Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development

Overall Perceptions of WCF and Best Ways to Give Feedback

Findings indicate that instructors generally view WCF as essential for improving students’ writing. Half explicitly stressed the importance of WCF, and nearly one-third affirmed its effectiveness. However, concerns emerged about its time demands and the risk of demotivating students when too many errors are marked.

The most effective strategies included error codes with metalinguistic feedback (15), especially for advanced learners, while direct feedback (9) was preferred for lower-level students, showing alignment with proficiency levels. Seven instructors emphasised the value of one-on-one feedback for fostering engagement and understanding. Other useful approaches included content- and organisation-focused feedback (6), reformulation (5), and combining direct and indirect methods (5), reflecting the multifaceted nature of feedback.

Although mentioned less often, focused feedback was seen as useful in preventing students from feeling overwhelmed, and timely feedback reinforced learning. Additional suggestions—using coloured pens, incorporating L1, guiding students through peer review, and maintaining an open-door policy to discuss feedback with students—highlight personalised practices that promote autonomy and clarity.

Perceptions of the Importance of Feedback Focus

Instructors rated the importance of feedback on writing areas. Global errors, such as content and organisation, which affect the overall message, were prioritised over local errors, such as spelling and punctuation, which do not hinder comprehension (see Table 1).

The school rubric also attaches equal importance to content, organisation, grammar, and vocabulary. These findings show a primary focus on higher-order skills in feedback practices, aligning with the goal of enhancing students’ ability to communicate ideas effectively.

Perceptions of the Contribution of Instructor Feedback

Many instructors affirmed that feedback significantly supports students’ writing development. They noted reductions in recurring errors, fewer overall mistakes, increased use of complex structures, and improved awareness of genre-specific conventions—indicating that WCF fosters both immediate correction and long-term improvement. As P22 noted:

I have observed that when I give detailed feedback, the students think I spare much time for their paper, and they respect it and read carefully all the comments I write. They become more aware of the fossilized mistakes and of standard English, register, and academic language.

Thus, detailed feedback can boost student engagement and foster greater awareness of errors and academic conventions. The perceived effort behind the feedback appears to motivate students to engage more deeply with the writing task. This suggests that WCF not only addresses surface errors but also encourages students’ metacognitive engagement, fostering greater self-regulation and deeper learning in writing.

According to the instructors, students’ perceptions of feedback were generally positive. For example, P17 stated, “They learn a lot and feel fuelled to be more careful,” while P25 remarked, “Most see it as beneficial and are neither offended nor discouraged.” Although this positivity may seem surprising, earlier work shows that students often prefer comprehensive feedback to help them identify and correct errors and avoid repeating them (Gedik Bal, 2022), which may explain why teachers felt detailed feedback did not discourage students. However, some instructors identified challenges, such as misinterpretation, negative perceptions, or equating feedback solely with error correction. These mixed responses highlight the importance of clear, accessible feedback to enhance effectiveness and support student engagement.

Perceptions of the Areas That the Students Struggle Most and Common Mistakes

Instructors reported that students struggle most with generating (14) and organising ideas (16), alongside grammar (17) and vocabulary (13). These findings suggest that beyond surface-level issues, students face deeper challenges in conceptualising and structuring content. As P27 noted, “Idea generation is the biggest problem…they cannot relate ideas to create relevant content.” Similarly, P18 emphasised, “The biggest challenge is extending the topic and giving relevant information.”

Common errors included verb tenses (13), subject-verb agreement (11), run-on sentences (10), word order (7), and word form (7). Less frequent issues involved noun/adjective clauses, prepositions, fragments, L1 interference (3 each), collocations, singular-plural agreement, punctuation, spelling, conjunctions (2 each), and passive voice (1). These patterns suggest that while grammatical errors are prevalent, a broader range of lexical and syntactic issues contributes to students’ difficulties.

Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Technological Tools to Give Feedback

Instructors highlighted both strengths and drawbacks in this area. Key benefits included promoting learner autonomy (5), saving time (21), and practicality (13). Participant 30 noted, “It saves time, the writings are stored more easily. The students also respond better.” Criticisms included limited feedback on content and organisation (6), inefficiency compared to handwritten feedback (7), superficial or inaccurate responses (4), and lack of individualised feedback (2). Some participants noted teacher laziness and reduced attentiveness (2), along with concerns about students’ digital literacy (2) and issues like cheating and plagiarism (1). These drawbacks highlight that, despite its efficiency, technology cannot replace nuanced, personalised feedback.

