Writing Feedback in the English Language Teaching Classroom: The Interplay of Context,Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices

Abstract

Research has shown that teachers’ decisions about feedback on second language (L2) writing are mediated by their beliefs about teaching and learning and the contexts in which they work. Teaching and learning contexts vary widely in student profiles, curricula, program policies and institutional culture, and each of these has a significant impact on teacher practices and how these practices are mediated by teachers’ beliefs. This study adopted a case study approach to investigate the beliefs and practices of 15 teachers teaching in one of three program contexts in Canada: an English for academic preparation program for international students; an undergraduate English language studies program; and an English as a L2 settlement program for immigrants. Data was collected through in-depth teacher interviews; analyses of teacher feedback on students’ writing; and stimulated recalls by teachers about students’ papers with teacher feedback. We examined teachers’ educational and professional background and experiences and their beliefs about writing feedback, and documented features of the contexts in which they worked to understand how factors that characterize their individual teaching contexts interact with their beliefs to shape their feedback practices. Findings confirmed that the context in which teachers work has a significant impact on teacher feedback practice. How individual teachers perceived specific features of the context emerged as a strong mediator of the relationship between their beliefs and practice. The study calls for researchers to rethink the mediating role of context in the research agenda; program developers and policy makers need to design curricula that integrate teacher input and support investment; and language teacher educators are called on to consider how best to prepare teachers to analyze and understand their own engagement with the features of the contexts in which they work.

Introduction

In the dynamic landscape of language education, the role of feedback in second language (L2) writing has emerged as a critical and multifaceted aspect of teaching practice. The decisions teachers make about this aspect of their pedagogy are rooted in a range of pedagogical and theoretical considerations. Research has shown that the decisions teachers make about how, when and what kind of feedback to provide are mediated by their beliefs and values about teaching and learning (Ferris, 2014; Goldstein, 2006) and the contexts in which they work (e.g., Lee, 2008).

The role of context has attracted increased attention over the years (e.g., Bastone, 2002; Ellis, 2010; Sheen, 2011; Storch, 2010; Valeo, 2021). Empirical studies carried out in a variety of contexts have highlighted the complex ways in which teaching context influences teacher feedback practices (e.g., Brown, 2016; Kang and Han, 2015; Russell and Spada, 2006). A number of issues, however, merit attention. Firstly, in many studies, context has been understood as a distinction between L2 and foreign language settings. Yet, the nature of context has also been viewed as dynamic and individually constructed. Teachers draw on their beliefs and experiences to create perceptions of context; different teachers working in similar contexts may perceive and respond differently to contextual variables that may act as affordances or constraints mediating their practices (e.g., Cook et al., 2023). Secondly, researchers have examined this line of inquiry in a limited range of contexts; research concerned with feedback has been largely carried out in higher education or with teachers of children, creating a skewed representation of language learners, and marginalizing communities (see Mackay and Gass, 2022). As such, despite a growing body of research concerned with teacher feedback on L2 writing, questions remain about how features of the professional context in which teachers work play a role in their feedback practices.

This paper reports on a study aimed at understanding how teachers’ pedagogy related to feedback is mediated by aspects of the contexts in which teachers work. The study was carried out in three distinct teaching contexts in Canada – a non-credit English for academic preparation (EAP) program preparing students for further education; an undergraduate English language studies (ELS) university program; and an English as a second language (ESL) settlement language program for adults immigrating to Canada. We collected qualitative data to investigate teachers’ beliefs and practices related to feedback on L2 writing across these distinct contexts and used this data to explore how professional contexts influenced individual teachers’ feedback.

Theoretical Frame and Literature Review

Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Context

Research concerned with context in language teaching and learning has long been hampered by the lack of a shared understanding, described as “ill-defined … interpreted and operationalized in many different ways” (Housen et al., 2011: 126). As noted earlier, context in language teaching and learning has often been narrowly conceptualized as a distinction between foreign and L2 settings, that is, EFL versus ESL. While this is an important distinction, it has created a monolithic understanding of context that does not recognize the complexity of learning and teaching and the diversity within these broad conceptions of context.

