Unlocking the core revision of writing assessment: EFL learner’ emotional transformation from form focus to content orientation

Abstract

Background

The process of revising writing has provided valuable insights into both learners’ written output and their cognitive processes during revision. Research has acknowledged the emotional dimension of writing revision, yet no studies have delved into models that connect all of these domains. Given the interplay between these domains, it is crucial to explore potential associations between writing revision and writing quality in terms of emotions.

Purpose

This study aims to shed light on the emotional shifts that occur as learners transition from a focus on form to an emphasis on content, refining fundamental aspects of writing revision, and investigating potential challenges and strategies.

Methods

A total of 320 Chinese-speaking learners (188 female and 132 male) participated in weekly writing classes. We used subsequent investigation aimed to probe the specific writing revision practices contributing to both form and content revisions and semi-structured interview from collection, representation, marking, and stimulated recall to elicit participants’ perspectives on various aspects, including the number of writing revisions, recurring errors, emotional processes, efficacy of writing revision, cognition of writing revision, attitudes towards writing revision, and emotional changes.

Results

The findings reveal a positive correlation between writing revision and the quality of writing. EFL learners’ rationale for revising centered on the imperative need to address new structural nuances or incorporate additional elements such as vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. Additionally, form revision garnered significantly lower scores compared to content revision. Finally, EFL learners deduced the form revision governing target content through repeated revisions of the manuscript throughout the time points.

Conclusions

The results indicate that the outcomes of form-focused revision or content-oriented approaches are linked to the quality of writing and contribute to the development of writing skills. Moreover, psychological processes assist English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in enhancing their self-efficacy in language acquisition.

Implications

This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by highlighting the importance of understanding the emotional dimensions of writing revision. The practical implications of these findings extend to both learners and educators, offering insights into how to enhance self-efficacy in language learning and teaching.

Introduction

Writing revision (WR) has uncovered key insights into both learners’ written products and their cognitive processes during revision [1]. Increasingly, it is thought that studies in language testing suggest that psychologically engaging in writing revision can enhance English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ understanding of form-focused assessment [2, 3]. Writing revision has been identified as a significant factor in improving the overall quality of writing [1, 4] and and a particular focus has been placed on the quality of writing revision. It is argued that broader investigations into writing revision have highlighted significant enhancements in learners’ form revision, which encompasses superficial aspects such as spelling, vocabulary usage, diction, and grammatical accuracy [4,5,6]. In line with this theory are findings that independent qualitative inquiries have explored content orientation, which encompasses deeper aspects such as critical thinking, cultural involvement, and the use of representative evidence [7], as well as learners’ strategies to regulate language in their writing [8], and challenges encountered during the processing of written corrective feedback, which influence language writing accuracy and cognitive revision [9].

In the context of emotional aspects of writing processes, emotional dimension of writing revision has become a key target in psychological process of WR [10,11,12], yet no studies have delved into models that connect all of these domains. In this regard, it is not hypothesized that given the interplay between these domains, it is crucial to explore potential associations between writing revision and writing quality in terms of emotions. Additionally, as many higher-quality writing manuscripts rely on multiple rounds of WR, it is essential to support learners by identifying their strengths and providing specific assistance in areas where they encounter difficulties in WR. Thus, research on writing revision is deemed important both theoretically and pedagogically to uncover emotional conditions that facilitate learners’ writing improvement, particularly in psychological processes of WR contexts [13,14,15]. While promising in enhancing learners’ writing, these findings often overlook important factors such as revision patterns, sequences, emotions, and orientations. In the context of WR, enhancing the quality of WR has become a central objective in language output. In this regard, while quantitative studies on writing revision shed light on its potential within language assessment, previous studies offer limited insight into its complexities [16], including the emotional transformations experienced by learners as they refine their writing [6, 17, 18]. Investigating the interactive dynamics of writing revision, learners’ responses to cognitive revision, and the impact of feedback can enhance writing quality [12, 19].

Incorporating emotional considerations into WR is expected to yield significant insights and outcomes by providing a more comprehensive understanding of language learning tailored to individual learner needs. Therefore, we hypothesize that the emotional phase of a longitudinal mixed-methods study can serve as a simultaneous monitor for learners’ WR, aiming to elucidate emotional aspects of writing revision and its impact on enhancing writing quality through sustained engagement in the WR process. Building upon quantitative findings [20], which demonstrated improvements in four groups compared to controls, particularly emotional changes in form focus and content orientation, this qualitative inquiry aims to deepen understanding. Furthermore, we predict that only through follow-up qualitative inquiries can we grasp how learners engage in WR [21, 22] and identify factors interacting with treatment to refine WR precision [23]. Given that many learners focus on the form revision, ignoring the emotional changes of writing processes, this study aims to illuminate emotional transformations as learners shift from form focus to content orientation, refining core aspects of writing revision, and exploring potential obstacles and strategies encountered during the process.

