Tailoring
written feedback to fit: The role of cognitive learning styles in improving EFL
writing with feedback
Lu Xiaotong[1]
& Lin Pan2*
|
*Correspondence: linpan@bnu.edu.cn |
|
1 The
Second High School Attached to Beijing Normal University, China 2
Beijing Normal University, China |
Abstract
Writing is one of the essential skills that foreign
language learners should master. Written feedback is a practical way for
teachers in China to provide feedback when teaching English writing. As a
dimension of the learner factor, students’ cognitive learning styles may
influence their performance in developing writing skills and their reaction to
teachers’ written feedback. This research investigates the effects of teachers’
written feedback on English learners with different cognitive learning styles during
an English writing course at a university in Beijing. Twenty-six students were
recruited and divided into two groups according to their cognitive learning
styles. Their essays were observed over a semester, and 13 of them received a
follow-up interview. Analysis was based on observing and comparing their
reactions to written feedback from the two groups. Students in the
field-independent group tended to respond to the feedback with more personal reflection
and acted on the feedback to solve more problems in their writing. This finding
suggests that teachers can provide more appropriate feedback tailored to students’
cognitive learning styles to help them improve their English writing.
Keywords:
Cognitive learning style, field dependent/independent style, teachers’
written feedback, English writing, reaction to feedback
1. Introduction
Learners possess different learning styles; therefore, specific teaching methods that some
learners prefer may not be effective for others (Franky & Budiman, 2021). According to the popular way
of classifying learning styles, field-dependent learners tend to see things
holistically, and field-independent learners are better at separating details
from the background (Witkin et al., 1977). Multiple studies
suggest that field-dependent and field-independent learners perform differently
in foreign language learning and have different needs (Carter, 1988; Mahvelati, 2020; W. Wang & L. Wang, 2023). These
studies have investigated learners’ performances in different English learning
tasks with various teaching methods and found differences between the effects
of these methods on learners with the two learning styles. However, previous research has not meaningfully explored the
influence of different learning styles on learners’ actual reactions to written feedback.
Writing is an essential ability that foreign
language learners should grasp. In English writing classes in China, written
feedback, which refers to teachers’ written responses to learners’ essays
(Zamel, 1985), is the most practical way to provide feedback. When considering
learners’ improvement in English writing, the connection between certain types
of feedback, learners’ learning styles, engagement, anxiety, and writing
performance has not been fully examined (Ren et al., 2026). As learners with various learning
styles have different needs when developing English writing skills, they may
react differently to teachers’ instructions, for example, written feedback and
progress differently. Written feedback can be individualized so it
can be tailored to better meet students’ different needs, for example, their
learning styles. Therefore, to fulfil the
connection between English writing, feedback and learners’ learning style, the
current research investigates the similarities and
differences between the reactions of field-dependent and field-independent
learners to teachers’ written feedback and their writing improvements. Based on
the results, this research presents the common reactions of field-dependent and
field-independent learners to teachers’ written feedback and their improvements
related to the feedback. Then the research indicates the influence of teachers’
written feedback on learners with different cognitive learning styles and suggests
appropriate ways for teachers to tailor their written feedback for students,
specifically for English writing tasks.
2. Literature Review
2.1
Influence of Cognitive Learning Styles on English Learning
Most
researchers agreed that a learning style was about “how the mind actually
processed information or was affected by each individual’s perception” (Dunn,
1984, p.11). As a stable individual
factor, cognitive learning styles determine how learners perceive and process
information, thus resulting in different effectiveness in language learning.
Various factors related to cognitive learning styles, such as cognitive style
category width and learning style types, have been confirmed to influence
foreign language learning in different aspects (Munkova et al., 2024; Olagbaju,
2020; Wu, 2016). Learners’ language competence, learning behaviour
and learning achievements vary according to learners’ cognitive learning
styles.
Among
the different ways of classifying learning styles, the earliest and most
popular ones are field-dependence and field-independence
classified from learners’ cognitive methods (Witkin et al., 1977), representing
the tendency to see things holistically or separate details from the
background.
This classification is stable and dipolar and remains one of the most common
and widely researched methods of classifying learning styles from the cognitive
perspective. According to Witkin et al. (1977),
field-dependent learners are better at the overall perception approach and can favour reading and writing activities. Meanwhile,
field-independent learners focus on their inner motivation, excel in oral
practice, and understand language input more quickly.
When
studying learning styles, many researchers assume that field-dependent or
field-independent learners perform differently in language learning. For
example, Carter (1988) examined second-language learners of Spanish. He found
that field independence contributed more toward formal linguistic achievement
and functional language proficiency tasks, proposing the assumption that
field-independent second language learners perform better in language form and
classroom learning. Mahvelati (2020) studied Iranian
students’ performance in implicit learning tasks and found that
field-independent learners were more active in processing information and
better at recalling information from memory. Some researchers have also studied
the effects of particular instructions on learners
with different learning styles. W. Wang and L. Wang
(2023) mentioned the interaction between cognitive learning styles and
implicit or explicit instructions on learners’ acquisition of the simple past.
They also found that field-independent learners performed better with both
types of instructions. Gui and Ismail (2024) indicated field dependence
influenced learners’ time planning and thus impacting their language learning
outcomes. Despite the various focuses on language performance, these studies
all emphasize that learners with different cognitive learning styles vary in
their learning habits and performances.