Alternately, context has been conceptualized as multifaceted, operating on both micro and macro levels that include features of the individual, the classroom, the program, the curriculum and the linguistic and social setting in the broader community (see Ellis, 2010; Han, 2019). Ellis provided an early definition of context as “the different settings in which L2 learning takes place” and “in which constellations of social factors typically figure to influence learning outcomes” (Ellis, 1994: 197). Housen et al. (2011) used the term “learning context” and distinguished between three “broad, overlapping and intersecting contextual levels” (p. 86) identified as the micro (individual), meso (curricular) and macro (extra-curricular) levels.

More specifically related to feedback on L2 writing, Goldstein (2004) suggested that context includes factors such as teacher status and employment, program and institutional factors such as curriculum, attitudes about feedback efficacy and assessment practices. Cooper (2009) proposed a view of context as “nested” (p. 7), comprised of a multi-layered structure of influences extending from classroom interactions to institutional policies that shape a teacher's written feedback practices. At the pedagogical level, factors include classroom interactions, the teacher's instructional approach and student needs. The programmatic level includes shared understandings among colleagues, curriculum design, assessment practices and program-driven instructional norms. At the institutional level, broader administrative structures, employment policies and institutional expectations influence how programs operate and what is prioritized in teaching and assessment. These layers are interconnected, with each one shaping how feedback is conceived, delivered and used in the classroom.

Teachers’ Beliefs and Feedback Practices

The influence of context on teacher practice, however, is not unilateral but often filtered and mediated through beliefs rooted in personal experiences and reflecting values about their work. Over the past 20 years, the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices related to feedback in L2 writing has received considerable scholarly attention. A recurring theme in the literature highlights gaps between teacher beliefs and practices in providing written feedback; for example, Montgomery and Baker (2007) found that although teachers believed they balanced local and global feedback, their actual comments emphasized local issues (grammar and mechanics); Lee (2009) identified 10 mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms; Li and Barnard (2011) found that New Zealand academic tutors strongly valued formative feedback yet often provided surface-level comments rather than deeper, formative critiques; and “discontinuity between teachers’ stated philosophies and actual responding practices” was observed by Ferris (2014: 20).

More recent studies have highlighted the possible impact of a range of contextual features, such as administrative obligations (Soleimani and Rahimi, 2021), class sizes, (Mao and Crosthwaite, 2019) and student expectations (Saeli and Cheng, 2022), in contributing to this disconnect. Lee (2008), in a study of teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms, concluded that:

Teachers’ feedback practices are influenced by factors that include teachers’ beliefs, values, understandings, and knowledge and which are mediated by cultural and institutional aspects of contexts, such as philosophies about feedback and attitude to exams, and socio-political issues pertaining to power and teacher autonomy. (p. 69)

Mori (2011) found that Japanese EFL teachers balanced cultural preferences for accuracy with goals such as fostering independence and confidence, and Junqueira and Kime (2013) showed how one teacher's need to be corrected as a language student shaped her feedback practices of frequently correcting errors, while another teacher's negative experience with her French instructor made her more sensitive in making corrections in her students’ writings. Min (2013) highlighted the impact of professional development; they noted a congruence between teacher beliefs and practices and tracked the shifts in a teacher’s feedback beliefs and practices over a semester, moving from a corrective stance toward a more interpretive, student-centered approach, aligning her actual feedback more closely with evolving beliefs. Cooper (2009) showed that faculty conversations and shared teaching philosophies can shape teacher beliefs about feedback practices.

Institutional structures and expectations emerged as factors in a number of studies. Cheng and Wang (2007) found that Canadian teachers favored analytical marking with individualized feedback, while larger-class tutors in China relied more on holistic feedback on a group level. Hopper and Bowen (2023) noted that time pressures, grading rubrics and teacher workload profoundly influenced the volume and focus of written feedback. Ferris et al. (2011) found that teaching loads, institutional constraints and prior experience determined teachers’ response practices; several of the teachers felt constrained in their ability and willingness to spend extra time meeting the needs of L2 students. The literature reveals a dynamic interplay among pedagogical beliefs, instructional contexts and written feedback practice.

Context has also been framed differently in empirical studies. Evans et al. (2010) examined written corrective feedback through three contextual dimensions: student (proficiency, goals, affect), situational (class size, time pressure, curricular aims) and methodological (feedback type/timing/focus). Malecka et al. (2022), in a study of teachers’ feedback literacy across three different programs in an Australian university, looked across formal courses, workplaces and hybrid settings, arguing that what counts as effective feedback depends on how teachers and students navigate differing norms, roles and purposes. They reframed “context” as something students and teachers move through, requiring feedback literacy (the capacities to appreciate, elicit and use feedback) to translate practices from one setting to another. Therefore, across these four studies, “context” ranges from concrete program/classroom conditions (Cooper, 2009; Hill and Ducasse, 2022) to a principled framework of variables (Evans et al., 2010) to an emphasis on mobility across settings that demands feedback literacy (Malecka et al., 2022). Together, they draw on a consideration of context to shift the discussion away from which feedback is “best” toward questions such as which feedback works for whom, under which conditions and how teachers adapt feedback accordingly.

This research has confirmed what has been long understood by practitioners – that context matters. It has an impact on the decisions teachers make about their practice and therefore students’ experiences in the classroom. Research has also shown individual teachers may not respond and engage with aspects of the same context in the same way; how teachers perceive aspects of their context is mediated by their beliefs and experiences; and this perception has an impact on their feedback practices. The goal of this study was to better understand this complex interplay among context, teacher beliefs and teacher practices related to feedback.

The research was guided by the following question: In what ways do teachers’ beliefs and the contexts in which they work interact to shape their feedback practices?

Methodology

Study Design

This study employed a qualitative multiple case study approach to carry out an in-depth exploration of the complex interplay among individual teacher beliefs, teaching practice and institutional contexts. The study was carried out in a large city in Canada with teachers working in one of three purposely selected contexts: (a) an EAP program; (b) an undergraduate university ELS program; and (c) an ESL settlement language program for immigrants to Canada. Collectively, these contexts represent the diverse community of English language learners and the range of educational models that characterize the Canadian landscape. Adults studying English include international students temporarily in Canada and newcomers who have immigrated to Canada, enrolled in fully government-funded language programs, private fee-paying institutions and university programs, which are partially government funded and tuition bearing.

A case study approach was adopted to allow us to examine the role of context while drawing on data related to individual participants within and across each context (Cresswell, 2013). The data were drawn from a larger project with over 30 teacher participants that examined written assessment beliefs and practices across contexts. In this study, data from 15 teachers is included, five from each of the three contexts. The study prioritized depth over breadth by focusing on information-rich cases to capture and interpret participants’ beliefs, experiences, practices and contexts. As such, only rich, complete cases were included in this analysis, enabling thick description, nuanced interpretation, meaningful cross-case comparison and sufficiently comprehensive coverage of the phenomenon, key elements of credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research (Glenton et al., 2018; Lewin et al., 2015). In addition, given the resource-intensive nature of qualitative analysis, focusing on a smaller number of rich cases best supports depth and analytic rigor.

Contexts

In this study, we purposefully chose to construct context as instructional by situating the study in three distinct programming contexts that differed in a variety of features, including learner goals and backgrounds, curricular requirements, institutional policies and expectations, workplace conditions and teacher demographics. Through interviews and documents shared by the teachers, a broad description of the contexts was constructed.

EAP Program

EAP program refers to non-credit English language courses situated in higher education. They are designed to help international students attain the proficiency level required for admission to degree programs and, in the case of university programs, often offer conditional admission following successful completion of the program. Students provide international standardized test scores (e.g., IELTS) for admission and are assessed with an in-house assessment tool on completion. The program is skills-based and addresses academic language development, with an emphasis on writing that includes paragraph and essay writing, such as cause and effect, compare/contrast and argumentative styles. A writing diagnostic tool is provided at the beginning of the term for students and teachers to compare and gauge student development throughout the term. Students must achieve a passing grade to be admitted to an undergraduate program at a university. Course objectives and content are guided by assessment requirements that include rubrics and mandated tests, and teachers attend workshops to standardize grading and assessment practices. Teachers may use a commercial textbook and select materials from a common pool of resources that have been determined to meet program goals. Students pay tuition and teachers are hired full-time or on short-term contracts based on course enrollment. Courses are usually eight weeks long with 20 h of instruction per week and typically 16–18 students enrolled in each class. Students are a largely homogeneous group, linguistically and culturally.

