(Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context

Soufiane Trabelsi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12

| Peer-Reviewed

(Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context

Soufiane Trabelsi

Published in International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 9, Issue 1)

Received: 29 December 2020 Accepted: 19 January 2021 Published: 23 February 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This paper, which investigates written corrective feedback (WCF) in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), will address two research questions: (a) to what extent are the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the provision of WCF on the students’ EFL writing aligned?; (b) to what extent do the students’ preferences match the teachers’ practices regarding WCF? The participants of the study were nine writing teachers and their 75 pre-intermediate and intermediate students in one General Foundation Programme (GFP) in Oman. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observation, student text analysis, and student focus groups were employed as the research instruments of the study to attempt to answer the research questions. The study revealed more areas of misalignment than alignment between the teachers’ beliefs and practices related to WCF. The areas of misalignment are related to the writing of praising comments, redrafting, the amount of feedback, the explicitness of feedback and the focus of feedback, whereas the areas of alignment are related to the identification and the correction of errors. In addition to that, the findings indicated that there were more areas of congruence than incongruence between the students' preferences and the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF. As for the areas of congruence, they are related to the explicitness of feedback, the amount of feedback, the source of feedback, and the correction of errors. The areas of incongruence, however, are related to the focus of the feedback and the writing of praising comments. The paper concluded by providing some implications for pedagogy related to WCF.

Published in	International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 9, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12
Page(s)	6-16
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

(mis)alignment, (in)congruence, Beliefs, Practices, Written Feedback, Error Correction, Peer Feedback

References

[1]	Al-Adawi, H. (2010). A naturalistic context-based study on feedback on Omani EFL undergraduate student writing. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Leeds.
[2]	Alkhatib, M. N. (2015). Written corrective feedback at a Saudi university: English language teachers' beliefs, students' preferences, and teachers' practices. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Essex.
[3]	Amrhein, H. R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95-127.
[4]	Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice. English Teaching Forum, 38 (4), 20-24.
[5]	Arrad, G., Vinkler, Y., Aharonov, D., & Retzker, A. (2014). Increasing sensing resolution with error correction. Physical Review Letters, 112 (15), 150801.
[6]	Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
[7]	Braun, V. &. Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.
[8]	Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Management: Issues and Practice, 22 (4), 5-12.
[9]	Carless, C. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 219–233.
[10]	Connor, U. M. & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276.
[11]	Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL university students' preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38 (1), 27-51.
[12]	Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Tuioti, E. A. (2010). Written corrective feedback: The practitioners’ perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (2), 47-77. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119191
[13]	Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing classes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
[14]	Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155–182.
[15]	Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161– 184.
[16]	Fukuda, Y. (2004). Treatment of spoken errors in Japanese high school oral communication classes. Unpublished Master’s thesis, California State University, San Francisco.
[17]	Hamouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teachers' preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4 (3), 128-129.
[18]	Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19]	Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[20]	Jeon, M., & Kang, I. (2005). Investigating student preferences in error correction in Korean-language teaching. The Korean Language in America, 10, 93-112.
[21]	Jodaie, M., & Farrokhi, F. (2012). An exploration of private language institute teachers‘ perceptions of written grammar feedback in EFL classes. English Language Teaching, 5 (2), 58-69.
[22]	Lee, I. (2003). How do Hong Kong English teachers correct errors in student writing? Education Journal, 31 (1), 153-169.
[23]	Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2), 69-85.
[24]	Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers‘ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63, 13–22.
[25]	Mao, S. & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating Written Corrective Feedback: (Mis)alignment of Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46-60.
[26]	Montgomery, J. L. & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82–99.
[27]	Mubarak. (2013). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: A study of practices and effectiveness in the Bahrain context. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Sheffield.
[28]	Norouzian, R. & Farahani, A. (2012). Written error feedback from perception to practice: A feedback on feedback. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3 (1), 11-22.
[29]	Paltridge, B. (2004). Approaches to teaching second language writing. 17th Educational Conference, Adelaide. Retrieved from https://celta.wikispaces.com/file/view/Paltridge.pdf/30724017/Paltridge.pdf.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Soufiane Trabelsi. (2021). (Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Soufiane Trabelsi. (Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2021, 9(1), 6-16. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Soufiane Trabelsi. (Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context. Int J Lang Linguist. 2021;9(1):6-16. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12,
  author = {Soufiane Trabelsi},
  title = {(Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {6-16},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20210901.12},
  abstract = {This paper, which investigates written corrective feedback (WCF) in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), will address two research questions: (a) to what extent are the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the provision of WCF on the students’ EFL writing aligned?; (b) to what extent do the students’ preferences match the teachers’ practices regarding WCF? The participants of the study were nine writing teachers and their 75 pre-intermediate and intermediate students in one General Foundation Programme (GFP) in Oman. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observation, student text analysis, and student focus groups were employed as the research instruments of the study to attempt to answer the research questions. The study revealed more areas of misalignment than alignment between the teachers’ beliefs and practices related to WCF. The areas of misalignment are related to the writing of praising comments, redrafting, the amount of feedback, the explicitness of feedback and the focus of feedback, whereas the areas of alignment are related to the identification and the correction of errors. In addition to that, the findings indicated that there were more areas of congruence than incongruence between the students' preferences and the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF. As for the areas of congruence, they are related to the explicitness of feedback, the amount of feedback, the source of feedback, and the correction of errors. The areas of incongruence, however, are related to the focus of the feedback and the writing of praising comments. The paper concluded by providing some implications for pedagogy related to WCF.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - (Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context
AU  - Soufiane Trabelsi
Y1  - 2021/02/23
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 6
EP  - 16
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12
AB  - This paper, which investigates written corrective feedback (WCF) in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), will address two research questions: (a) to what extent are the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the provision of WCF on the students’ EFL writing aligned?; (b) to what extent do the students’ preferences match the teachers’ practices regarding WCF? The participants of the study were nine writing teachers and their 75 pre-intermediate and intermediate students in one General Foundation Programme (GFP) in Oman. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observation, student text analysis, and student focus groups were employed as the research instruments of the study to attempt to answer the research questions. The study revealed more areas of misalignment than alignment between the teachers’ beliefs and practices related to WCF. The areas of misalignment are related to the writing of praising comments, redrafting, the amount of feedback, the explicitness of feedback and the focus of feedback, whereas the areas of alignment are related to the identification and the correction of errors. In addition to that, the findings indicated that there were more areas of congruence than incongruence between the students' preferences and the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF. As for the areas of congruence, they are related to the explicitness of feedback, the amount of feedback, the source of feedback, and the correction of errors. The areas of incongruence, however, are related to the focus of the feedback and the writing of praising comments. The paper concluded by providing some implications for pedagogy related to WCF.
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Soufiane Trabelsi