In conclusion, learners with field-dependent and
field-independent cognitive learning styles develop different ways of
processing information and reacting to external information.
They also perform differently in language learning. Therefore, the effects of teachers’ written
feedback can vary between different learners,
and their reactions to it can be affected by their cognitive learning styles. Besides, the learning outcomes of learners with
various learning styles are also affected by teaching methods and other factors
in classrooms. Therefore, more suitable teaching methods can be explored.
2.2
Effect
of Written Feedback on English Writing
Feedback is indispensable for
teachers to help English learners improve their language accuracy and
efficiency. Feedback refers to “input from a reader to a writer with the effect
of providing information to the writer for revision” (Keh, 1990, p.294). Ur
(1996) defined feedback in the teaching environment as returning information on
a specific learning task to improve learning. Feedback provides useful information about
students’ learning and is found to be one of the most powerful sources and influential
factors affecting student achievement (Lee, 2017). In writing classes in China, feedback is often
given in written form on learners’ writing, providing information written
for learners to guide them in revising and improving their writing. In addition, the teacher is the most important
source of feedback most of the time. In universities, teacher written feedback
is also the most common type of feedback in English writing classes, helping
students improve their writing.
Research has indicated the
effect of written feedback on learners’ future writing development. Li (2013)
and Yang (2013) both examined the impact of written feedback on university
students’ English writing and demonstrated that teachers’ written feedback
could help learners improve their writing. Zhang and Cheng (2021) revealed that
such written corrective feedback helped significantly improve EAP students’
writing accuracy and fluency, thus proving the positive effect of written
feedback. Different types of written feedback, including focused, mid-focused
and unfocused, have all been found to positively influence L2 learners’ writing
(Xiao & Liu, 2021; Zhang, 2021). With written feedback, learners improved
their accuracy and performed better in foreign language learning. Lee and Cha
(2022) examined the influence of digital
written feedback on college students’ learning experience and attitude and also
proved a positive effect. These studies all emphasise the positive effect of
written feedback on students’ progress in English writing.
Learners deal with feedback
differently after receiving it. According to Yu and Yang (2021), students’
responses toward written feedback can be divided into three dimensions, which
are behavioral, affective, and cognitive responses. Behavioral responses include learners’ revision operations
and strategies and affective responses refer to learners’ attitudes and
emotional changes. The cognitive responses consider learners perceptions of the
feedback, for example their processing of the feedback. For behavioral
responses, learners would focus on feedback information selectively, accept or ignore
feedback, or seek external help with the feedback (Yu et al., 2021). The behaviour results in different
effectiveness of teacher written feedback. In addition to confirming the
effectiveness of various types of feedback, Shintani et al. (2014) found that opportunities
for revision enhanced the effect of feedback. Ekanayaka and Ellis (2020) investigated the add-on effect of asking
students to revise after receiving written corrective feedback and further
confirmed the add-on effect of revision in improving writing accuracy. These
indicate that written feedback has a more powerful effect with revision.
Meanwhile, in the affective
dimension, learners have their preferences for written feedback on their
assignments. Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) found that
learners preferred larger quantities of error correction for all types of
errors in their writing. Chinese L2 learners also held a favourable attitude
toward error corrections but preferred direct revision and comments on content
and grammar (Chen et al., 2016). Written feedback also has a different
emotional impact on learners. Students can experience positive, negative or
neutral emotions (Mahfoodh, 2017; Han & Xu, 2020) and learners’
feelings toward written feedback influenced their likelihood of acting upon it.
Written feedback has pedagogic value when learners take it up and follow it
through (Andon et al., 2017). When learners felt pessimistic about the
feedback, it was less effective. Therefore, learners’ attitudes toward feedback
deserve further investigation.
Concerning English writing
performances, multiple learner factors including learners’ working memory, English
language proficiency and self-efficacy all play a role as well as affecting
each other (Teng & Ma, 2026). When improving English writing, these learner
factors like background experiences, emotions, self-efficacy, current capacity
for and disposition toward learning all influence their uptake of feedback (Leung,
2020; Tsao, 2021; Kong & Teng, 2023). These findings demonstrate that
learner factors influence how learners deal with feedback and also the effects
of the feedback. Thus, learner factors should be considered when studying the
effects of written feedback on writing.
2.3
Relation
between Learning Style and Effect of Feedback
Learners’ individual factors have been shown to
influence learners’ learning engagement, learning outcomes and the effect of
teachers’ instructions and feedback, for example, the influence of learners’ language
analytical ability, learner beliefs and experience (Han & Hyland, 2015; Shintani
& Ellis, 2015). Among learner factors, cognitive learning styles are
significant. Kafipour and Khoshnood
(2023) investigated the effect of feedback through dynamic assessment on
Iranian learners’ speaking skills by considering their cognitive styles. They
pointed out that the field-dependent group outperformed the other group with the
feedback, thus confirming the vital role of learners’ cognitive styles in the
effectiveness of feedback in foreign language learning. These all confirm the
relationship between learner factors and learning, especially the influence of
learners’ learning styles.
