how second language (L2) learners’ engagement with feedback in different processing conditions influences their subsequent writing development is under-explored. This study examines the effects of individual and collaborative processing (languaging) of teacher feedback on Chinese lower-secondary school EFL learners’ writing development. Eighty-one students aged 13–14 with A1-A2 levels of English proficiency (according to the Common European Framework of Reference) from two classes and two experienced English teachers participated in the study. Students were provided with comprehensive teacher feedback and were asked to process feedback provided on three writing tasks through either individual written or collaborative oral languaging over six weeks. Pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests were administered. Students’ writing development was analysed using complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures, as well as content and organisation writing scores. Findings showed that the two conditions did not influence students’ writing complexity and fluency differently, while only the collaborative oral languaging condition contributed to students’ sustainable accuracy gains. Results based on the analytic writing scores suggested that students in the two conditions significantly improved content and organisation scores over time. Pedagogical and research implications regarding implementing the two feedback processing conditions are discussed.

Recently, formative feedback in writing instruction has been supported by technologies generally referred to as Automated Writing Evaluation tools. However, such tools are limited in their capacity to explore specific disciplinary genres, and they have shown mixed results in student writing improvement. We explore how technology-enhanced writing interventions can positively affect student attitudes toward and beliefs about writing, both reinforcing content knowledge and increasing student motivation. Using a student-facing text-visualization tool called Write & Audit, we hosted revision workshops for students (n = 30) in an introductory-level statistics course at a large North American University. The tool is designed to be flexible: instructors of various courses can create expectations and predefine topics that are genre-specific. In this way, students are offered non-evaluative formative feedback which redirects them to field-specific strategies. To gauge the usefulness of Write & Audit, we used a previously validated survey instrument designed to measure the construct model of student motivation (Ling et al. 2021). Our results show significant increases in student self-efficacy and beliefs about the importance of content in successful writing. We contextualize these findings with data from three student think-aloud interviews, which demonstrate metacognitive awareness while using the tool. Ultimately, this exploratory study is non-experimental, but it contributes a novel approach to automated formative feedback and confirms the promising potential of Write & Audit.

Research in L2 writing contexts has shown developing writers’ beliefs exert a powerful mediating effect on how they respond to written feedback. The mediating role of beliefs is magnified in preparation for high-stakes English writing assessment contexts, where tangible outcomes pivot on successful test performance. The present qualitative case study utilises data from semi-structured interviews to investigate how the beliefs of three self-directed IELTS preparation candidates mediated their affective, behavioural, and cognitive engagement with electronic teacher written feedback across three multi-draft Task 2 rehearsal essays. Utilising a metacognitive conceptual approach (Wenden, 1998), the study identified seven themes: 1) self-concept beliefs regulated engagement, 2) reliance on the expertise of a quality teacher, 3) engagement was mediated by individuals’ learning-to-write beliefs, 4) belief in comprehensive, critical written feedback, 5) feedback deemed transferable was more comprehensively engaged with, 6) entrenched test-taking strategy beliefs hindered engagement, and 7) supplementary self-directed learning activities were considered of limited value. The implications for practitioners of IELTS Writing preparation and the IELTS co-owners are discussed.