An Investigation Of The Practice Of EFL Teachers Written Feedback Provision Vis- -Vis Their Students Preferences

Melisew Shibabaw et al., International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588,Impact Factor: 6.452, Volume 08 Issue 2, February 2018, Page 20-29
http://indusedu.org Page 20
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
An Investigation of the Practice of EFL
Teachers’ Written Feedback Provision Vis-
À-Vis Their Students’ Preferences
Melisew Shibabaw1
and Haile Kassahun Bewuket2
1,2
(Debre Markos University, Ethiopia)
Abstract: By using descriptive survey design that employed mixed methods approach of data collection and
analysis, this study investigated the practice of EFL teachers written feedback provisions vis-à-vis students'
preferences. Data for the study were collected from 50 (male=20, female=30) students through questionnaire
and from three teachers through interview. What is more, forty five students' papers containing teachers' written
feedback were analyzed. The results revealed discrepancies between teachers' feedback provision practices with
students' preferences. Most students were interested to receive teacher written feedbacks that address all
aspects of writing rather than primarily focusing on language accuracy. Moreover, the results of the study also
indicated that large class size, poor language proficiency of students, students’ inability to understand
correction codes, examination culture, lack of teachers' training concerning written feedback practice were the
major challenges EFL teachers face in giving written feedback. The study concludes that it is important for
teachers to be aware of students’ preferences when they give written feedback.
Keywords: written feedback, students’ preferences, teachers’ practices
I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Learning a language demands the mastery of four skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Of
which, writing is one of the productive skills and an important means of communication. Having a good
proficiency in this skill, however, is a demanding task for it passes through complex process. Tarek (2015, p.1)
states, “Writing is a complex process which demands cognitive analysis and linguistic synthesis."
In learning a language, making errors is considered natural and helpful given that errors are treated in a
way that could help students’ learning (Hendrickson, 1978). Writing is one of the language skills in which
students’ highly need their teachers’ feedback. In supporting that claim, Richards (1994, p.188) explains
providing feedback to learners on their performance is an important aspect of teaching writing. Feedback may
serve not only to let know how well they have performed but also to increase motivation and build a supportive
classroom climate.
Providing written feedback to students' writing is one of the contributions to the development of
students' writings. Many researchers (e.g. Hyland, 1990; Leki, 1990) believe that providing feedback has
positive impact on students' writing performance. In a similar vein, both teachers and students consider written
feedback as an essential part of writing process (Ferris, 1995; Fathman and Whelly, 1990).
There is a long tradition of providing written feedback in teaching writing in Ethiopia. The problem is,
feedbacks usually provided by teachers appear to fail to consider students’ preferences, background, and age,
among others that need to be taken into account to help students write better. In that regard, Ellis (1994) states
that even if students in one class are all from the same language group, they truly have different learning styles
and needs. Moreover, every student is unique and different from other students in his or her family educational
background, learning strategies and attitudes for second language learning and correction. So, feedback
provision should be handled with care by considering each student as an individual with unique perception and
preference (Ibid).
When teachers' written feedback matches with their students’ expectations and preferences, it will
greatly help to improve students writing (Edge, 1989). However, the matter is, knowing students' preferences
towards their teachers' written feedback. The current study is conducted with the aim of investigating the
practice of EFL teachers written feedback vis-à-vis their students’ preferences in teaching writing.
Statement of the problem
Providing feedback to students’ writing plays a vital role in improving students’ writing provided that
the feedback given is in line with their preferences. Without knowing the students preference, giving feedback
to them is nothing, but a criticism and an underestimation to their writing ability. From the researchers’
observation, students at Kuch Secondary School tend to understand teachers written feedback differently, and
this affect how they correct their errors. Many students in EFL classes have poo performance in writing.
Although low performance in writing could be attributed to a number of things, researchers sincerely believe
that the way feedback is provided to students writing takes up the lion’s share. Even if students have been