Concerning feedback in
English teaching and learning, Guo and Yang (2018) investigated the
effectiveness of two types of feedback, recasts and prompts, on the acquisition
of the third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style and
found that field dependence or field independence may mediate the effectiveness
of recasts in the acquisition of the third-person singular form. Yeldham and
Gao (2021) explored the relation between learning outcomes and the matching of
learners’ cognitive styles and teachers’ listening instruction methods. They
found evident support for matching, which indicates the relationship between
leaners’ cognitive styles and teachers’ feedback. Farangi
et al. (2025) examined the influence of cognitive learning styles on learners’ preferences
of the amount and types of written corrective feedback in English writing.
Their results indicated field independent learners preferred indirect feedback
while field dependent learners favored explicit
corrections so that the same type of feedback could benefit them differently.
The results all demonstrated a relationship between certain learning styles and
the effects of feedback. The effectiveness of various types of feedback varies
according to learners’ cognitive learning styles in foreign language listening
and speaking.
In summary, most previous
research on written feedback focuses on the broader teacher factors, types of
written feedback or students’ revisions, while the influence of learner factors
such as students’ affective factors, understanding of feedback, and their use
of feedback are not fully considered (Hyland, 2010). The gap between learning
styles and effective feedback and instructions in English learning needs to be
bridged (Farangi & Nejadghanbar,
2024). Still, limited research has been conducted on the link between learner
factors and feedback. While Farangi et al. (2025)
confirmed the relation between cognitive learning styles and learners’
preferences toward feedback, the relation still needs exploration in different
teaching practices and cultural contexts. Learners’ differences and inner
factors, for example, learning styles, deserve further exploration to make
feedback more effective.
To address these gaps and
explore the relationship between these two concepts in English writing,
specific research questions are as follows:
(1) How do field-dependent
and field-independent learners in China react to teachers’ written feedback on
their English writing?
(2) What are the similarities
or differences between the reactions of field-dependent and field-independent
learners to teachers’ written feedback on their English writing?
3. Methods
3.1 Participants
The participants in this research
were 26 first-year English majors from the same university in Beijing. They
were all native Chinese speakers who took English as a foreign language and
they took an English reading and writing course. Their English levels were
intermediate, and they had not taken any English courses previously.
All the participants volunteered to take part and
signed consent forms. During the study, they were taught by the same teacher in
the English reading and writing course, and they did not learn English writing
through any other programmes. They took classes with the
same content, received the same opportunities for learning and practising
writing and completed the same writing tasks in the same period of time.
3.2 Instrumentation
3.2.1 Group Embedded Figures Test
Witkin’s Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was utilized
to examine the participants’ cognitive learning styles.
GEFT was first designed by Witkin et al. in 1971 and its reliability was
reported to be 0.82. The GEFT test is still widely used to explore the
relationship between cognitive learning style and foreign language learning
(Guo & Yang, 2018; Zhang et al., 2020; Heidari, 2022). It was a convenient and
practical method of assessing cognitive learning styles. The Chinese-language
version of this test (Chen et al., 1989) was readily available and it was adopted
to make the participants clear about the test and ensure the accuracy of the
result.
The test comprised three parts and 33 figures:
eight simple figures, seven complex figures and 18 more complex figures. Each
complex figure includes one of the eight simple figures. In the test, the
participants were shown the simple figures first. Then, they were given the
first set of complex figures to practice finding the simple figure within them
in two minutes and then the second set of complex figures to identify simple
figures in nine minutes. The participants obtained points for one complex figure
when they correctly identified the simple figure in it. Participants’
scores were determined according to the criteria listed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Criteria for GEFT
|
Number of the figure |
|
|
1 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 17 |
|
6 |
9 11 12 15 16 19 20 22 23 |
|
7 |
10 13 14 18 21 24 25 |
In this test, field-dependent participants tended
to have more difficulty finding the simple figure. Thus, participants who
obtained higher scores tended to be more field-independent, while participants
with lower scores tended to be more field-dependent.
3.2.2 Interview
To understand the participants’ attitudes and feelings
about the written feedback and to find out their reactions that cannot be seen
in the writing, an outline for the following semi-structured interview was
designed based on the participants’ situation of dealing with the teacher’s
written feedback presented in their writing. The outline mainly consisted of
six series of questions, discussing how the participants dealt with the teacher’s
written feedback, their attitudes toward the feedback and their opinions on
their improvements. The first and second series of questions focused on
participants’ attitudes toward the teacher’s written feedback and their
preferences. The third series of questions investigated the participants’
habits of organising the teacher’s written feedback. The fourth series of
questions discussed the participants’ ways of dealing with confusion. Then, the
last two series of questions were about participants’ possible improvements in
writing with the teacher’s written feedback and their perceptions of the effect
of the feedback.
The interview outline served as the basic
structure of the interview, prompting significant elements in the interview.
The interview pattern is not rigid. The order of the questions was adapted and
other relevant questions to supplement useful information were added according
to the situations in each interview and the results of each interviewee’s
questionnaire. The participants were also allowed to express their opinions and
ask relevant questions according to their willingness. The interviews were
conducted in Chinese to avoid difficulties for participants in understanding
questions and expressing their real feelings.
3.3 Procedure
At the beginning, all the participants completed
the GEFT test and their scores were assigned according to the criteria. Based on their scores, the participants were classified
into two groups due to the sample size. The participants whose scores were
higher than the average score comprised the field-independent group, and the
others were placed into the field-dependent group. Table 2 presents the
results for all the participants and the two groups.
The participants attended English reading and writing
classes once a week. They received four writing
tasks during the semester and were
given one week to complete each essay. For each piece, the teacher or teaching
assistant responsible for the class provided feedback directly written
on the learners’ essays.
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics of
GEFT
|
N |
Range |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
|
|
All |
26 |
92 |
13 |
105 |
56.77 |
|
Field-dependent group |
13 |
40 |
13 |
53 |
39.46 |
|
Field-independent group |
13 |
48 |
57 |
105 |
74.08 |
After receiving the feedback,
participants could react to the feedback as they
thought appropriate without a time limit. The participants who only solved the problem
according to the feedback were judged to have accepted the feedback. The
participants who made further revisions in addition to the corrections
identified by the teacher made more revisions. The participants who did not
revise their submissions ignored the feedback. Their responses to the feedback
did not change over the four essays. All essays written by the participants and
their revised versions, if applicable, were collected.
At the end of the semester,
seven participants from the field-dependent group and six from the
field-independent group were interviewed. The seven field-dependent
participants were numbered from Student D1 to D7, and the six field-independent
participants were numbered from Student IND1 to IND6. The participants answered
questions about their reactions to the teacher’s written feedback and their opinions
on their improvements based on the feedback. Based on the interview
outline, follow-up questions were added to check the participants’ meaning and obtain
more information when needed. All
interviews were recorded with the participants’ consent.
3.4 Data analysis
The effectiveness of feedback can often be
reflected by learners’ reactions to it, considering their behavioural, affective,
and cognitive reaction according to Yu and Yang’s model (2021). Participants’
reactions to teachers’ written feedback were classified after observing and
analysing the differences between the original and the revised versions of the
participants’ submissions. Whether the participants avoided making the
same mistakes that the teacher’s written feedback had pointed out was also
compared across the four essays. When
the errors pointed out did not occur, or the same problem did not appear in the
teacher’s written feedback, the problem was judged to have been solved.
The interview records were first transcribed using
speech-to-text technology in the Tencent Meeting application. The transcription
was revised according to the original records and then reorganised according to
the interview questions. Answers to the same question were analysed and key
sentences or segmented phrases were picked out and grouped according to their
meanings. The answers of the two groups were then compared. Through the interview analysis, learners’ common types of
affective and cognitive reactions were summarised and compared. The effect of
written feedback was analysed from the perspectives of participants’ reactions
to it considering their behavioural, affective, and cognitive reactions and
also their improvements in later tasks. The features of each group were shown
by the combination of the survey of participants’ writing and interview results
and were then compared.
4. Results
4.1
Behavioural Reaction to Teacher’s Written Feedback
Participants’
behavioural reactions to written feedback in this study were reflected in their
behaviour of revision after receiving the feedback.
According to the interviews, all the participants read
the teacher’s written feedback carefully, and more than half of them improved
their writing accordingly. The comparison between the participants’ original
and revised essays also showed that most of the participants from both groups
had some reaction to the teacher’s written feedback, indicating the feedback’s
influence.
Among all the participants, 16 accepted the teacher’s
written feedback by correcting grammar and syntax mistakes, among whom half
were from the field-dependent group and half from the field-independent group.
Nine participants did not revise their essays at all, among whom five were from
the field-dependent group and four from the field-independent group. Only one
participant rewrote her essays based on the teacher’s written feedback, and she
belonged to the field-independent group. Figure 1 shows the participants’
reactions.
Figure 1. Participants’
Reaction to Feedback
This implies that students with different cognitive
styles reacted similarly to teachers’ written feedback in behaviour. They all
held a receptive attitude towards the feedback. Most learners accepted the
feedback, a few gave up revising and a very small number made more revisions.
4.2 Cognitive
Reaction to Teacher’s Written
Feedback
Participants’ cognitive reactions to written feedback mainly
included the subsequent processing of written feedback in this research, which
refers to learners’ memorising, clarifying and questioning of the teacher’s
feedback.
When talking about the
processing of the teacher’s written feedback, almost all participants from the
field-dependent group said they would not collect or compare the feedback from
different essays. They claimed that they would remember the problems pointed
out by the teacher when beginning a new essay. For example, Student D6 stated
that she had taught herself to remember the feedback and avoid making the same
mistakes. This suggests that field-dependent learners tried to memorise the key
information in the feedback but they seldom spent more
cognitive effort dealing with the feedback after making basic revisions. At the
same time, most participants from the field-independent group had the habit of
collecting and organising teachers’ written feedback. Some of them explained
their practices:
I had a notebook. I categorised
the expressions in the feedback, such as phrases and vocabulary and noted them
down. (Student IND3)
I collected the correct
expressions and read them again. Next time, I’ll write my new essay according
to these expressions. (Student IND4)
This data shows that students
with higher field independence tended to maintain the habit of collecting and
arranging their teachers’ written feedback. Although most of them did not make
more revisions, they would find ways to record the key items, review the
feedback and make relevant improvements in their writing later.