Undergraduate English Language Studies Program

The ELS program offers credit-bearing courses for undergraduate students who use English as a L2 or additional language. They include international students and immigrants to Canada who have met the minimum language proficiency requirements for entry to the university and want to advance their language proficiency. The program is content-based and draws on humanities and social science subject matter. Course instruction and material address academic reading and writing through critical reading analysis, paragraph writing, essays and research reports over the course of a 12-week university semester in classes held 3 h per week. Teachers follow a common set of learning outcomes and an assessment scheme, and a textbook or course kit available, but otherwise design their own assessment tasks and teaching materials and are responsible for assigning grades according to university requirements. Students pay university tuition as part of their degree programs and are graded with the university grading scheme used across their degree programs. Classes are taught by professorial faculty and contract teachers. Classes typically have between 15 and 25 students and are often somewhat more diverse than the EAP context, linguistically and culturally, as they include both international students and residents of Canada.

ESL Immigrant Settlement Language Program

Programs in the ESL context are government funded and provided at no cost to permanent residents, refugee claimants or Canadian citizens who are not first language users of English or French. They are not available to international students. Operational policies and guidelines are set by federal and provincial governments and funding is distributed to organizations to provide the programs locally. Funding is determined according to the number of students enrolled and attending. The programs are designed to be accessible to adults at any stage of their settlement and to meet the varied individual needs of a diverse community. As such, students may begin and leave the program at any point; new students may enroll at any time and attendance may fluctuate from day to day.

Students are assessed for placement in class by a central assessment agency that administers language proficiency testing and directs them to a local provider. Classes typically have between 20 and 30 students but may have up to 35. Classes are organized by proficiency level based on the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB), a national scale of language proficiency that forms the basis for assessment and curriculum in government-funded language programs. The curriculum is theme-based, and teachers select and develop their own teaching materials based on student needs in their particular class. Teachers are required to carry out ongoing assessment using Portfolio Based Language Assessment (PBLA), a funder-mandated assessment model. Teachers are hired locally by the regional provider and paid for instructional time. Positions may be unionized and include full-time or part-time contracts. Full-time classes are 25 h a week, five days a week, and part-time classes may be up to 15 h per week, over two or three days a week. Students in this context are highly diverse, linguistically and culturally, as well as in age, education and experiences. Writing tasks and instruction are integrated into the syllabus and addressed alongside reading, speaking and listening. They may address language development for academic, workplace or community contexts and writing outcomes are based on guidelines in accordance with the CLB and the PBLA.

Participants

The profiles of the 15 teachers participating in the study (Appendix A) shared some common features. Teaching experience ranged from 2 years to over 25, regardless of program context; the majority of the teachers had taught for over 20 years; and 10 of the 15 had taught in more than one country. In addition, all the teachers were qualified teachers of English to adults and had completed a variety of language teacher education programs both in Canada and internationally. Context-specific variations, however, were also evident. EAP teachers (university non-credit) had all completed master's graduate degrees in various countries; all but one of the ELS (university credit) teachers had completed a doctorate degree (one contract instructor); and the ESL teachers had a greater range of degrees – two doctorate degrees, one master's degree, one bachelor's degree and one college diploma. In addition, four of the five EAP teachers had completed their language teacher education outside of Canada, while all the teachers in the ELS and ESL contexts had completed a program of language teacher education in Canada. They had all spent over 10 years teaching outside of Canada before teaching in Canada; all but one of these teachers appeared to have done so as an avenue for international experience. Three of the five ESL teachers had also taught extensively outside of Canada before doing so in Canada but had immigrated to Canada as educated and experienced English language teachers. In addition, all the teachers reported being multilingual; however, four of the five ESL teachers reported a language other than English as their dominant language, reflecting their prior international contexts. These differences are connected to varying institutional requirements and working conditions, and reflect the various career paths of teachers in different contexts. The commonalities and diversity created a richer tapestry of participant data and contributed to a heightened awareness of contextual differences.