learning writing in EFL classes starting from elementary school, they are not proficient to express their ideas in
writing. They were observed using nonsense and incoherent ideas, phrases, sentences and paragraphs. They also
had serious problems in other features of writing like mechanics, content, grammar, coherence, development,
and diction.
According to researchers’ presumptions, EFL teachers may not be that much interested to give clear
and appropriate written feedback on students' written work, and they may not take in to account students'
preferences when they give written feedback. Thus, researchers sincerely believe that one of the underlying
reasons why students become poor in writing emanates from the way written feedback is given. That initiated
the researchers to conduct a study on the issue.
Both internationally and locally many studies have been conducted on different aspects of feedback.
For example, Damir (2012) in his study of ' written feedback teachers' practices and cognition' addressed how
the teachers give written feedback to students writing. However, he did not address the practice of teachers’
feedback in relation to students’ preferences.
Another researcher Tarek (2015) conducted a study on enhancing students' writing skill through
teachers corrective feedback; the study reported that teachers corrective feedback has a real positive influence
on developing students writing skill, but he did not address students preferences towards teachers' written
feedback.
In addition to researches conducted abroad, a couple of researches had also been locally carried out.
For instance, Zerihun (2009) conducted a study on the relationship between EFL students’ perception of written
feedback practice and their writing proficiency. His research addressed the students’ response on the teachers’
written feedback and their actual writing skill was considered. However, the focus of teachers’ written feedback
in terms of organization, content, mechanics, and grammar were not addressed in this study.
The above researchers did not address teachers’ feedback in relation to students' preferences. As far as
the knowledge of the researchers is concerned, research in to investigating teachers’ practice of giving written
feedback in relation to students’ preferences is a less investigated area in the context of Ethiopia. Thus, the
current research is conducted to fill the gaps stated above.
Objectives of the study
General Objective
The general objective of this study was to investigate EFL teachers' practice of giving written feedback
in relation to students' preferences.
Specific Objectives
The study had the following specific objectives:
1. To investigate teachers practice of written feedback provision
2. To investigate students' preferences towards teachers’ written feedback
3. To identify challenges teachers’ face in providing written feedback to students writings
Research Questions
The following research questions were formulated to guide the study:
1. How do teachers provide written feedback for students' writing?
2. What kind of written feedback do students prefer to receive in their writing?
3. What challenges do EFL teachers' face regarding giving written feedback in writing classroom?
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITRATURE
The what and importance of feedback
Feedback which can be defined in various ways specifically refers to an attempt to draw learners’
attention to problems in their writing. Providing written feedback on students writing is one of the pedagogical
practices that assists students improve their writing skill.
Hyland and Hyland (2006, p.77) states, "feedback is widely seen as crucial for encouraging and
consolidating learning, and this significance has also been recognized by those working in the field of second
language writing (L2).Its importance is acknowledged in process based classroom, where it forms a key element
of students growing control over composing skills, and by genre oriented teachers employing scaffold learning
techniques." Another scholar, Ur (1996, p.242) cited in TemesgenChibsa (2008) expresses, "feedback in the
context of teaching in general as information that is given to the learner about his or her performance of learning
task is usually done with the objective of improving performance”.
Types of written corrective feedback
Ellis (2009) cited in Soler (2015) suggests ways on how teachers can correct linguistic errors in
students' assignments. The type of feedback that he explained are direct and indirect corrective feedback.
Direct corrective written feedback
Direct corrective feedback involves providing students with the correct form straight away. This can be
done by either crossing the wrong or unnecessary word out, inserting a missing word or writing the right form
above or close to the wrong form.

