ABSTRACT This opinion paper challenges the conventional view that students' lack of visible response to written feedback (WF) in L2 writing equates to disengagement. By refining the current definitions of the tripartite engagement model (cognitive, behavioural, affective), the authors argued that ‘unaction’ (absence of textual revisions) may reflect nuanced engagement dynamics rather than disinterest. Drawing on a review of empirical studies, a refined definition of the classic model and a categorisation of unaction (positive, negative and neutral) are proposed. Each type of unaction varies in engagement levels across dimensions. This paper highlights methodological limitations in relying solely on observable revisions and advocates integrating diverse data sources (e.g., reflective journals, stimulated recalls) to capture hidden engagement. Pedagogically, teachers are urged to recognise these distinctions, foster dialogues around unactioned feedback and support students' emotional regulation. This reconceptualisation aims to advance research and practice by reframing inaction as a multifaceted phenomenon that requires context‐sensitive analysis.
Tang et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: