Published
Beyond the Margins: English Instructors’ Perspectives and Practices in Written Corrective Feedback
Más allá de los márgenes: perspectivas y prácticas de retroalimentación escrita de docentes de inglés
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v28n2.123147Keywords:
EFL writing, Error correction, Teacher beliefs, Teacher feedback, Written corrective feedback (en)Corrección de errores, Creencias docentes, Retroalimentación correctiva escrita, Retroalimentación docente, Escritura en inglés como lengua extranjera (es)
This case study examined English as a foreign language instructors’ perspectives, preferences, and practices regarding written feedback, as well as their use of technology for feedback and related professional development needs, in an English preparatory program at a Turkish state university. Thirty instructors completed a survey with Likert-scale and open-ended questions. Most participants viewed written corrective feedback as essential and effective for improving writing skills. While 63% of participants preferred unfocused feedback, attitudes toward strategies varied: direct feedback was generally favoured, but indirect feedback was chosen for advanced learners and under a two-draft policy. Reported challenges included large classes and time constraints. The findings also revealed patterns in instructors’ use of technology for feedback and highlighted their need for further professional development in this area.
Este estudio de caso analizó las perspectivas, preferencias y prácticas de docentes de inglés como lengua extranjera de una universidad estatal en Turquía respecto a la retroalimentación escrita, el uso de la tecnología para proporcionarla y sus necesidades de desarrollo profesional. Treinta docentes completaron una encuesta con preguntas de tipo Likert y abiertas. La mayoría de los participantes consideró eficaz la retroalimentación escrita no focalizada para mejorar la escritura. La estrategia de retroalimentación directa tuvo preferencia sobre la indirecta, que se aplicó a estudiantes avanzados y bajo la política de dos borradores. Entre los desafíos destacan las clases numerosas y la falta de tiempo. Los resultados revelaron patrones en el uso de la tecnología para la retroalimentación y en las necesidades de desarrollo profesional en este ámbito.
References
Alkhateeb, A., & Daweli, T. W. (2024). Investigating composition instructors’ written feedback practices at KSAU-HS of the academic year 2022-23. Heliyon, 10(7), e28705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28705
Alshahrani, A., & Storch, N. (2014). Investigating teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi EFL context: How do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students’ preferences? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.2.02als
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
Chen, W. (2023). Investigating novice EFL writing teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning written corrective feedback across contexts: A case study from a complexity theory perspective. Language Awareness, 32(3), 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2022.2119993
Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Teacher written feedback on English as a foreign language learners’ writing: Examining native and nonnative English-speaking teachers’ practices in feedback provision. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629921
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
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
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201
Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
Ferris, D., & Kurzer, K. (2019). Does error feedback help L2 writers? Latest evidence on the efficacy of written corrective feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 106–124). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.008
Fitriyah, I., Ningrum, A. S. B., & Gozali, I. (2024). An investigation of written corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: How teachers’ feedback practices meet students’ expectations. International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.22034/IJLT.2023.411616.1275
Gedik Bal, N. (2022). EFL students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of corrective feedback on their written tasks. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37(3), 1116–1129. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2021068382
Hardman, W., & Bell, H. (2019). “More fronted adverbials than ever before”: Writing feedback practices and grammatical metalanguage in an English primary school. Language and Education, 33(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1488864
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 1–22). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.003
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
Kurzer, K. (2017). Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental multilingual writing classes. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.366
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
Lee, I. (2009). Feedback revolution: What gets in the way? ELT Journal, 65(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp028
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9
Lee, I. (2019a). Second language writing teacher education and feedback literacy development: Perspectives from Hong Kong. In L. Seloni & S. Henderson Lee (Eds.), Second language writing instruction in global contexts: English language teacher preparation and development (pp. 31–51). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788925877-006
Lee, I. (2019b). Teachers’ frequently asked questions about focused written corrective feedback. TESOL Journal, 10(3), e00427. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.427
Lee, I. (2021). The development of feedback literacy for writing teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 1048–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3012
Lee, I. (2024). The future of written corrective feedback research. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(4), 660–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2024.2388068
Lee, I., & Mao, Z. (2024). Writing teacher feedback literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, values, and abilities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 63, 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101094
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
Li, X., & Ke, P. (2024). Becoming feedback literate: A case study of a Chinese university EFL teacher. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33, 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00743-z
Lim, S. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Efficacy of written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A meta-analysis. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 24(3), 1–26.
Lin, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2024). The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT-assisted written corrective feedback. System, 127, 103529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103529
Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The amount and usefulness of written corrective feedback across different educational contexts and levels. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1333
Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., Valeo, A., & Barkaoui, K. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and practice about written corrective feedback: A case study in a French as a foreign language program. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 25, 5–28. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.25.02
Liu, X. (2024). Understanding the development and implementation of teachers’ beliefs of written corrective feedback: A study of two novice transborder teachers in mainland China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 142, 104519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104519
Mamad, A., & Vígh, T. (2024). EFL/ESL teachers’ and students’ perceptions and practices of written feedback in a higher education context. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 26(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v26n2.109141
Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57(4), 449–477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000393
McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough? Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.003
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE.
Osama, A. J. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs and practices of feedback and preferences of students for feedback in university level EFL writing classrooms [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton]. University of Southampton Institutional Repository. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/411887
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Sinha, T. S., & Nassaji, H. (2022). ESL learners’ perception and its relationship with the efficacy of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12378
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2019). Automated feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 125–142). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.009
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020934886
Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004
Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100798
Zheng, Y., Yu, S., Liu, C., & Jiang, L. (2022). Mapping research on second language writing teachers: A review on teacher cognition, practices, and expertise. System, 109, 102870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102870
Dimensions
PlumX
Article abstract page views
Downloads
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nur Gedik Bal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are authorized to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format as long as you give appropriate credit to the authors of the articles and to Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development as original source of publication. The use of the material for commercial purposes is not allowed. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
Authors retain the intellectual property of their manuscripts with the following restriction: first publication is granted to Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development.