Higher Institute of Business Administration of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Soufiane Trabelsi. (2021). (Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Soufiane Trabelsi. (Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2021, 9(1), 6-16. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Soufiane Trabelsi. (Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context. Int J Lang Linguist. 2021;9(1):6-16. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12,
  author = {Soufiane Trabelsi},
  title = {(Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {6-16},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20210901.12},
  abstract = {This paper, which investigates written corrective feedback (WCF) in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), will address two research questions: (a) to what extent are the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the provision of WCF on the students’ EFL writing aligned?; (b) to what extent do the students’ preferences match the teachers’ practices regarding WCF? The participants of the study were nine writing teachers and their 75 pre-intermediate and intermediate students in one General Foundation Programme (GFP) in Oman. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observation, student text analysis, and student focus groups were employed as the research instruments of the study to attempt to answer the research questions. The study revealed more areas of misalignment than alignment between the teachers’ beliefs and practices related to WCF. The areas of misalignment are related to the writing of praising comments, redrafting, the amount of feedback, the explicitness of feedback and the focus of feedback, whereas the areas of alignment are related to the identification and the correction of errors. In addition to that, the findings indicated that there were more areas of congruence than incongruence between the students' preferences and the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF. As for the areas of congruence, they are related to the explicitness of feedback, the amount of feedback, the source of feedback, and the correction of errors. The areas of incongruence, however, are related to the focus of the feedback and the writing of praising comments. The paper concluded by providing some implications for pedagogy related to WCF.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - (Mis)alignment in Relation to Written Corrective Feedback: the Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices vs the Students’ Preferences in an EFL Context
AU  - Soufiane Trabelsi
Y1  - 2021/02/23
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 6
EP  - 16
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210901.12
AB  - This paper, which investigates written corrective feedback (WCF) in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), will address two research questions: (a) to what extent are the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the provision of WCF on the students’ EFL writing aligned?; (b) to what extent do the students’ preferences match the teachers’ practices regarding WCF? The participants of the study were nine writing teachers and their 75 pre-intermediate and intermediate students in one General Foundation Programme (GFP) in Oman. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observation, student text analysis, and student focus groups were employed as the research instruments of the study to attempt to answer the research questions. The study revealed more areas of misalignment than alignment between the teachers’ beliefs and practices related to WCF. The areas of misalignment are related to the writing of praising comments, redrafting, the amount of feedback, the explicitness of feedback and the focus of feedback, whereas the areas of alignment are related to the identification and the correction of errors. In addition to that, the findings indicated that there were more areas of congruence than incongruence between the students' preferences and the teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF. As for the areas of congruence, they are related to the explicitness of feedback, the amount of feedback, the source of feedback, and the correction of errors. The areas of incongruence, however, are related to the focus of the feedback and the writing of praising comments. The paper concluded by providing some implications for pedagogy related to WCF.
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download