Data Collection

Multiple tools were used to collect a rich set of qualitative data and enable us to construct contextualized case studies. This included (1) a questionnaire; (2) a series of in-depth interviews; (3) stimulated recall interviews; and (4) document analysis (see Appendix B). The questionnaire asked participants to report aspects of their personal and professional background, and to describe features of the context in which they were teaching at the time, such as the curriculum, students, teaching schedule and class sizes. Four in-depth interviews, approximately 1 h long, were carried out over two to three months. Teachers were interviewed about their beliefs and professional histories and asked to self-report on their feedback practices and discuss their decision making related to feedback, including comments on perceived obstacles or supports within their teaching contexts. Data documenting teachers’ actual practices were collected through document analysis of student texts with teacher feedback that illustrated feedback practice. Each teacher also participated in a stimulated recall session in which they were asked to bring a minimum of three recent samples of their own feedback on student writing to be reviewed and discussed. These sessions were used to elicit the teachers’ thought processes, intentions and rationales behind their feedback strategies and to situate their beliefs and practices.

Data Analysis

The questionnaire data were analyzed quantitatively to create a profile of the participants (see Appendix A) and to gather information about the instructional contexts in which they were teaching at the time. The interview data were transcribed, summarized for each participant and coded to identify relevant content. NVivo qualitative data analysis software was used to manage and code the data systematically. Cross-case analysis compared findings across and within the three teaching contexts. Data were analyzed using a thematic coding approach. Initially, open coding was applied to identify recurring themes across interviews, stimulated recalls and feedback artifacts. These themes were then grouped into broader categories aligned with the research question: teacher beliefs about feedback, contextual influences and decision-making processes in feedback delivery. Cross-case analysis was conducted to compare findings across the three teaching contexts and identify both shared and context-specific patterns. Trustworthiness was established through selection of rich complete cases, triangulation of data sources and peer debriefing among the research team.

Findings

Data analysis revealed that while teachers shared similar beliefs and values across the three contexts, how these beliefs and values influenced practice was mediated by a range of features specific to the context in which they worked. Teachers across the contexts reported using a combination of feedback strategies, including direct feedback with metalinguistic explanations; indirect feedback with a system of codes or underlining and circling errors; and positive feedback with comments to encourage and motivate students. They also provided feedback individually and to the whole class, used peer feedback and adapted their feedback to suit different students. Also common across contexts was the belief that students played a role in determining the impact of feedback; teachers were described as facilitators or guides and students were responsible to respond to and utilize the feedback. Some of the same contextual features also sometimes exerted a similar influence on teachers’ practices and the ways in which these practices were mediated by their beliefs. Unique features of each context, however, also emerged as important mediators, notably learner goals and needs, institutional mandates, curricula and working conditions.

English for Academic Preparation

In comparison to the other contexts, this program was characterized by a relatively homogenous community; students widely share similar educational backgrounds, experiences, goals and needs, and classes were often dominated by two or three linguistic and cultural groups. They are profit generating with highly structured, assessment-driven curricula designed to prepare students for higher stake university admission. These features, and others, create specific conditions for teachers working in these contexts and exert an influence on teachers’ pedagogy.

Assessment was cited by all the teachers as an important consideration in their pedagogical decisions. Teachers used grades to motivate students and encourage them to pay closer attention to feedback (Emily); for some, higher grades were considered an indication that they had provided effective feedback (Emily, Pierre); and teachers used rubrics and shared grading and feedback in scheduled sessions. The focus on assessment was aligned with a focus on eradicating errors in students’ work. Although teachers reported using both focused and unfocused feedback, some reported using unfocused feedback more frequently, “mark[ing] everything” (Emily) while others focused on the “worst types of mistakes” (Eric). All the teachers asked students to revise and resubmit following feedback, seeing successful revision as evidence of effective feedback. The espoused belief that students were responsible for responding to feedback also appeared to intersect with a focus on errors and the need to follow the program structures; students were expected to “trust the teacher” and work to “fix it together” (Tracey), and not to “resist, just accept” (Emily) so that they can meet program “requirements” (Brian, Emily, Eric). Reflecting the focus on structure, Emily reported using “very systematic” written feedback but adapting her verbal feedback. Others described adapting their feedback to follow the structure of the program; they reported using more detailed correction and direct feedback for papers at the start of the course, more indirect feedback as the course progressed (Brian) or more positive feedback on initial papers followed by more corrective feedback later (Tracey).