Instructors’ Suggestions and Concerns Regarding Corrective Feedback in EFL Settings

Three instructors recommended allocating more time and reducing teacher workload to facilitate face-to-face feedback, while three others suggested incorporating oral feedback sessions. P8 proposed dedicating an entire lesson to feedback. As P13 noted,

All instructors will do their best if they have sufficient time to provide feedback. Time and the number of students can be challenging for instructors. Some students even may [sic] need oral feedback in addition to written feedback, which, of course, depends on time.

The comment underscores the tension between the need for personalised feedback and practical limitations. Several instructors viewed technological tools as helpful in easing the feedback process, though this view was not unanimous (e.g., P16, P23, P25). P1 and P22 stressed the importance of addressing content, register, and organisation, while P3 and P25 emphasised raising students’ awareness of the value of feedback.

Views on feedback approaches varied. Some instructors advocated flexible methods tailored to learners, while others preferred standardised procedures for consistency. This divergence points to the need for adaptable institutional policies. Suggestions also included integrating praise (P20, P22), providing timely, focused feedback, peer feedback, and self-evaluation (P16).

As P16 stated, “Feedback timing may vary, but it should be prompt and practical. Alternatives to teacher-centred feedback—like digital tools, peer, and self-feedback—should be considered.” Additional suggestions included assigning instructors to specific learner groups (P4), adopting process-oriented feedback with multiple drafts and error codes (P15), and offering instruction on feedback strategies (P21), reflecting the multifaceted nature of effective WCF.

Preferences for the Scope of Feedback (Focused vs. Unfocused)

Survey results showed that 63.3% of instructors preferred unfocused feedback, while 36.7% opted for focused feedback. Those favouring unfocused feedback aimed to prevent fossilisation or students assuming that unmarked areas are correct:

Students complain when I don’t correct all of them and they misunderstand that their paper is good when they see fewer corrections (P18).

I cannot stop myself correcting all the mistakes though I know sometimes just correcting the target structures is necessary as I feel they are going to fossilize the mistakes if I do not correct (P22).

Some cited institutional policies as shaping their choices. This highlights a tension between pedagogical ideals and institutional demands (see Table 2).

Conversely, instructors who preferred focused feedback tailored it to learners’ proficiency, aiming to boost autonomy and avoid discouragement. Four instructors prioritised raising learner self-awareness, though selective feedback risks missing important errors. When choosing what to correct, instructors prioritised meaning-altering or frequent errors, also considering task aims and rubric criteria. The varied strategies reflect reflective practice but also suggest a lack of standardisation, raising fairness concerns.

Preferences for WCF Strategies (Direct vs. Indirect)

Of the 30 instructors, 63.3% preferred direct feedback and 36.7% preferred indirect. Eight supporters of direct feedback also preferred indirect approaches depending on error type, draft stage, or student proficiency. Three indirect feedback supporters emphasised flexibility. Direct feedback was favoured for lower-level students or single-draft tasks, while indirect feedback was preferred with more proficient learners or multi-draft writing (see Table 3).

Time constraints and clarity were common reasons for choosing direct feedback. School policies also played a role:

It is more practical for me. When I use error codes, it does not help weaker students. When they try to correct mistakes, they make another one. Also, as I do not have enough time for face-to-face feedback, I feel safer when I correct errors and write my overall comments on the written work. (P1)

It depends on the policy of the school, but if I were to decide on the type of feedback, I would use mixed. Level 2 mistakes can be underlined, but mistakes that students cannot correct themselves or even do not recognise can be directly corrected or explained. (P24)

Document analysis confirmed that institutional guidelines often require direct correction. Still, several instructors valued indirect feedback for fostering learner independence:

Teaching students a correction code system and helping them get used to figuring out what their errors are based on codes is more useful than directly correcting errors. It helps them to become independent learners. Besides, working on the feedback and rewriting a text turns the writing activity into an ongoing process targeting development rather than a one-shot activity that yields a product to be given a score. (P15)

This highlights the pedagogical value of indirect feedback. Likewise, P21 emphasised the importance of cognitive engagement for deeper learning.

Professional Development Preferences for WCF and Technology-Based Feedback

Most instructors expressed interest in learning to use technology for feedback, with preferred formats including interactive in-service workshops. Motivations included staying current with digital tools, enhancing the effectiveness of feedback, saving time, and recognising the benefits of technology. In contrast, disinterest stemmed from confidence in existing skills, perceptions of ease of use, or the belief that technology offers no advantage over traditional methods. P15 emphasised the need for basic digital literacy, noting the importance of using Microsoft 365, online dictionaries, text analysers, paraphrasing tools, and plagiarism detection platforms.