As Ferris (2006) notes, this can appear in number of various forms, crossing out unnecessary phrase,
word or morpheme, and the correct form should be followed or near to erroneous form. The bright side of this
type of feedback, according to Ellis (2009) cited in Soler (2015), is that it provides the learner with explicit
information and guidance about how to correct errors. If learners are unable to self-correct their own errors, this
is the best technique to apply.
Ferris and Roberts (2001) suggest using direct corrective feedback instead of indirect one with learners
of low level of proficiency, who usually do not know how to correct the erroneous. Buchner (2012) cited in
Ducken (2014) advocates for direct feedback saying that it may be more useful than indirect feedback because it
reduces confusion, provides students information to resolve more complex errors, offers more with explicit
feedback on hypothesis that are tested by learners and more immediate.
Therefore, proponents of direct corrective feedback pointed out that direct written corrective feedback
may be more useful for learners at lower proficiency levels.
Indirect corrective written feedback
With indirect corrective feedback the mistake is simply indicated by the teacher with mark or coding
leaving the student to independently determine the correct form.
Indirect corrective feedback can take two forms either locating the error or just indicating the error
without telling the learners its exact location. As to Ferris (1995) indirect corrective feedback may foster deeper
language processing by requiring the student to engage in guided learning and problem solving, thus resulting in
the type of reflection that is more likely to foster long term acquisition. This may be useful for learners at higher
proficiency levels as they have relatively advanced linguistic knowledge.
By the same token, Lalande (1982) cited in Soler (2015) argues that indirect feedback provides learners
with the competence of problem solving and guided learning, fostering learners to ponder on their own error. In
that regard, it is preferable to direct feedback; moreover, it enables long term learning (Ferris and Roberts,
2001).
Ways of providing written feedback on students' written works
Cook (2013) identifies the following techniques of providing feedback on students writing.
1. Indicating the error
2. Indicating or correcting the error
3. Indicating and naming the error
4. Indicating, naming and correcting the error
5. End comments
Written feedback and Students' Preferences
Most students want teacher written feedback especially to highlight their grammatical errors, while
some also want teachers to give them feedback on the content and ideas in their writing. In both of the cases
teachers need to pay close attention to their students’ preferences while providing written feedback. Hyland
(2003) suggests that teachers are required to take in to consideration how their students like to receive feedback
to revise their writings.
As mentioned, many students need special assistance and practice to improve their writing skill. They
have also different needs because of difference in cultural background, age, previous experience, intelligence
etc. In relation to that, Ellis (1994) notes even the students in one class are all from the same language
community, they truly have different learning styles and needs. In addition, every student is unique and differs
from other students in his / her family, education, history, learning strategies and attitude for second language
learning and correction.
The study conducted by Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) investigated nine EFL Brazilian students’
responses to their teacher’s commentary. The students reported that the comments they usually receive were
mainly form-based focusing on grammar and mechanics, but they would prefer feedback on other aspects of
writing such as content and organization of ideas. Hence, the researchers concluded that there should be a
student-teacher agreement about the focus/foci of feedback. Another researcher Leki (1986) cited in Leki (1991)
conducted a study on 100 students concerning their attitudes toward their teacher’s error correction. He reported
that these students wanted to receive correction on every error they made, and that they preferred indirect
feedback to direct one.
In a related study at Mentoury University, 160 students were the subjects of a research that investigated
whether or not these students have a negative attitude towards the form-based feedback provided by their
teacher in writing (Selman 2006).One main result obtained from this research is that students favored error
based feedback: the students expressed their favorable attitudes towards correcting all their errors in use and
usage. Based on the findings of this study, the researcher concluded that teachers should find a way to
determine properly their students’ attitudes and preferences, and adopt a feedback approach accordingly to
guarantee that any feedback given is clear, understandable and thus, constructive. Considering these example
findings, one can come to conclude that the way students view feedback differs from one situation to the other.

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study was designed to investigate EFL teachers' practice of written feedback provision in relation
to students’ preferences. In doing so, descriptive survey design that employed mixed method research approach
(quantitative and qualitative) in collecting and analyzing data was used.
The sample size and sampling technique
The participants of this study were English language teachers who were teaching grade 11 students at
Kuch Secondary School. There were6 English language teachers in the school. But, for interview, the researcher
selected 3 English language teachers using purposive sampling. The other participants of the study were grade
11 students who were learning at Kuch Secondary School. There were 360 (142 male and 218 female) students.
The researchers selected 20 male and 30 female students through proportionate stratified sampling.
Data collection instruments
Questionnaires, interview and document analysis were used to collect data.
 Questionnaire
Questionnaires were to collect data regarding teachers feedback provision and students’ preferences..
The questionnaires were adapted from the ones used in Ferris’s study (1995) and Leki’s (1991)
research.
An attempt was made to ascertain validity of items in the questionnaire through experts’
judgment. The researchers calculated internal consistency of items using Cronbach Alpha and found
8.60, which is in acceptable range. Another testimony for validity and reliability of instruments came
from using already tested out instruments by Ferris (1995) and Leki (1991).
 Interview
Semi-structured interview was utilized for gathering data from sample EFL teachers. The interview
was conducted with three sample grade 11 English language teachers. Items in the interview focused
on teachers' challenge and practice of giving written feedback. The interview questions were adapted
from Lee (2003).
 Document analysis
Data related to teachers’ actual written feedback practice was collected from students' assignment
papers which were collected from three different writing assignments. All teachers gave feedback to
three texts and a total of 1080 papers were marked by English language teachers to all 360 grade 11
students. From these, 45 students' assignment papers of 15 students (three for each one) that contain
teachers’ feedback were randomly chosen and analyzed. A model of describing, analyzing and
categorizing teachers' written feedback practice was adapted from Cook (2013) and Ritegro (2008);
Lee (2007) and Ziv (1984).
Data analysis methods
Descriptive statistics particularly frequency count and percentage were employed to analyze
questionnaire items and writing samples.
The data gathered through interview and open ended questionnaires were analyzed qualitatively. The
transcripts of the responses were coded and organized in to themes, and the analysis was made thematically.
IV. DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSION
Data Analysis
Analysis of Students’ Questionnaires
Table 4.1: Students' response on focus of their teachers’ written feedback in relation to their preferences
The table below shows that the writing feature that teachers give more focus on when they give written
feedback as well as students preferences on aspects of written feedback they like receive.
Item No. Item Responses
What aspects of your writing feature does your teacher's
attention and feedback focus on?
F %
4 a. Grammar 30 60 %
b. Organization 4 8 %
c. Ideas or content 2 4 %
d. All aspects of writing 14 28 %
Item No. Item Responses
5 On what aspects of your writing do you want your
teacher's attention and feedback focus on?
F %
a. Grammar 15 30 %
b. Organization 2 4 %
c. Ideas or content 2 4%