As a private sector program intended to generate revenue, class sizes were generally small (14–17 students) with intensive schedules of two-month terms. The small size allowed Tracey to give personal feedback, and the term length allowed teachers to get to know the students and give them frequent feedback (e.g., Emily, Tracey, Pierre). The same context features (private sector and profit generating) also created working conditions that had an impact on their pedagogy, expressed most strongly by the teachers (three of the five) that were contractually employed. Brian described teaching full-time hours on a part-time basis and felt that the distinction contributed to a culture of “competition” that prevented collegial sharing of classroom practices. Eric described the “cognitive energy” that feedback requires and “burnout” from teaching continuously for over seven years on two-month contracts. Pierre lamented spending 10 h a week of unpaid time to provide adequate feedback and described how the nature of contractual work, teaching in different contexts, made it difficult to develop a systematic approach to feedback practices. In the classroom, teachers reported strategies that mediated the tension between the desire to provide extensive feedback and the time available; one-on-one verbal feedback was used during the class as students worked independently (Eric, Emily, Pierre).

In discussion, teachers sometimes expressed beliefs that appeared to be uniquely individual, rooted in personal experiences and realized in practice in ways that reflected specific contextual features. For example, Pierre used peer feedback and provided individual feedback like the others. In discussion about this practice, he described his belief that feedback was a collaborative endeavor with an emphasis on developing a shared understanding of the feedback, and he referenced a focus on community learning developed through his education in theater and his childhood in a farming community. In describing his practice of providing ongoing and continuous feedback, he referenced his own educational experiences in which he was frustrated at receiving little feedback and felt unchallenged. In another example, Emily described how she saw her undergraduate science degree as aligned with the demands of the program and her structured approach to feedback. She expressed satisfaction with her ability to develop clear, standardized feedback practices that she felt were important to the students. Eric, like the others, expressed a belief that both form and meaning were important, yet unlike Emily, he felt that the program structure forced him to adopt a focus on form that was contrary to his preferred practice.

Undergraduate English Language Studies Program

The ELS program described in this study was a university program focused on academic language development. Like the EAP teachers, they utilized a range of feedback strategies: they provided frequent feedback on both summative and formative graded assignments; graded both peer feedback and revisions in order to encourage attention to the feedback; and sometimes used grades to motivate students. Unlike the EAP teachers, however, they more often preferred indirect feedback with codes or marking symbols, comments and focused, targeted feedback. They also appeared to focus less on errors and generally provided feedback on form when it impeded meaning. In describing these practices, teachers referenced specific beliefs about teaching, learning and feedback. They described their roles as guides or facilitators and believed that students were responsible for becoming aware of their errors and weaknesses, for understanding how to improve and for becoming capable of self-editing and correcting; teaching and learning was a “partnership between the student and the teacher” (Irene); writing was a process, not a product, and feedback transformed assessment into learning because students “don’t [just] learn from a grade” (Jade). While not entirely dissimilar to the beliefs espoused by the EAP teachers, contextual features appeared to influence practices rooted in these beliefs differently.

In relation to assessment, for example, teachers appeared to grapple with the tension between assessment and learning. They shared concerns about the impact of grades on motivation (Jade) and the emotional energy that grades distracted from the value of feedback (Irene). In response, some teachers made a point of providing feedback on formative graded papers as a way of explaining the grade. Yet, they also assigned grades to revisions (Jade, Irene) and peer feedback (Keith) and considered grades a way of increasing student attention to feedback (Frank).