Theoretical literature

Theoretical backgrounds

One line of research has delved into the theoretical and emotional transformations brought about by writing revision, addressing questions regarding the timing, manner, and motivation behind writing revision, as well as learners’ attitudes towards it and the psychological shifts they undergo during the process that do not meet the threshold of psychological processes of WR [12, 23,24,25]. Studies suggest that the more majority of EFL learners primarily focus on superficial aspects of writing revision, as evidenced by [24]’s exploration into whether learners’ EFL proficiency levels affect their revisions. Also, this investigation was reported to have poorer structural and pragmatic WR than those who considers emotions, revisions, and consolidations during WR. Additionally, past research indicates that EFL learners generally demonstrate weaker WR skills [23]. Furthermore, previous studies have often concentrated solely on the process of WR itself, significantly overlooking the emotional dimension that establishes form-focused connections triggered by recognizing and processing specific writing outputs. Revision involves refining these connections in response to further writing assessments, while consolidation refers to enhancing the quality of writing revision through repeated retrieval and deeper processing after drafting a manuscript. By integrating [26]’s computational framework of WR processing with the development of form and content emotions in writing revision [27], explored whether children and adults employ different strategies to detect and revise superficial elements such as word spelling, erroneous grammatical agreements, diction, and appropriateness of tones. Broadly, research in the general population suggests that children may employ a slower algorithmic procedure while adults utilize a faster automatized one. They also advocate for gathering similar WR to evaluate hypothesis precision and, ultimately, revision skills and principles. Furthermore [28], proposed the use of a computer-mediated communication (CMC) interface to enable EFL writing learners in classes at two universities to provide each other with anonymous peer feedback on essay-writing assignments responding to selected news stories. Similarly [29], suggest that the evidence EFL learners include should be connected to their claims. Many learners paraphrased the evidence, added a brief conclusion, or explained generally how the evidence supports their claims (not how this was instantiated in their writing). The psychological factors of WR were significant predictors of teaching argument writing and for designing a WR system that supports learners in successfully revising their essays are discussed [30, 31]. theorized language learning experience from a positive psychology (PP) lens. Analytical primacy is given to how various dimensions of the experience contributed to language other than EFL learners’ motivational development.

Empirical studies of EFL writing revision

The critique of recasts as a feedback method highlights several key limitations, particularly regarding their visibility and their potential for ambiguity. As argued by [32], writers often seek and benefit from more thoughtful commentary, making the appropriation of learners’ writings less effective in this regard. Learners require feedback that empowers them to refine their writing skills and effectively convey their intended message. Furthermore [33], suggests that learners may conflate longer-form recasts with the original problematic utterances, leading to potential misinterpretations as responses to content rather than as corrective feedback. Although previous research has primarily examined recasts as a form of spoken corrective feedback, positioning them as implicitly negative, a study by [34] offers a different perspective. This study indicates that recasts, when utilized as a means of error correction, can indeed facilitate improvement in learners’ writing skills. Additionally [35], delves into the efficacy of two types of interactional feedback: recasts and elicitations, shedding further light on the nuanced dynamics of corrective approaches in language learning contexts. Furthermore, a separate body of research in WR has identified that studies in this area have been guided by two overarching frameworks: EFL writing testing development and EFL writing revision development [22]. Within testing studies (e.g [32]), it was found that most indirect WR and content-focused comments were effectively integrated into subsequent or terminal drafts during revisions, although their impact on subsequent writings remained unmeasured. Furthermore, preceding these, longitudinal studies (e.g [36, 37]). , found no significant disparity in writing accuracy development in content revision. However, criticisms of their methodological approaches prompted researchers to undertake controlled focused WR studies. These investigations, grounded in cognitive perspectives of writing revision, suggested that targeting singular structures (e.g [32]). , or two/three structures (e.g [29]). , could lead to enhanced accuracy in WR [28]. According to [35], “learners can internalize and consolidate their explicit knowledge as a result of explicit information provided in WR in form revision.” Despite subsequent conflicting results [27], the primary critique against focused WR studies pertained to their narrow scope, deviating from typical assessment practices, thereby compromising ecological validity [20].

In numerous studies on WR, participants generally recognized the emotional significance of self-correction or self-reflection, particularly on both form revision and content improvement [31], as well as WR itself [11, 22]. However, certain studies (e.g [17, 18]). , highlighted challenges in interpreting revision assessment. Emotional-driven inquiries delved into the depth of core WR processing, indicating that factors such as the culture of WR coverage, logical levels, and duration of thinking influence the thoroughness of revision. While some studies suggested that WR methods foster superficial revision such as spelling, grammatical structure, diction (form revision) [31, 33], others favored core writing revision (content orientation) [32, 34]. Subsequent studies on WR effectiveness (e.g [11]). , emphasized the value of content orientation during WR [31]. , for instance, demonstrated whether and how feedback, when provided in different assessment modes, affects learners’ text revisions, continuing to be important questions for research [38]. investigated the extent to which learner differences in receptive and productive vocabulary sizes, as well as differences in their language aptitude (measured by the LLAMA test), mediated the effects of using models as a written corrective feedback tool. Other studies (e.g [2, 3, 39]). , explored the interplay between form revision and content orientation during WR [37]. explored the ways that dyadic functioning was associated with the functions of reader/writer comments and feedback focus produced during synchronous interactions among dyads of a Korean-U.S. collaborative project and subsequent uptake of feedback in revisions. However, subsequent WR studies, such as those by [38], mainly reported an exploratory study of Chinese-speaking undergraduate learners’ experiences of receiving and reflecting on online peer feedback for text revision in an EFL writing classroom at a northeastern-Chinese university. Notably, few longitudinal mixed-methods inquiries have delved into emotional transformation from form revision to content orientation to elucidate EFL WR development from EFL learners. A lack of follow-up emotional changes aimed at enhancing writing quality through WR further underscores the need for comprehensive exploration of EFL learners’ utilization of WR in deciphering assessment directives and applying them in subsequent writing assessment. Additionally [38], concluded that neurophysiological mechanisms, as reflected in modulations of neuronal oscillations, may act as a fundamental basis for bringing together and enriching the fields of language and cognition.