d. Every aspects of writing is important to me 31 62%
As clearly depicted in the table above, there seems to be a mismatch between students’ preferences
with what their teachers focus on in providing written feedback. Specifically, 14 (28%) students agreed that
their teachers attended to all aspects of their writing and over half of the students 30 (60%) received more
teacher feedback on grammar. On the other hand, the majority of students 31 (62%) preferred a balanced
coverage of feedback focus. Only 15 (30%) of the students favored more feedback on grammar.
In general, there seemed a tendency for students to wish for more teacher feedback addressing all
aspects of writing, instead of mostly focusing on grammar which is in contrary to teachers’ practice that
concentrate on grammar.
Table4.2: Students' response on the most helpful strategy of teachers’ written feedback
The following table shows techniques of teachers’ feedback on students writing. It clearly shows
students' preferences in relation to teachers’ practice of written feedback provision.
Item No. Items Responses
14 What sort of written feedback do you like to receive from your
teacher?
F %
a. Indicating, naming and correcting the error (using direct correction) 34 68%
b. Only correct the most serious errors, not every single error 1 2%
c. Don’t give me the correct answers; just indicate my errors by
underlining or circling my mistakes or by using a correction code
14 28%
d. Don’t correct or indicate my errors; let me correct errors by myself - -
e. I have no idea. 1 2%
Please state the reasons for your preference..............................................................................
When asked how they would like to receive written feedback, the majority 34 (68%) of respondents
opted for direct error correction i.e. indicating, naming and correcting the error. It is apparent that students
wanted the teacher to play a more active role in error correction.
Students explained that indicating, naming and correcting the error was clear and understandable. It
helped students prevent or minimize similar errors from happening in the future. For example, one of the
students wrote the following: “Letting small errors slip by will eventually breed bad writing habits;” "I really
need help." Seeing directly what is wrong prevents me from doing it again;” and “I feel this is the most helpful
because then you know everything you have done wrong. If not all errors are corrected, I might miss the mistake
or get it wrong again.” Direct error correction was also viewed as a quick and convenient strategy for revision
by some students. For instance, a student thought that “It helps me improve faster if I know everything that is
wrong” and “I want to learn quickly, this requires feedback.” Some students showed agreements with other
ways of error correction, such as marking and coding. For example, one student explained that “Sometimes it is
easy to miss some errors if only the most serious one is marked. The code used can also be confusing at times”
and “I believe directly correcting is the most helpful, because sometimes I am confused by a correction code or
it didn’t go into enough detail (give enough guidance).
Compared with the majority of respondents, only 14 (28%) of the students supported the teacher
practice of providing indirect error correction. These students acknowledged the difficulty and inconvenience of
attempting to correct errors by themselves, but they noted that indirect coded feedback promoted long-term
language acquisition. A student wrote that “It takes more thoughts to correct the errors myself than to be given
the right answers. However, first I need to know what errors exist in order to properly address them.” Another
student agreed on the issue, saying that “I feel that the teacher should not give the answer, but rather indicate
what is wrong and let the student figure out how to correct the mistake. I feel the student would learn better this
way” and “If I have to figure out my errors, I have to do more work to find the answers and thus learn more.”
Small number of respondents i.e. 1 (2%) wanted that the teacher would only address major errors and leave
minor errors for students to fix.
Document Analysis