When feeling confused about
the feedback, field-dependent learners would ask the teacher for help directly,
as Student D3 said:
Sometimes I felt that I had written
a specific part perfectly, but the teacher marked it. Then, I asked the teacher
for the reason. (Student D3)
However, three participants
from the field-dependent group said they rarely needed clarification about the
feedback, which suggests that learners with higher field dependence were less
likely to feel confused about the teacher’s written feedback or raise questions.
The most common way for them to solve issues was to ask for help directly while
learners with higher field independence would also ask the teacher for help.
However, two participants from the field-independent group also expressed that
they were unsatisfied with the teacher’s feedback, but they failed to find
solutions:
Most of the teacher’s written
feedback corrected my grammar mistakes. It’s OK, but it didn’t solve my problem
at the level of thinking. (Student IND5)
I didn’t know how to solve
the confusion. Sometimes, the feedback was given by the teaching assistant, but
she didn’t come to our class. Once, I asked the teacher about a comment, but
she only translated it for me. (Student IND6)
Among the other participants
who felt unsatisfied with the feedback, only Student IND4 said she would look
up information online or read others’ articles if the teacher’s explanation did
not suffice. This implies that most students from the field-independent group were
not content with just the teacher’s written feedback or explanations. They spent
more cognitive effort processing and questioning feedback. In addition, they tended
to seek more help and find more ways to solve problems.
The results indicate that
field-independent learners found more ways to solve their problems with the
feedback while field-dependent learners tended to turn to the teacher for help.
Field-independent learners are better at applying their cognitive effort and
organising teachers’ written feedback and field-dependent learners spend less
effort processing the feedback, thus making it less possible for field-dependent
learners to make progress based on the feedback. Field-dependent learners’
methods of processing feedback are not as methodical, and they are less adept
at grasping writing skills; therefore, they also have more difficulty solving
the problems presented in their feedback.
4.3 Affective
Reaction to Teacher’s Written
Feedback
In addition to behavioural and
cognitive reactions, learners had different affective reactions to the
teacher’s written feedback, which were implied by their feelings and judgments
of the feedback.
When asked, “Were you willing
to receive the teacher’s written feedback?”, all the participants showed a
positive attitude. Although they welcomed the teacher’s written feedback, not
all participants agreed that the feedback was sufficiently helpful. More than
half of the participants said that the teacher’s written feedback was
constructive for them:
I wouldn’t make progress
without the teacher’s help. (Student D1)
Most of the time, I feel
perfect about my essays and can’t see any problems with them. The teacher’s
written feedback made me aware of my errors. (Student IND2)
These data indicate a
positive effect of the teacher’s written feedback and explain the reason for
learners’ attitudes towards feedback. At the same time, some learners from the
field-dependent group thought that the written feedback had little effect on
them. For example, Student D6 said that the feedback might not be quite helpful
in the long term because she forgot it quickly. On this topic, learners from
the field-independent group expressed their expectations about the feedback as
follows:
I can’t say it’s very
beneficial. After receiving the teacher's feedback, I still didn’t know how to
write the essay better. (Student IND4)
I thought the teacher just
marked the problems in the essay. She didn’t give me more details. I thought it
would be more effective if the teacher gave me face-to-face feedback. (Student
IND5)
These responses suggest that
not all learners received sufficient help from the teacher’s written feedback. Learners
with higher field dependence tended to perceive the feedback as more helpful
and learners with higher field independence expected the feedback to provide
more information and assistance.
In addition, learners have
different preferences when receiving teachers’ written feedback on details or
the whole essay. Most participants said they preferred to see feedback on the entire
essay. Students D1 and D2 from the field-dependent group said they would turn
to feedback on details for convenience in making improvements:
The structure was difficult
to improve so I paid more attention to grammar mistakes. (Student D1)
It is natural to turn to
grammar first as grammar is fundamental. (Student D2)
Two other field-dependent
participants thought that feedback on precise details and the overall text were
equally important. For participants from the field-independent group, all of
them viewed feedback on the entire text as more important. They commonly
considered the further development of their writing or English learning:
The feedback on structure,
content or thought is much more important […] As English majors, we should pay
more attention to improving our thinking. (Student IND5)
The feedback on the entire
essay is more important because only teachers or other readers can provide us with
this kind of feedback while the problems around details can be solved
independently. (Student IND6)
This data shows that some
learners have preferences for teachers’ written feedback and these preferences
were related to their needs. Field-dependent learners did not often consider
improving their writing further. In contrast, field-independent learners
considered their further development in writing and clearly emphasised the
influence of feedback throughout the whole essay.
In summary, field-independent
learners were more critical of the teacher’s written feedback and tended to
focus more on the most crucial point in the feedback, while field-dependent
learners relied more on the feedback and built deeper affective connections
with the feedback.
4.4 Learners’ Improvement after Receiving Teacher’s Written Feedback
After receiving the teacher’s
written feedback and dealing with it, learners showed different changes in
their future writing practices. More than 75% of participants from the two
groups who did not alter their writing failed to solve the problems that were pointed
out to them. Three of the participants from the
field-dependent group who accepted the feedback avoided making the same
mistakes, but the other five still had similar issues. Six participants
from the field-independent group who accepted the feedback managed to correct
their errors or maintain their positive features, while two others still had unresolved
issues. Figure 2 presents the results after the learners accepted the teacher’s
written feedback. The participant who made more revisions solved her problems
and showed more progress in her writing.