Based on previous findings, we expected that the current emotional phase of a mixed-methods study delves into how second language (EFL) learners enhance and retain their writing revisions, particularly focusing on the emotional transformation from form revision to content orientation. Past research has typically focused on examining writing learning, writing teaching, writing assessment, ignoring the importance of WR for a good writing manuscript. However, this may have cascading effects to elevate the quality of writing by addressing the necessity of writing revision (WR). Additionally, this endeavor builds upon quantitative findings to offer a comprehensive understanding of the significance, standards, methods, and orientations of writing revision. Therefore, the study aims to explore “the intrinsic emotions of, and the factors influencing, the potential of writing revision,” thereby bridging theoretical and pedagogical aspects [34] [40]. have underscored the significance of scaffolding EFL learners’ text revision practices through the reception and reflection upon learners’ emotional feedback [40]. Furthermore [41], integrating both positive and negative emotions into language learning led to the most significant positive shift in learners’ motivation, anxiety levels, and language proficiency. However, it’s noteworthy that the anticipated impact of psychology on language education frequently surpasses the actual outcomes. There’s often a tendency to overestimate the effectiveness of emerging technologies compared to established methods, without adequately considering the variations in associated pedagogical approaches.

Informed by theoretical frameworks, empirical discussions, and quantitative findings, the study operationalizes its objectives through the following three hypotheses centered on writing revision:

• (1) Hypothesis 1: The process of writing revision contributes to the consolidation of writing quality.

• (2) Hypothesis 2: The outcomes of form revision or content orientation are associated with writing quality in terms of writing development.

• (3) Hypothesis 3: Psychological processes aid EFL learners in improving self-efficacy in language acquisition.

To shed light on these hypotheses, the text initially summarizes quantitative findings primarily related to the accuracy of writing revision.

Method

Participants

A total of 320 learners (188 female and 132 male), all Chinese speakers, participated in weekly writing classes. These participants were novice learners, embarking on their first EFL writing endeavor, similar to the study conducted by Bonilla López et al. (2018). Their ages ranged from 18 to 21 years, with a mean age of 20.3 years. The study aimed to determine whether four groups of EFL learners demonstrated emotional improvement in writing quality, with a specific focus on form revision and content revision. The groups included those engaged in form revision (FR Group, n = 80), writing revision on content revision (CR Group, n = 80), multilateral revision (MR Group, n = 80), and no revision (NF Group, n = 80). Each student revised an article of 200/250 words within 20 min. To streamline the revision process and avoid overwhelming learners, the study targeted specific revision categories commonly associated with lower-proficiency learners, such as form revision (e.g., tense, voice, word form, prepositions, subject-verb agreement, plurality, articles, pronouns, and possessive adjectives) and content revision (logic, culture, thinking, cognition). We conducted a cross-sectional investigation involving a survey and interviews with the Chinese youth population. To ensure representativeness, we engaged three different schools to gather data. Employing quota sampling, participants were recruited based on specific criteria: being adults (aged 18 and above), proficient in English, and permanent residents of the People’s Republic of China. To minimize biases, we established exclusion criteria pertaining to study participation. All measures were presented in a randomized order, and two attention checks were incorporated into the semi-structured interview. Participants failing to complete the interview, finishing the survey in under five minutes, or not passing the attention checks were excluded from the analysis. Data collection was facilitated through the inputlog software platform and Chaoxing Learning Pass (CLP) within online courses.

Measures

The investigation phase

To thoroughly explore the nuanced impact of writing revision conditions on four key revision constructs across three distinct time points, qualitative findings were presented in isolation. This subsequent investigation sought to delve into the specific writing revision practices that influence both form and content revisions from an emotional perspective, drawing on The Social Emotional Assessment (SEA; [37]). The objective was to comprehend how the implementation of writing revision (WR) influenced writing quality, potentially resulting in core writing revision benefits, as suggested by [38], which emphasized theoretical frameworks, empirical discussions, and quantitative findings. The inquiry delved into how writing revision influenced the establishment of writing revision rules and standards, as well as the connection between the revision process and the enhancement of writing quality. Each item was evaluated on a three-level scale: 0 = “significant emotional fluctuations,” 1 = “somewhat emotional fluctuations,” and 2 = “no emotional fluctuations,” aligning with the research objectives. Regarding writing revision, the study investigated whether and how revision, guided by writing standards, prompted various types of revisions, encompassing both form and content revisions. Concerning content revision, it explored learners’ ability to internalize the underlying rules of prominent and complex revision categories, enabling them to apply these rules accurately. This inquiry aimed to enrich the conceptual frameworks of EFL writing revision put forth by scholars such as [34] and [39]. To obtain comprehensive insights, the study conducted over 5 h of semi-structured interviews with a cohort of 320 participants, generating text-specific explanations derived from individualized revision scripts. The scale exhibited robust reliability and validity, with Cronbach’s α for internal consistency ranging from 0.89 to 0.92 and test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from 0.82 to 0.94 [37].