Other comments pointed to structural features of the university degree context: Frank noted that the duration of the course (3 h per week over a 12-week term) did not allow for more opportunities for revision, an important feature of his pedagogy; Irene lamented that students were often too busy with their other courses, as part of a full undergraduate course load, to take on additional revisions; and Puma struggled to personalize her feedback because she saw students only once a week. The larger class size also emerged as an impact; a class size of 25 students made it difficult to provide “regular” (Puma) and extensive feedback (Keith). Frank described how the size of his class, at the time eight students, allowed him to provide personal feedback that would not have been possible with a larger class. Teachers responded to the larger class size by using rubrics for feedback (Puma, Jade), more peer and group feedback (Puma) and electronic feedback (Keith).

All teachers provided comments in wholistic feedback to encourage and motivate students, sometimes including questions to extend engagement and personalize the feedback (Jade). While all recognized the need to adapt feedback for students at different proficiency levels, a feature of credit ELS in university programs, Irene considered individual personalities too and remarked frequently on the affective dimension of feedback. There was variation in the degree to which individual teachers adopted some of these strategies over others. All reported making themselves available for one-on-one meetings to follow up on feedback and encouraged students to come forward. Puma formalized this by integrating it into class time and setting up appointments, noting that students enjoyed these opportunities and that it encouraged engagement by forcing them to contribute to the feedback task.

The final note here is about the employment status of the teachers: one was a tenured professor, another was a full-time contractual professor and the remaining three were part-time contract teachers. Contract faculty carry a higher course load than tenured faculty, a variable noted by Jade who struggled to provide as much feedback as she would have liked when teaching more than two courses.

ESL Settlement

As outlined earlier in this paper, the ESL for settlement context can be characterized as the most diverse. Mandated to support language development for newcomers to Canada, it is designed to maximize access and support for a diverse learning community within a publicly funded financial structure. Nonetheless, teachers used many of the same strategies as those in the EAP and ELS programs, including direct feedback and indirect feedback, peer assessment (Parviz, Roy, Barbara, Sylvia), individual and whole-class feedback and verbal feedback to follow up on written feedback (Roy, Sylvia). They also had similar beliefs: feedback was described as essential and an integral part of learning and assessment (Sylvia, Spring, Parviz) and students are responsible for acting on the feedback (Roy, Spring) and exerting effort (Parviz).

However, there was a greater focus on how teachers adapted their feedback to respond to the diverse learning needs and goals of students in the same class, a distinct feature of this context. Students in the same class may plan to attend post-graduate study or look for employment while others want to engage with their immediate community or apply for citizenship. Some students are preparing for further education and appreciate feedback “on every mistake” (Barbara) or “beg you for comments” (Parviz); others prioritize their speaking skills over writing, so they are not as responsive to written feedback (Sylvia, Parviz). In response, teachers considered the student's proficiency level by using direct corrections for lower levels and codes for students at higher levels (Barbara) and addressed different aspects of writing with different feedback (Parviz, Sylvia). Others adapted feedback to match individual student personality (Spring) and goals (Sylvia), and provided different feedback on the first draft to support individual learning needs (Barbara, Roy). Within this diverse group of students, motivation and attitude were considered critical in whether students act on feedback or not (Sylvia, Spring) – “they will improve if they want to” (Spring). A focus on affect emerged as an important consideration as well; teachers felt that students should enjoy the writing process and be pleased to receive feedback (Barbara, Parviz). Targeted feedback was generally adopted to avoid overwhelming or discouraging students (Roy, Barbara, Spring). Teachers used comments to motivate students with positive feedback (Parviz, Spring, Sylvia) and to personalize their feedback by using the students’ names to thank them for their effort (Barbara).

Assessment figured prominently in this context, further calling on teachers to adapt. Teachers described adapting their feedback practices to reflect the more form-focused approaches required for PBLA (the required assessment tool) and adopting more direct feedback on features such as grammar and vocabulary, sometimes against their beliefs and preferences (Spring). Notably, however, PBLA was also credited by one instructor with “keeping us on track,” promoting uniformity in programs across Canada and encouraging students to write (Barbara).