Figure 2. Results of Learners’ Reaction
after Receiving Feedback
When discussing the improvements,
all the participants from the field-dependent group acknowledged the effect of
the teacher’s written feedback on their progress. Some of them explained that
the teachers’ written feedback guided them:
What the teacher said was
more professional than what I thought […] and it gave me guidance.
(Student D1)
The feedback made me see a
direction I hadn’t noticed before to improve
my writing. (Student D5)
Others thought that the
feedback helped them solve some problems in language, grammar or other aspects:
The teacher’s written feedback helped me
change the bad habit of using Chinese English. (Student D3)
It helped me correct my
grammar mistakes. (Student D4)
Learners with higher field dependence
tended to approve of the influence of the teacher’s written feedback and
improved their writing mainly based on the feedback. However, only two
participants from the field-independent group thought that the teacher’s
written feedback was essential for their progression. Others thought that the
teacher’s feedback had little influence while the teacher’s explanation in
class or their effort after class played a more significant role. Some of them
outlined their opinions as follows:
The teacher’s written feedback is
helpful, but maybe because my ability is limited, I didn’t improve a lot through the
feedback. (Student IND1)
I made some progress, but I
think it’s mainly because of my
exploration after class. (Student IND4)
These responses suggest that
more field-independent learners did not attribute all their improvements to the
teachers’ written feedback. Based on the feedback, they tended to think
independently and explore their own ways of improving.
Thus, this research showed that
field-dependent and field-independent learners reacted to the teacher’s written
feedback in their own ways and from different perspectives. Their reactions
presented various features and they held different views toward the feedback.
In addition, their various reactions led to different learning outcomes and
they tended to value the feedback more if it was adjusted to their personal
needs, indicating the significance of student-center
instructions and feedback.
5. Discussion
Results of the study demonstrated that field-dependent
learners and field-independent learners had their own rationale for reacting to
teachers’ written feedback, leading to different effects of the feedback.
The behavioural reactions
indicated that field-dependent learners mostly accepted the teacher’s written
feedback. When processing the feedback, they tried to remember the feedback
without collecting it and turned to the teacher for help when facing confusion.
As for their attitude towards the written feedback, they were willing to
receive it and thought it worthwhile. They did not show a clear preference for
particular feedback and they largely believed that the
teacher’s written feedback contributed to their progress. Most
field-independent learners accepted the feedback. Some
of them gave up on revising their work, and only one of them made more
revisions based on the feedback. After that, when processing the feedback, most
of them collected feedback and tried to find more ways to solve their confusion
in addition to asking the teacher for help. They were
also receptive to the teacher’s written feedback but preferred the feedback on
the whole essay. Though some of them questioned the influence of teachers’
written feedback on their progress, most of them managed to avoid similar
mistakes and improved their language skills in future writing.
In summary, individuals with
different learning styles had similar revision operations after receiving teachers’
written feedback. They accepted or ignored the feedback or made more revisions
based on the feedback, similar to what Yu et al.
(2021) have found. Most learners accepted the feedback, a few gave up revising
and a very small number made more revisions based on the teacher’s feedback.
Regarding their attitudes, they all held a positive receptive attitude towards
the feedback, which is consistent with Chen et al.’s (2016) finding, suggesting
that Chinese L2 learners held a favourable attitude toward feedback. The
similarity also confirmed Farangi et al.’s (2025)
results, proving that both field-dependent and field-independent learners
preferred their mistakes to be corrected.
At the same time, field-independent
learners tended to maintain the habit of collecting teachers’ written feedback
and put more effort into processing and organising the feedback while
field-dependent learners did not. This difference is consistent with the
features of the two learning styles pointed out by Wang (2005), confirming that
field-independent learners are more logical and analytical and have more purposefulness,
so they can plan how to improve their essays and take advantage of teachers’
written feedback. The methods of field-dependent
learners are not as methodical, and they are less adept at grasping grammar
rules or writing skills, so they have more difficulty solving the problems
presented in their feedback. This also led to the results of learners’
improvements in this study, which showed that field-independent learners solved
more problems in their future writing than field-dependent learners. The
results also explain why most previous research indicates better learning
outcomes among field-independent learners. In addition, field-dependent
learners tended to turn to the teacher for help, while field-independent
learners found more ways to solve their problems.
Regarding learners’ affective reaction, learners have
different preferences when receiving teachers’ written feedback on details or
the whole essay, as Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) and Chen et al. (2016) have pointed out. Field-independent
learners tended to view feedback on the entire essay as more important. This
presents various preferences of different learners for written feedback, as Amrhein
and Nassaji (2010) have found. However, considering
the preferences of learners with different cognitive learning styles, Z. Li and
S. Li (2008) claimed that field-dependent learners usually see things from the
whole body, while field-independent learners tend to distinguish the parts from
the main body and grasp the crucial point. This inconsistency is because although
field-independent learners in this research can see the parts from the essay’s
body, they still pay more attention to the most significant point. They
believed that feedback on the whole piece was more crucial for their
improvement in English writing, so they thought it was more meaningful and
preferred feedback on the whole essay. Besides, field-dependent
learners believed that teachers’ written feedback contributed to their progress,
while field-independent learners valued their own effort more. According to
Witkin et al. (1977), field-dependent learners
are comfortable in interacting with others. They tend to find solutions in the
existing written feedback provided by the teacher, while field-independent
learners are better at analysing and paying more attention to the critical
points of solving problems. Therefore, field-independent learners prefer to find
their own ways to improve and contribute their own effort more, while
field-dependent learners tend to appreciate the effect of the teacher’s written
feedback more.