Semi-structured interview

After completing writing revisions in Week 8, participants were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews during Week 9. Fifty participants from each group were selected based on the interview protocol outlined below, resulting in a total sample size of N = 35, consisting of 20 female and 15 male participants. The instruments used included measures of revision attitude, writing revision, and emotional changes [40]. The interview protocol comprised four stages:

Collection

EFL learners were instructed to maintain their revision scripts in a personal folder for reference during revision.

Representation

Interviewees were selected from volunteers, ensuring representation from both high-achieving and low-achieving individuals, participants with varying levels of enthusiasm towards writing revision, both genders, and all groups.

Marking

Prior to the interview, interviewees were prompted to review their writing revision scripts and mark segments they wished to discuss in response to interview questions.

Stimulated recall

Interviewees were instructed to bring their writing revision scripts to the interview and encouraged to support their perspectives on each question using cues from their scripts. Additionally, the teacher implemented a grading system, assessing the students’ writings on a scale of 0 to 5, occasionally providing positive feedback such as “good job,” “well done,” or “keep it up.” This grading approach aimed to reassure learners that their efforts were recognized and their progress closely monitored [40], fostering an understanding that enhancing writing quality in subsequent assignments could lead to higher average scores.

The interview questions aimed to gather participants’ perspectives on various aspects, including the frequency of writing revisions, recurring errors, emotional processes, efficacy and cognition of writing revision, attitudes towards writing revision, and emotional changes. Conducted in Chinese and audio-recorded, the interviews ranged from 3 to 5 min in duration, with an average length of 4 min and 16 s.

Data coding

Grounded theory [41] was employed for meticulous data coding and analysis, aligning with [42]’s framework to delve into the underlying emotions. During the open coding phase, broad categories emerged from a comprehensive review of revision transcripts. Drawing from Dornyei’s guiding questions, such as “What is this data illustrating?” and “What emotional shifts are at play here?” pertinent data underwent thorough analysis, leading to the assignment of numerical codes.

Axial coding ensued to establish logical connections between writing quality and the process of revision. This iterative approach unearthed finalized categories, encompassing aspects like the frequency of revisions, revision techniques, metalinguistic practices, and the extrapolation of learned principles beyond writing contexts. Following [40]’s methodology, selective coding aimed at identifying a central category with the requisite abstraction to encapsulate other findings. This was accomplished through the development of memos and in-depth exploration of emerging themes, further substantiated during axial coding. As the ensuing discussion will elucidate, the core writing revision, identified as the central category, suggests that EFL learners actively engage in discerning underlying revisions, encompassing both structural and content-oriented aspects, which are subsequently applied during the core writing revision process.

Data analysis

The research primarily focused on EFL learners enrolled in various grades at a university in Zhejiang Province. The research team of the National Social Science Fund of China (A Study on the Validity Argument Model of L2 Writing Assessment Empowered by Digital Humanities) and the 12 teachers teaching writing courses conducted the study. These learners were categorized based on placement tests, error type, and frequency of Writing Revision (WR) [31]. Each term, learners attended 36 forty-minute periods, advancing to the next level upon achieving a passing score of 60%.

Form revision was assessed using the percentage of revisions and the number of revisions at four time points: Week 1 (pre-revision), Week 5 (while-revision 1), Week 9 (while-revision 2), and Week 13 (delayed post-revision). Results from the two-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated that only the groups engaged in content-focused revision demonstrated significant improvements in form revision from Time 1 to Time 2, which were sustained at Time 3, with mostly medium to large effect sizes. Specifically, the CR group exhibited a substantial increase in writing quality at Time 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.91) and a moderate increase at Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.82), along with a decrease in MR at both Time 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.90) and Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.58). Similarly, the MR group displayed improvements in the percentage of revisions at Time 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.46) and Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.70), coupled with a reduction in the number of revisions at both Time 2 (Cohen’s d = 0.64) and Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.60). In contrast, the CR group saw a non-significant decrease in the percentage of revisions at both time points, although their NF declined significantly at Time 3 (Cohen’s d = 0.22). The NF group showed no significant changes at either time point. Regarding other writing revision constructs, only the CR and MR groups exhibited significant improvements in content and form revision.

To mitigate the impact of outliers on the dataset, the authors employed Robust Principal Component Analysis (RPCA), a method that decomposes multivariate data into low-rank and sparse components. The process entailed several steps:

Data preprocessing

The authors standardized or normalized each variable in the writing revision scripts dataset, ensuring a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This step aimed to prevent variables with disparate scales from skewing the analysis.

RPCA application

Utilizing an RPCA algorithm, the authors decomposed the multivariate dataset into its low-rank and sparse components. One commonly used algorithm is the Robust PCA algorithm introduced by Candes et al. (2009), which minimizes the sum of the nuclear norm of the low-rank component and the l1 norm of the sparse component.

Outlier identification

Following decomposition, the authors focused on the sparse component derived from investigation and interviews. This component signifies outliers or noise within the data. Data points with significant coefficients in the sparse component are indicative of outliers.

Outlier visualization

The authors visually represented the identified outliers by plotting their coefficients in the sparse component. Scatter plots or histograms were employed to visualize the distribution of outlier coefficients, aiding in the identification of patterns or clusters.

Outlier handling

Depending on the analysis’s context and objectives, the authors addressed the identified outliers by removing them from the dataset, treating them separately in the analysis, or employing data transformation techniques to minimize their impact.