Table4.3: Analysis teachers' written feedback in relation to their area of focus
Types of
writing
feature
corrected
Student1’s
papers
Student
2’s
,papers
Student
3’s
papers
Student
4’s
papers
Student
5’s
papers
Student
6’s
papers
Student
7’s
papers
Student
8’s
papers
Student
9’s
papers
Student
10’s
papers
Student11’s
papers
Student12’s
papers
Student
13’s
papers
Studen
14’s
papers
Student
15’s
papers
Total
Average
Percentage
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Grammar 9 7 9 8 10 7 6 4 7 5 10 11 12 6 9 120 8 50.4%
Vocabulary 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 33 2.2 13.86%
Mechanics 5 7 5 4 2 3 5 5 7 6 4 6 5 8 3 75 5 31.51%
Content 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 0.46 2.94%
Organization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0.2 1.26%
Total 17 16 16 14 16 13 15 14 17 14 18 20 19 15 14 238 15.86 100%
Adapted from Lee (2007) &Ziv (1984)
Graph1: The following graph shows focus of teachers’ written feedback to students’ writing in three
writing activities
As can be seen from the bar graph, teachers’ correction on students’ writing primarily concentrates on
grammar (50.4%), following that on mechanics (31.5%) and on vocabulary (13.8%). Content and organization

were writing features that did not attract much attention of teachers in providing written feedback i.e. (2.9%)
and (1.26%), respectively
Table4.4: Analysis of teachers’ feedback provision techniques
Types of
feedback
techniques
teachers use
Student
1’s
papers
Student
2’s
papers
Student
3’s
papers
Student
4
‘s
papers
Student
5’s
papers
Student
6’s
papers
Student
7’s
papers
Stu
dent
8’s
papers
Student
9’s
papers
Student
10’s
papers
Student
11’s
papers
Student
12’s
papers
Student
13’s
papers
Student
14’s
papers
Student
15’s
papers
Total
amount
of
feedback
Average
Percentage
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Amount
of
feedback
Indicating the
error
4 6 3 4 5 6 3 8 7 4 6 5 6 2 6 75 5 31.51%
Indicating
and naming
the
error(using
correction
codes)
8 9 8 6 8 7 9 4 8 6 6 8 9 7 4 107 7.13 44.95%
Indicating
and
correcting
3 0 3 2 1 0 1 0 1 3 2 4 2 4 2 28 1.86 11.76%
Indicating,
naming and
correcting
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 10 0.66 4.2%
End
comments
1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 18 1.2 7.56%
Total 17 16 16 14 16 13 15 14 17 14 18 20 19 15 14 238 15.86 100%
Adapted from Cook (2013) & Ritegro(2008)