While field-independent
learners seemed to improve more based on teachers’ written feedback, the results
also imply that it is difficult for learners who do not revise their essays to
avoid previous problems, as Andon et al. (2017) have pointed out that written
feedback has pedagogic value when learners take it up and follow it through.
The results also confirm the add-on effect of revision on the positive
influence of teachers’ written feedback (Ekanayaka & Ellis, 2020). In this
case, learners should be encouraged to revise their writing to improve their
writing skills. After reacting to teachers’ written feedback, students with
different cognitive learning styles can all make improvements based on their
specific features.
Following previous studies,
this research confirmed some features of learners with different cognitive
learning styles. The features and various reactions led to different learning outcomes and they tended to value the feedback more if it
was adjusted to their personal needs, which was similar to
Kozlova’s (2010) findings. In this case, teachers can consider identifying the cognitive
learning styles of their students and provide written feedback that aligns
accordingly to help them improve their writing more effectively.
6. Conclusion
This research explored the effects of teachers’ written
feedback on English learners with different cognitive learning styles. The
results indicate similarities and differences between field-dependent and
field-independent learners’ reactions to teachers’ written feedback. Both
field-dependent and field-independent learners most commonly
accepted the teacher’s written feedback. They all considered the
teacher’s written feedback willingly, carefully read it, tried to remember its
crucial points, and believed they had improved their writing. Meanwhile, they
had different reactions to the teacher’s written feedback related to their
cognitive learning styles and the various reactions led to differences in the
influence of the feedback.
Regarding the differences, field-dependent learners
relied more on teacher feedback. They always turned to the teacher for help and
attributed their progress to the teacher’s written feedback. Field-independent
learners focused more on the whole essay, expected more from the teacher’s
written feedback and maintained a habit of collecting feedback. They tended to
react to the feedback more independently and attributed their progress more to
their efforts. They corrected their mistakes slightly more effectively. Therefore, English teachers should try to provide more suitable and
student-focused written feedback to better support learners in improving their English
writing. For field-dependent learners, a more precise explanation of mistakes
or shortcomings can be provided in written feedback to help learners better
understand their problems. For field-independent learners, teachers can pay
more attention to their needs and provide more appropriate feedback, such as
including more details or practical suggestions.
This study shows the possibility that similarities and
differences exist between the reactions of field-dependent and
field-independent learners to a teacher's written feedback in English writing. This
offers a potential basis for further investigation into the relationship
between learning styles and learners’ reactions to feedback in foreign language
learning. Future research may include more participants with various learning
conditions and the suggestions in this research can also be examined to help
English teachers improve their methods of providing feedback.
References
Amrhein,
H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and
teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
13(2), 95–127.
Andon, N. J., Dewey, M., & Leung, C. (2017).
Tasks in the pedagogic space: Using online discussion forum tasks and formative
feedback to develop academic discourse skills at Master’s
level. In V. Samuda, K. Van der Branden, & M. Bygate
(Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 236–263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12.10
Carter, E. (1988). The relationship of field dependent,
independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A
preliminary report. The Modern Language
Journal (Boulder, Colo.), 72(1), 21-30.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04163.x.
Chen, S., Nassaji, H., &
Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective
feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific
Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1, 5.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
Chen, S., Yang, B., & Gao, Y. (1989). Outline of psychological experiments. Beijing: Beijing University Express.
Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the science. Theory into Practice, 23(1),
10-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848409543084.
Ekanayaka, W. I., & Ellis, R. (2020). Does
asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on
L2 acquisition? System, 94, 102341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341
Farangi, M. R., & Nejadghanbar,
H. (2024). Investigating questionable research practices among Iranian applied
linguists: Prevalence, severity, and the role of artificial intelligence tools.
System, 125, 103427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103427.
Farangi, M. R., Rashidi, N.,
& Jokar, M. (2025). Preferences for written corrective feedback among
field-dependent and field-independent EFL Learners: A mixed-methods
investigation. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101700.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101700
Franky, F., & Budiman, T. (2021). The correlation
pattern of learning style and teaching method of senior high school students in
Jakarta. Celt, 21(2), 257-274.
https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v21i2.3547
Gui, J., & Ismail, S. M. (2024). The effect of planning
time on vocabulary acquisition in a task-based environment: the mediating roles
of working memory and field (in)dependence. BMC Psychology, 12,
145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01638-4.
Guo, X., & Yang, Y. (2018). Effects of corrective
feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the
mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47,
841-858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9566-7
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
Han, Y., & Xu, Y.
(2020). Emotional experiences and emotion regulation strategies
in second language writing classrooms from the perspective of Positive
Psychology: What can we learn from written corrective feedback situations. Foreign
Language World, 196(01), 50-59.