Results

The findings encapsulate and cite representative perspectives from participants, primarily focusing on their emotional transformation from a form-focused approach to a content-oriented one during the core Writing Revision (WR). Pseudonyms were utilized to ensure the anonymity of participants.

Writing revision: learning and pedagogical self-reflection

Research Question 1 (RQ1) investigated how the process of writing revision contributes to enhancing writing quality. When queried about the adequacy of their writing efforts, the majority advocated for additional revision time, emphasizing the necessity of at least 5 extra minutes. EFL learners’ rationale for revising centered on the imperative need to address new structural nuances or incorporate additional elements such as vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation (i.e., NR, FR, CR, MR, are 11.23, 15.12, 20.16, 24.23 respectively). In terms of time points, the mean scores at different stages are 12.15, 17.24, and 24.11. They emphasized the significance of receiving revision traces on newly surfaced errors, perpetuating a cycle of trial and refinement, employing freshly acquired linguistic tools, grappling with novel linguistic hurdles, exploring uncharted thematic territories, or simply craving more comprehensive revision sessions. An emergent outcome of their initial forays into writing, regardless of the extent of revision, was the cultivation of burgeoning confidence in their writing prowess. This was palpable in their ability to surmount the apprehension and tension associated with articulating ideas in English on paper, particularly in the absence of external support within the classroom setting.

The outcomes of form revision or content orientation focus on writing revision concerning the development of writing revision

Form revision and content orientation emerged as critical factors in the progression of EFL learners towards achieving writing quality (RQ2). EFL learners acknowledged the pivotal role of writing revision in enhancing the quality of their writing, a stage often overlooked but one they deemed essential. Without engaging in individualized writing revision points, they recognized that their attention to detail would have been lacking. All revisions, encompassing both form revision and content orientation, are delineated in Table 1. The emotional journey associated with writing revisions for both form and content is vividly portrayed. Notably, form revision (i.e., 6.23, 7.14, 7.82, 6.45, 7.56) garnered significantly lower scores compared to content revision (i.e., 7.21, 7.26, 6.25, 6.75, 6.27). Furthermore, they demonstrated fewer advancements in deeper revisions, such as intra-sentential processing (6.25), inter-sentential processing (6.75), and cultural processing (6.27), indicating a collective deficiency among participants in central revision compared to peripheral revision.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and outcomes of form revision and content orientation concerning writing revision

Emotional changes influencing on EFL learners undergo when engaging in form or content revision

The insights gleaned from EFL learners highlight the profound emotional journey they experience during the process of revising both form and content in their writing (RQ3). This journey typically begins with a positive realization of the importance of revision as a whole (e.g., points 246, 265, 152, and 43), but gradually evolves to encompass recognition of areas needing improvement (e.g., points 74, 55, 168, and 277). Many learners also observed that repeated revision exercises helped them to identify and focus on critical elements (e.g., points 236, 241, 172, and 61), thereby aiding in the successful correction and mastery of these aspects. Furthermore, the true significance of various revision points often only becomes clear after thorough internalization (e.g., points 137, 177, 103, and 162) and subsequent externalization (e.g., points 183, 143, 217, and 158).

Positive effects of WR: EFL learners’ revision decision-making

RQ3 delved into the potential emotional fluctuations experienced by EFL learners as they engaged in the process of revising their writing manuscripts, as well as the strategies they employed during revision. One notable emotional aspect identified was the prevalence of recurring errors, which were brought to light both within and beyond the learners’ awareness. These errors, such as the misuse of ‘s’ (as in the third person plural or possessive apostrophe), ‘a’ (as an article), and ‘-ed’ (as a past-tense marker), were consistently highlighted across the four groups. Despite some learners considering these errors as trivial or minor, they persisted throughout revisions. One learner suggested that the apparent insignificance of these errors might stem from their small size, rendering them less conspicuous. EFL learners recognized that such persistent errors often resulted from lapses in attention or an excessive focus on form rather than content. An important aspect of writing revision was identified as the mitigation of these recurring errors. Some learners noted that regular exposure to revision heightened their awareness of these common mistakes, leading them to consciously make efforts to avoid them in their writing.

The correlations between writing revision and writing quality are depicted in Table 2. It becomes evident from the table that both Content Revision (CR) and Mechanical Revision (MR) exhibit associations with writing quality, as measured by Pearson correlations, with medium and small effect sizes, respectively (i.e., 0.81 for CR and 0.74 for MR). However, the traits of the WR score were found to have no significant relationship with Narrative Revision (NR) (0.12), Fluency Revision (FR) (0.42), and Mechanical Revision (MR) (0.64).

Table 2 Pearson correlations between the writing revision and writing quality

The Pearson Correlations have enabled a deeper exploration of the associations between different types of writing revision, shedding light on the underlying mechanisms guiding decision-making regarding the need for revision and how to execute it. For example, Tomas (CR) expressed skepticism regarding the positive impact of EFL learners on “the supporting evidence,” prompting her to experiment with cohesive devices in cultural and representative contexts “to ultimately gauge their persuasiveness.” Tim (CR) elaborated on this process, stating, “A mark indicating the error would serve as a sufficient reminder for me. If left uncorrected, I might become uncertain about its accuracy.” .