Graph2: feedback provision techniques of teachers
From various techniques of providing written feedback, teachers happened to favor indicating and
naming the error or using correction codes (44.9%). The second technique found to be frequently used by
teachers is indicating or circling the error (31.5%). What is in the third rank is indicating and correcting
(11.7%). Comparatively speaking, indicating, naming and correcting the error (4.2%), and giving end comments
(7.5%) are less frequently used techniques of written feedback provision.
Analysis of the English language teachers’ interview on their practice of feedback provision
In analyzing data of interview, the three teachers had given pseudo names as Teacher "A" Teacher "B"
and Teacher "C".
In relation to focus of feedback, Teacher "A" mostly gave feedback on grammar. He said that I give
more focus on grammar because it is easy and time saving to give feedback on students writing. Ideas and
content were not the main problem of his students. He used indicating and naming the error using correction
codes as a feedback technique. He claimed, "Since the numbers of students are large in one class, it is difficult
to assess all written assignments by giving written feedback based on students' preference."
Teacher "A" faced a number of challenges to give feedback. He said, “Giving feedback to all students
writing is time consuming. I teach all skills in a given academic year. Students have less interest to receive
feedback from me, and they have no willingness to do better base on feedback. Furthermore, there is lack of
training regarding ways of giving feedback on students’ writing.
Like that of teacher “A’’ the focus of Teacher “B” in providing feedback is on grammar. He reported,
“If students know grammar and mechanics very well, they can organize their ideas easily." He used indicating
and naming the error as a feedback technique. He said, “I use correction codes simply. If students correct their
error by their own, they will never forget afterwards. This prevents them from making errors again."
With regard to difficulties faced, Teacher “B” pointed out that,” students’ willingness to care about
their error is very less: they do not work to improve their writing skill. Due to wash back effect of high stake
exam, students focus on the items which will appear national examination."
The focus of feedback provided by Teacher "C" is similar to the other two teachers. He reported that,
“I give more written feedback on grammar because students cannot construct clear and effective sentences if
they don't know grammatical items."
Like Teacher "A" and Teacher "B", Teacher "C" used indicating and naming the error using correction
codes. Unlike Teacher "A" and Teacher "B", Teacher "C" sometimes corrected students' errors if he gets time.
When it comes to challenges encountered, Teacher "C" said the organization of the text book; the examination
culture, large class size, and students' lack of confidence were the major challenges which hinder him to give
appropriate written feedback for students' writing.
Discussion
The first research question was aimed at finding teachers' written feedback practice on students'
writing. The results of students' questionnaire and teachers' interview showed that most of the time teachers
44.9%
31.5%
11.7%
7.5%
4.2%
indicating and
naming the error
Indicating the error Indicating and
Correcting the error
End comment Indicating, naming
and correcting
50
40
30
20
10
0

gave written feedback on grammatical errors. One of the teachers' said, "I give more focus on grammar when I
give written feedback on students' writing because it is easy and time saving." The results of document analysis
corroborate the findings of students’ questionnaire and teachers’ interview in that teachers provide written
feedback on grammar (50.4%) and mechanics (31.5%).
The result of this study is consistent with the findings of the study (Cohen and Cavalcanti, 1990) that
investigated nine EFL Brrazilian students' responses to their teacher's commentary. The study reported that the
comments they usually received were mainly form based focusing on grammar and mechanics.
Results of document analysis and teachers interview also showed that teachers used indicating and
naming the error (using correction codes) as written feedback technique on students' writing. All teachers
interviewed felt that coded indirect feedback provides sufficient information for students to locate, reflect on
and fix. This result is in line with Liv (2008) study on the effect of error feedback in second language writing.
The study's result was found that indirect correction enabled students to make fewer morphological errors with
greater accuracy in a new piece of writing than direct correction did. This result is different from Lee's (2003)
study that investigated the popularity of marking codes among teachers. The findings indicated that marking
codes may not be as effective as some teachers think.
The second research question was set to find out students’ preferences on receiving teachers' written
feedback on their writing. The findings of the students’ questionnaire and document analysis clearly indicated
that students frequently received written feedback on grammar but they wanted their teachers to address all
aspects of writing (grammar, mechanics, vocabulary, content, organization etc.). The students' questionnaire
result also showed that students preferred direct correction. They wanted their teachers to provide written
feedback by indicating, naming and correcting the error. Students' desire for more explicit error feedback was
also found in Lee’s (2008) research. Results of Lee’s study showed that both high English proficiency and low
English proficiency students in secondary schools wished for more explicit error correction.
The third research question was aimed about the challenges EFL teachers face regarding giving written
feedback on students writing classroom. Teachers' interview result showed that shortage of time, weak language
proficiency of students, students inability to understand correction codes, the difficult nature of text book
organization, low students' interest to revise their errors after written feedback is given, examination culture,
lack of teachers' training concerning written feedback were the major challenges EFL teachers face regarding
giving feedback on students writing classroom. This finding is consistent with Lee (2003) and Lee (2008). Lee's
(2003) study was conducted on L2 writing teachers' perspectives, practices and problems regarding error
feedback. The result of this study showed that the teachers' problems of giving feedback on students writing
were lack of time, students' weak language proficiency and students’ inability to understand correction codes.
Lee's (2008) study also was on understanding teachers' written feedback practice in Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. The result of the study showed that the four major factors that appeared to play a
significant role in influencing teachers’ feedback practice: accountability, teachers' belief and values,
examination culture, and lack of teacher training.
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
Conclusion
Based on the findings of the study, the following main conclusions were made.
 In providing written feedback, EFL teachers are highly focused on grammar and mechanics. As far as
techniques were concerned EFL teachers used indicating and naming the error (using correction codes).
 Students preferred their teacher written feedback in all aspects of writing (grammar, mechanics,
content, vocabulary, organization etc.), and they also preferred direct feedback technique: they want
their EFL teachers to provide written feedback by indicating, naming and correcting their error.
 Large class size, poor language proficiency of students, students' inability to understand correction
codes, the difficult nature of text book organization, students' lack of interest to revise their work after
written feedback is given, repetition of students error, examination culture, lack of teachers' training
concerning written feedback were the major challenges of EFL teachers face regarding giving written
feedback on students' writing classroom.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusion of the study, the following recommendations were suggested.
 Teachers should be flexible enough to construct and prioritize their written feedback focus to
accommodate different writing goals, specifications of tasks, individual needs, and individual English
language proficiency levels; Furthermore, They should make sure that the code system is clear and
simple. A complicated code system will have a counterproductive effect on the error correction.
 There is a need for incorporating techniques of providing effective written feedback on teachers'
education syllabi. Therefore, teachers' training syllabi might be enhanced to incorporate various
methods and techniques in providing written feedback more effectively.