Regarding general instruction on WCF strategy, more than half supported it to stay informed, encourage collaboration, compensate for the lack of formal education, and achieve a balanced approach. Those who declined cited confidence in their experience or methods. The findings indicate a strong inclination toward professional development in the use of technology for feedback.

Factors That Affect Instructors’ WCF Practices

The most cited categories influencing WCF practices were student-related factors (26)—proficiency (15), motivation (6), needs (2), coping skills (2), and familiarity with error codes (1)—and institution-related factors (15), including time constraints (8), policies (6), and class size (1).

Task-related factors (12) were also significant, involving task type or purpose (7), rubric criteria (3), and text length or genre (2). Error-related aspects (11) included type (4), severity (4), and frequency (3). Teacher-related factors (3)—such as burnout, workload, and mood—were noted less frequently. These findings reflect the complexity of WCF practices and the need to consider multiple contextual influences.

Areas That Instructors Focus on While Giving WCF

Instructors reported prioritising global issues such as content and organisation, consistent with their perceived importance. Grammar and vocabulary are followed in frequency. Spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation received the least attention (see Table 4).

Document analysis confirmed that the rubrics used also emphasise content, organisation, grammar, and vocabulary, aligning with the instructors’ feedback focus.

Instructors’ Practices of WCF Strategies

Instructors’ self-reported practices were akin to their preference for the WCF strategy. They had mixed feelings about the use of direct and indirect feedback strategies, as reflected in their frequency of use (see Items 1 and 4 in Table 5).

The most frequently used strategy was to correct errors and provide comments. This aligns with school policy requiring instructors to give direct feedback on language errors and to use a rubric that addresses content and organisation, as well as language use, thereby necessitating comments on students’ work.

Instructors’ Practice of Drafting

Although the compulsory drafting policy had been removed, most instructors still required a second draft, while a smaller group did not. Reasons for assigning second drafts included providing extra practice, reinforcing learning, encouraging revision, enabling self-evaluation, and raising awareness of mistakes—principles aligned with the process approach, which emphasises iterative improvement. Nonetheless, those who did not require a second draft cited time constraints, a lack of institutional mandate, and workload concerns. This reflects the tension between pedagogical ideals and institutional limitations, highlighting the need for systemic support to sustain process writing practices.

Challenges That Instructors Experience While Giving WCF

Eleven instructors reported difficulties managing time and meeting deadlines, with large classes and heavy workloads cited as major obstacles to detailed feedback. P1 and P14 emphasised that class size and workload limited their ability to provide personalised feedback. Contextual factors such as incomprehensible student writing, challenges in providing content feedback, and restrictive institutional policies further affected the quality of feedback. As P15 explained, the single-draft, direct-feedback policy limited the use of correction codes and prevented assessment of students’ progress through resubmission. These findings underscore concerns about the effectiveness of current feedback practices in supporting learning.

Strategies to Deal With Errors on Untaught Items and Feedback Neglect

When students ignored WCF, some instructors chose not to intervene, framing it as a matter of student autonomy, while others sought to raise awareness of the value of feedback, engaged in direct discussions, or continued to provide feedback. For errors involving structures not yet taught, strategies varied: some corrected them directly, others ignored them, reformulated them using familiar language, or informed students that the structure would be covered later. A few provided oral feedback or referred students to supplementary resources. These findings illustrate instructors’ flexible and adaptive approaches to untaught content and differing levels of student engagement with feedback.

Use of Technology to Give Feedback

When asked about their use of technological tools for providing feedback, responses varied: 20% of instructors reported frequent use, 30% occasional use, 16.7% rare use, and 33% indicated no use at all. The tools mentioned by the instructors included Google Docs or Microsoft Word (7), ChatGPT (7), Grammarly (6), PaperPal (2), Padlet (2), Turnitin (1), and hyperlinks (1).

Regarding the level of comfort of using technology to provide feedback, 7% of instructors reported feeling completely uncomfortable, 7% somewhat uncomfortable, 40% neutral, 33% slightly comfortable, and 13% highly comfortable. These findings suggest a mixed level of technological proficiency and confidence among instructors. This may hinder the consistent and effective integration of technology into their feedback practices.

Some instructors integrate digital tools in feedback, but many remain hesitant. This underscores the need for professional development to improve technological literacy and promote confident, effective use of digital feedback tools.