Heidari, K. (2022). A psycholinguistic look at the role
of field dependence/ independence in receptive/productive vocabulary knowledge:
Does it draw a line? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(6),
1393-1408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09905-4
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback
on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International
Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171-182. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119251
Kafipour, R., & Khoshnood, A. (2023). Effect of feedback through dynamic
assessment on EFL field-dependent and field-independent learners’ speaking skill
development. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1049680. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1049680
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A
model and methods for implementation. ELT
Journal, 44(4), 294-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294.
Kong, A., & Teng, M. F. (2023). The operating
mechanisms of self-efficacy and peer feedback: An exploration of L2 young
writers. Applied Linguistics Review, 14(2), 297-328. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0019.
Kozlova, I. (2010).
Ellis’s corrective feedback in a problem-solving context. ELT Journal, 64(1),
95-97. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp064
Lee, H. W., & Cha, Y. M. (2022). The effects
of digital written feedback on paper-based tests for college students. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(4), 489-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00592-8
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom
writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Cham: Springer
Nature.
Li, J. (2013). A case study on the effects of teacher’s
written feedback in teaching English writing. Foreign Language World,
2, 87-96.
Li, Z., & Li, S. (2008). Research on the
relationship between field independence/dependence cognitive style and L2
teaching and learning in China: A review. Journal
of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (5), 65-70.
Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university
students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing
Writing, 31, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001
Mahvelati, E. H. (2020). Field-dependent/Field-independent
learners’ information processing behavior in an implicit learning task:
Evidence from Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 49, 955-973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09712-9.
Munkova, D., Stranovska,
& Munk, M. (2024). Communication models in a foreign language in relation
to cognitive style category width and power distance. Frontiers in
Psychology, 14, 1272370. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1272370
Olagbaju, O. O. (2020). Cognitive styles and
gender as predictors of students’ achievement in summary writing in selected
secondary schools in Ibadan, Nigeria. Education Research International, 2020,
8462368. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8462368
Ren, Y., Wong, W., Barrot, J., & Zhang, L. J.
(2026). Learning styles, engagement and anxiety in ai-mediated writing: A multimodal
feedback study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 0,
1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.70120
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does
language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on
grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49,
110-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.006
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects
of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical
structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. https://doi.org/
10.1111/lang.12029
Teng, M. F., & Ma, M. (2026). Assessing
self-efficacy, working memory, and proficiency in a multimedia writing
environment. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 64(1), 197-231.
Tsao, J. J. (2021). Effects of EFL learners’ L2 writing
self-efficacy on engagement with written corrective feedback. The Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 575-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00591-9
Ur, P. (1996). A
course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Q. (2005). Study on cognitive foreign language
learning styles in multimedia class.
Foreign Language World,
(1), 28-32.
Wang, W., & Wang, L. (2023). The effect of
explicit/implicit instruction and field style on EFL learners’ acquisition of
the simple past. Foreign Languages Research, 40(05), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.13978/j.cnki.wyyj.20230822.005.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., &
Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and
their educational implications. Review of
Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. https://doi.org/10.2307/1169967.
Wu, S. (2016). The effect
of teaching strategies and students’ cognitive style on the online discussion
environment. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(2), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0259-9.
Xiao, P., & Liu, X. (2021). The effects of
direct focused written corrective feedback and direct unfocused written
corrective feedback on preposition acquisition in English composition. Technology
Enhanced Foreign Language Education, 199(03), 44-49+7.
Yang, L. (2013). A case study of the impact of teacher
written feedback on Chinese EFL university students. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 34(5), 12-18.
https://doi.org/10.16482/j.sdwy37-1026.2013.05.014.
Yeldham, M., & Gao, Y. (2021). Examining
whether learning outcomes are enhanced when L2 learners’ cognitive styles match
listening instruction methods. System, 97, 102435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102435.
Yu, R., & Yang, L. (2021). ESL/EFL learners’ responses
to teacher written feedback: Reviewing a recent decade of empirical studies. Frontiers
in Psychology, 12, 735101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735101
Yu, S., Geng, F., Liu, C., & Zheng, Y. (2021).
What works may hurt: The negative side of feedback in second language writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 54, 100850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100850
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773.
Zhang, J. L., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining
the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’
linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 54, 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043
Zhang, M., Wang, X., Wang, F., & Liu, H. (2020).
Effect of cognitive style on language control during joint language switching:
An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09682-7.
Zhang, T. (2021). The effect of highly focused
versus mid-focused written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ explicit and
implicit knowledge development. System, 99, 102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102493
Author
bio
Lu Xiaotong is a senior high school English teacher at the Second High School Attached
to Beijing Normal University. She received the B.S. degree in English and then
the M.S. degree in Foreign Linguistics and Applied Linguistics from Beijing
Normal University, Beijing, China. Her research interests include second
language acquisition and foreign language education.
Contact address: The Second High School Attached to Beijing Normal
University
Email: luxtbnu@163.com
Lin Pan (corresponding author) is an associate professor, vice-chair of the
English Department at Beijing Normal University (BNU), China. Her research interests are language
ideologies, sociolinguistics, and language education.
Contact address: School of Foreign Languages and Literature, Beijing
Normal University, Beijing, China.
Email: linpan@bnu.edu.cn