Emotional transformation from form to content to consolidate writing revision: resolving ambiguity embedded in WR

The study also investigated how EFL learners went through emotional transformation from form to content to consolidate writing revision (see Fig. 1). When asked about their ability to generalize the emotional transformation from the four time points, a significant number of EFL learners highlighted their emotional changes regarding content orientation. They aimed to deduce the form revision governing target content through repeated revisions of the manuscript throughout the time points, showing an ascending trend (CR: 33, 51, 91, 126) and a descending trend (FR: 162, 147, 109, 76).

Fig. 1

Emotional transformations through different time points during writing revision

Drawing from the emotional evolution experienced during writing revision, EFL learners can be seen as the pivotal influence shaping the outcome of revised drafts. This conceptualization was substantiated by the experiences of EFL learners in the study, which remained consistent across various stages [39, 43]. For instance, Alice, an EFL learner, noted, “In my revised writings, I found myself readjusting my approach to writing revision, placing greater emphasis on content revision throughout the four rounds of revisions.“.

Discussion

The current study sought to examine the association between emotional aspects of WR and the quality of writing. We hypothesized that the process of writing revision contributes to the consolidation of writing quality and the outcomes of form revision or content orientation are associated with writing quality concerning the development of writing development. We found that when asked about their ability to generalize the emotional transformation from the four time points, a significant number of EFL learners highlighted their emotional changes regarding content orientation. The following section discusses the three hypothesis respectively.

Hypothesis 1: The process of writing revision contributes to the consolidation of writing quality

The outcomes of learners’ writing revisions provide some support for possible the manner in which the process of writing revision contributes to the enhancement of writing quality among EFL learners, facilitated by the consolidation of their emotional engagement with writing revision. Table 3 illustrates various orientation outcomes of writing revision, presenting an interactive model of EFL writing revision for developmental purposes. In particular, a significant finding, particularly pertinent for lower-proficiency EFL learners, is the importance of continuous writing revision in enhancing the quality of their writing manuscripts, fostering ongoing revision reformulation towards revision design, and fostering the consolidation of writing skills for EFL development. Likewise, as depicted in Table 3, the process initiates with learners composing writing samples in four groups (NR), the accuracy of which interacts with the frequency of revisions, represented by various revision traces within the writing revision domain. The second pattern entails learners engaging in writing revision, wherein they refine writing scripts based on various patterns (FR), serving as “the necessary sculpting that refines EFL learners’ cognitive processing and self-efficacy in writing” [1]. Learners in FR may have fewer opportunities to develop psychological changes during writing processes in CR. This finding aligns with [27]’s WR-oriented perspective, emphasizing the iterative nature of writing revision for triggering reflection. The third pattern encompasses the Mechanical Revision (MR) domain, involving a multi-step revision process that encapsulates EFL learners’ emotional processes during writing revision. This includes how they revise their writing manuscripts with a balanced distribution of form revision and content orientation; their affective involvement during writing revision, reflecting their attitudes toward the process; and their cognitive engagement in improvement, depicting how they navigate the improvement process step by step during writing revision [24].

Table 3 Different orientation outcomes of WR

When warranted, writing revision begins with EFL learners revising specific points in the writing manuscript and corresponding writing traces simultaneously. They may employ either a “local writing revision processing strategy,” where they iteratively analyze the commented/revised segments of their writing manuscript and the writing revision, or a “deep writing revision processing strategy,” where they review the entire text in this manner [42]. This prompts gap noticing (pattern 1 in Shintani et al.’s model) and, if comprehensible (pattern 2), engages learners with the targeted writing revision emotionally and cognitively. However, non-targeted revising patterns may go unnoticed (CR).

Crucially, when EFL learners are acquainted with the four patterns of writing revision, their emotional involvement may transition from form revision to content revision [24], mirroring pattern 4 of the writing revision model, denoting progressive writing revision formation with emotional engagement. This longitudinal approach to writing revision entails iterative revising aimed at grasping a writing revision point and its underlying revising standard, offering pedagogical opportunities beyond mechanically substituting writing segments with revisions. Similarly [26], observed that EFL learners’ emotional growth during writing revision bolstered their focus on content, seeking the essence of writing revision, and employing metacognitive and motivational regulation strategies to enhance writing quality.

Another aspect of emotional engagement for lower-level learners may emerge after several iterations at different time points: arriving at a decision-making stage to address a deeper understanding of writing revision (e.g., thought processes, logic, cultural nuances), which are significant yet not overly complex. While most EFL learners are cognizant of associated form revisions, they may inaccurately apply them due to lapses in attention during the writing revision process. As such, Persistent writing revision signals the necessity for decision-making/actions against prominent errors, a process that could be facilitated by content-revision notes informing EFL learners of revision cues.

Conversely, emotional engagement with writing revision “necessitates EFL learners to employ cognitive and metacognitive strategies to assess the impact of writing revision on their writing and monitor their revisions” [5]. This involves the fundamental processing of writing revision, wherein learners endeavor to align with the revised standard, followed by writing evaluation, i.e., applying self-efficacy principles in the subsequent writing revision phase, indicative of a deeper content-oriented strategy, facilitated by the extended processing time during writing revision [17]. The iterative nature of the writing revision process allows EFL learners to repeatedly scrutinize their attempted revisions, discard inaccurately formulated ones, devise new ones (Time 4), construct sentences based on the outcomes of the three preceding stages, and then revise them through writing revision. Through the iterations of this writing revision process, most prominent errors, as well as some complex ones, tend to diminish, contributing to the consolidation of the targeted writing manuscript.