VI. REFERENCES
[1] Cohen, A and Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.),
Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom(pp,155-177). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[2] Cook, S. (2013). Providing feedback on student writing. US.Department of education.AANAPISI Grant.
[3] Damir, B. (2012). Written feedback Teachers' practice and cognition.
[4] Ducken, D. (2014). Written corrected feedback in the L2 writing classroom.EWU.Master's thesis collection.Eastern Washington
University.
[5] Edge,J. (1989).Mistakes and correction. London: Long man.
[6] Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford university press.
[7] Ferris, D. R. (2006).Does error feedback help student writers?New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error
correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Ed.), Feedback in Second Language Writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
[8] Ferris,D. (1995).Student reactions to teacher response in multiple draft composition classrooms.TESOL, Vol.29,pp,33-53.
[9] Ferrris, D. and Robert, B. (2001).Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of second
language writing,Vol.10, pp.161-184.
[10] Fathman, A.&Whalley, E. (1990).Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second
Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom(pp. 178-190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[11] Hendrickson.(1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching.Modern language journal.
[12] Hyland, K. (1990). Providing corrective feedback. ELT journal,Vol.4, pp. 279-285.
[13] Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006).Feedback on second language students writing. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
[14] Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers' perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback.Hong Kong, Vol.8, pp. 216-
237.
[15] Lee, I. (2007). Student reaction to teacher feedback.In two Hoking secondary classrooms.
[16] Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second
Language Writing, Vol. 17,pp, 69- 85.
[17] Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll( 57-68). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
[18] Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college- level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals,
24, 203-218.
[19] Leki,J. (1994).Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classroom.CATESOL journal,3:5-17.
[20] Liv. (2008). The effect of error feedback in second language writing. University of Arizona, Vol. 15, PP. 65-79.
[21] Ritgerotil, M. (2008). Written feedback in English foreign language writing instruction.
[22] Richards,J.C.(1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
[23] Soler, S. (2015).EFL students' attitudes and preferences towards written corrective feedback.Dissertation, university of Jaume.
[24] Tarek. (2015).Enhancing students' writing skill through teachers corrective feedback. Unpublished dissertation.Peoples
democratic republic of Algeria.
[25] TemesgenChibsa. (2008). The effect of peer feedback on the EFL students' writing performance and writing anxiety (unpublished
MA thesis), Addis Ababa university.
[26] Zerihun Endale. (2009). The relationship between EFL students' perception of written feedback and their writing proficiency.MA
thesis (unpublished), Addis Ababa university.
[27] Ziv. (1984). The effect of teacher comments on the writing of four colleges fresh man, New york.

An Investigation Of The Practice Of EFL Teachers Written Feedback Provision Vis- -Vis Their Students Preferences

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Investigation Of The Practice Of EFL Teachers Written Feedback Provision Vis- -Vis Their Students Preferences

Similar to An Investigation Of The Practice Of EFL Teachers Written Feedback Provision Vis- -Vis Their Students Preferences (20)

More from Angela Tyger

More from Angela Tyger (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Investigation Of The Practice Of EFL Teachers Written Feedback Provision Vis- -Vis Their Students Preferences