Hypothesis 2: The outcomes of form revision or content orientation are associated with writing quality concerning the development of writing development

RQ2 investigated the ramifications of prioritizing form revision or content orientation during the process of writing revision, particularly in relation to the advancement of writing skills. A detailed scrutiny of writing revision practices revealed that despite efforts to engage with form revision or content orientation, learners frequently encountered challenges in fully grasping the underlying principles of writing revision. Certain form revisions, notably those involving functional variability (e.g., articles like “the”), lower frequency occurrences (e.g., omission of “s” in compound adjectives), or specific rule applications (e.g., “affect on” vs. “effect on”), proved especially intricate for some learners. This variability necessitated the application of different writing revision rules within form revision, posing difficulties for learners with limited metalinguistic awareness, even when employing content orientation across various contexts of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning.

Furthermore, some form revisions, characterized by the manifestation of a single function (e.g., affixation) in writing revision processes, could not be easily mastered through a limited number of revisions or a single revision pattern (e.g., Content Revision or Form Revision). For instance, achieving proficiency in distinguishing between “success” and “successful” may not immediately translate into accuracy in spelling checks, word additions, deletions, complexity adjustments, or grammar checks (e.g., “hard” instead of “hardly”) elsewhere due to the multifaceted nature of morphological processes involving suffixation. This deficiency in form revision impeded the transferability of learning across different contexts, contrasting with more straightforward form revisions such as possessive adjectives.

Scholars like [33] argue that engaging with form is indispensable for EFL learners to develop revision awareness, necessitating numerous trial-and-error attempts before consolidating writing quality. However, even with extended opportunities for revision, some learners may struggle to accurately revise towards certain complex structures, a finding corroborated by [44]’s meta-analysis. Engaging EFL learners in multiple writing revision modes, as advocated by [10], can facilitate successful processing of writing revision focused on content orientation. Moreover, employing additional student-friendly revision techniques such as error labeling and metalinguistic explanations can assist in navigating complex writing revision tasks and mitigate the risk of learners merely replicating form revisions without comprehending the underlying principles of writing revision.

In their endeavor to refine their writing skills, EFL learners often concentrate on developing a deeper understanding of the writing revision (WR) process. When initial revision attempts fail to yield desired improvements, learners may resort to repeated iterations of revising content, hoping to glean insights into effective revision strategies. This iterative approach, elucidated by [35], entails building upon previous revisions and engaging in self-reflection to inform subsequent revisions. By consistently reflecting on their writing and revising both form and content, learners significantly enhance the quality of their manuscripts.

Engagement in sustained WR fosters emotional and cognitive involvement with the revision process, prompting learners to actively consider new phases of writing. The differentiation between revising form and content, as underscored by [12, 34], holds significant importance. EFL learners immersed in WR processes don’t merely superficially revise their writing to meet testing requirements; instead, they delve into the core principles of WR, striving to comprehend underlying concepts and apply them autonomously. This concept of “writing revision for acquisition,” proposed by [35], underscores the iterative nature of WR. Over time, consistent engagement in WR builds upon previous reflections, potentially strengthening learners’ self-efficacy in writing revision, as observed in [18]’s research. This underscores the potential of prolonged, content-driven WR.

Contrary to the assertion by [27] regarding the inefficacy of WR in promoting deep processing of target writing, our findings indicate that learners deeply engage with WR. These findings are supported statistically by the presentation of numerous text-specific examples illustrating learners’ comprehension of WR complexity. Throughout the WR process, learners frequently read and re-read the entire writing segment under scrutiny, aiming to gain deeper insights for independently enhancing the quality of their writing. This finding aligns with the work of [24], suggesting that while WR may prompt a restructuring of writing, continuous testing and refining of iterative improvements enhance emotional engagement with the WR process. Therefore, to ascertain the association of these effects with greater certainty, future research should delve into causal mechanisms with more longitudinal data.

Hypothesis 3: Psychological processes help EFL learners improve the self-efficacy in language acquisition

RQ3 delves into the emotional transitions experienced by EFL learners during form or content revision in their language development journey. Figure 2 illustrates the iterative process EFL learners undergo when prompted to self-correct their writing regularly. The emotional shifts reveal that lower-level EFL learners may detect linguistic errors during self-revision, consistent with the findings of [12, 17], indicating successful amendments when learners possess sufficient understanding of identified errors. Furthermore, we found a spectrum of positive psychological experiences among EFL learners during writing, including enjoyment, satisfaction, and excitement, which motivate sustained language-learning efforts. These findings offer support for previous research, such as [26], which underscores the role of positive psychological states in broadening attention and driving action, serving as potent motivational forces [30, 32]. However, few studies have examined the nuanced impact of negative psychological states on EFL learners’ motivation. While anxiety and burnout can diminish enthusiasm and reduce engagement with writing activities, as suggested by recent literature (e.g [30, 34, 35]). , , their effects on motivation are multifaceted. Previous research has primarily focused on examining writing quality from revision, but the effective utilization of external psychological factors, such as self-revision, may be largely ignored, especially when addressing errors that necessitate form revision.

Fig. 2

Emotional attitudes towards writing revision

Regarding the present findings on limited linguistic proficiency among learners, this outcome contrasts with the findings of [26], as learners may struggle with revisions due to frustration or fear of making errors, potentially introducing new errors. Learners express minimal confidence in successful yet unverified self-revision, inhibiting learning due to uncertainty and avoidance regarding the accuracy of their revisions [30]. Additionally, these findings bolster self-efficacy among EFL learners in error identification, reflecting positive, negative, significant, and insignificant trends in content-oriented form revision, fostering either confidence or fear of risk-taking during writing. Moreover, these results align with prior research linking writing revision efforts to writing quality, as shown in Table 2.

Regarding the significance of addressing writing revision alongside broader emotional transformations, as depicted in Fig. 1, this study found a novel finding fraught with complex psychological dynamics. Despite lower proficiency, the pedagogical outcomes of EFL learners’ engagement in the writing revision process during the writing phase yield marginal improvements, diverging from past findings [38], suggesting that despite ongoing psychological changes and metacognitive processes during revision attempts, enhancements in writing quality remain elusive. To our knowledge, the current study is the first to examine the association between psychological processes of writing revision and quality of writing, and as such, these results offer novel insights into the relations between these two variables.

Implications

Exploring the impact of content revision on writing quality through the lens of emotional transformation has significant implications for language teaching and assessment. Firstly, this study can facilitate a novel approach to writing assessment for educators and teachers by considering the emotional processes inherent in language learning. By dynamically observing learners’ psychological changes during writing revision, it assists in understanding learners’ internal emotional needs and identifying sources of subtle learning anxiety, thus improving teacher-learner interaction. Secondly, in the context of language learning, it is crucial to prioritize understanding learners’ psychological states, especially in ESL (English as a Second Language) contexts, and the psychological shifts associated with language testing, rather than solely focusing on superficial measures of performance. Thirdly, by emphasizing content focus, this study offers a perceptual pathway for simultaneously examining the methodologies used to analyze internal and external factors influencing the effectiveness of language learning and teaching. Fourthly, this study aids in assessing language learning both quantitatively and qualitatively, enabling simultaneous observation and cognitive bootstrapping, which facilitates teachers in adjusting their teaching practices effectively. Fifthly, evaluating learners’ emotional changes is valuable for gaining a deeper understanding of their conceptualization process during language learning, which is crucial for accurately observing learners’ progress. Therefore, this research opens a new avenue for exploring EFL perspectives in terms of emotional considerations and provides valuable insights for enhancing language instruction and practice.

Limitations and future studies

The current study examined the emotional evolution of 320 EFL learners engaged in writing revision, specifically transitioning from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones, over a sixteen-week period. The primary aim was to enhance the quality of writing through fundamental revisions. However, it’s important to note a limitation in the experiment, namely the exclusion of comprehensive writing revision, which ideally should encompass various aspects such as content, vocabulary, and organization [45]. Theoretically, a comprehensive approach to EFL writing revision should integrate these facets to provide a holistic view of EFL development and enhance self-efficacy in writing quality, departing from established models of EFL development (for further discussion, refer to [35] for an in-depth exploration of the relationship between writing revision and writing quality).

[31]’s model suggests that writing revision involves cognitive and affective processes leading to form-focused revisions, distinct from content-oriented ones. The writing revision process might require simultaneous adjustments, especially if future studies investigate proceduralization across different proficiency levels and writing revision conditions, such as those involving multiple rewriting, as seen in the studies by [27] and [20]. It’s conceivable that the transition from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones could occur more rapidly for higher-proficiency learners unless additional complex writing revisions are introduced. Conversely, the writing revision process might resemble the patterns observed in the current study if lower-proficiency learners undergo writing revision over an extended period.

Methodologically, future mixed-methods studies should strive for complementarity, exploring various layers of the writing revision process in EFL writing, alongside triangulation. Regarding core writing revision, an incremental approach may be beneficial, gradually shifting focus to deeper patterns (e.g., paraphrasing; coherence between form revisions and content orientation) once specific patterns of writing revision are identified, as demonstrated in studies such as [10, 46] and [23], promoting a more ecologically valid approach to writing revision. In terms of the writing revision process, future studies could investigate strategy training by instructing learners to utilize diverse learning materials and draw from previous experiences for autonomous, self-initiated revisions.

Conclusion

By eliciting the perspectives of EFL learners on the emotional implications of WR, spanning from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones, the present study sheds light on how the process of writing revision contributes to the enhancement of writing quality. As the number of writing revisions increases, there arises a need for an expanded scope of writing revision tailored to the proficiency levels of EFL learners. The cyclical approach to writing revision proposed in this study draws heavily on current perspectives in writing learning and teaching [18, 33], which provide cognitive insights into the transition from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones. However, the WR process also highlights the writing-specific processes of EFL development, which differ from those of writing output. A notable manifestation of this disparity in WR lies in how EFL learners navigate between form-focused revisions and content-oriented ones. In this context, EFL learners consider their emotional responses when undertaking form or content revisions, gradually broadening their repertoire of writing forms or content and engaging in self-reflection on WR principles through longitudinal revisions. Future empirical studies should explore additional quantitative aspects of WR, such as cultural factors, representative evidence, critical thinking, and the impact of writing assessment beyond specific written revisions. Such studies can contribute to the development of a comprehensive theory of second language writing, informed by the concurrent processes of writing revision.