Teachers also reported adapting their feedback practices in response to contract conditions, which made it difficult to give feedback outside of class time (Parviz). The model of continuous enrollment and a minimum attendance rate encouraged teachers to focus on student satisfaction: Roy provided direct feedback because students demanded it, despite his belief in the efficacy of more indirect feedback, and Parviz aimed to “keep the student engaged, happy and attending my class.” In this program, PBLA was described as contributing to increased workload as teachers were required to assign a prescribed number of assessment artifacts (Parviz). PBLA was described as “counterproductive” (Parviz) because of the program's continuous enrollment policy, and was misaligned with the non-credit nature of the program where some students “just come to have fun” (Sylvia). Class size, between 25 and 35 students, emerged as an important feature in this context as well; some teachers did not provide feedback on revisions (Sylvia, Parviz), provided oral feedback only during class (Sylvia) or assigned fewer writing assignments so they can “pace themselves” and manage their workload (Spring).

Teachers also espoused beliefs and recounted experiences that appeared to underpin their individual practices. Barbara believed that feedback is powerful when it is personal and acknowledges student effort; she recalled appreciating being addressed by her name in feedback by her professors. Sylvia was disappointed to receive little feedback in her education and Parviz recalled his education experience prior to his doctoral degree as “this is your score, go home, do not talk.” Both tried to provide as much feedback as possible within the constraints of the program.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study aimed to understand how context mediated language teachers’ L2 writing feedback practices by investigating teachers’ beliefs and practices in three different teaching contexts. The findings of this study confirmed that the context in which teachers work has a significant impact on why and how they give writing feedback. In addition, the ways in which teachers responded and engaged with features of their specific contexts sometimes differed among teachers working in the same context and within the same conditions, suggesting that how teachers perceived features of their context was an important mediator, echoing Cook et al. (2023). What was considered a constraint for some was treated as an affordance for others. In some cases, program requirements aligned with teachers’ pedagogical preferences, creating a synergy that contributed to perceived effectiveness and satisfaction. In others, the same features disrupted practice. These pedagogical preferences were often underpinned by specific beliefs and conceptions about feedback in L2 writing.

A surface analysis of the data across three contexts showed similarities across contexts: teachers generally used a variety of feedback strategies and approaches and adapted their feedback practices. Many of the teachers also appeared to hold similar beliefs about feedback in language teaching and learning – feedback is critical to language learning and plays an important role for the teacher; students are responsible for attending to feedback; motivation is an important variable; and feedback should address both meaning and form.

A finer grained analysis, however, shows that teachers in different contexts adopted different practices in response to features of their teaching context, and that the influence of their beliefs on their practice was sometimes mediated by specific contextual features. Assessment, for example, figured prominently in all the programs but exerted a differential influence on feedback practices depending on the context: ELS and EAP teachers integrated assessment into their feedback practices and leveraged grading to motivate students; EAP teachers followed highly structured assessment requirements; and ESL teachers, despite the constraints of PBLA, more often considered student needs in making decisions about feedback practice.

It is clear from this data, then, not only that context does play a role in mediating feedback practices but also that the interplay between specific contextual features and teachers’ practices is complex. It is important to note that the influence of any one feature of the context is not in isolation (see Cooper, 2009). While employment conditions exerted an influence on teacher practice across contexts, the impact on ESL teachers’ practices was amplified by PBLA requirements and enrollment and attendance expectations, which demanded a focus on student retention and feedback suited to individual needs. Similarly, some EAP teachers described the nature of renewed short-term contracts as having an impact on their professional development related to feedback (e.g., Pierre).

The relationship between context and beliefs created constraints for some teachers and affordances for others. The study has also highlighted the complexity of the relationship between beliefs and practices. The misalignment between beliefs and practices documented by some research may well be the effect of a conflict between beliefs and context, both exerting an influence on practice. Program requirements that aligned with teachers’ pedagogical preferences created a synergy that enhanced perceived effectiveness and satisfaction. In others, the same features disrupted practice, and created a disconnect between their beliefs and practices. In ESL, PBLA was seen as an affordance for Barbara who believed it created cohesion among programs; for Sylvia in the same context, it was a constraint that disrupted the connection between her beliefs and practices. Tracey and Emily, both EAP teachers, adapted to the assessment-driven nature of the program but in different ways that reflected their personal beliefs and preferences. Tracey believed in developing a relationship of trust with the students and provided positive feedback with no correction on early assignments to develop this trust. Emily believed that the student was responsible to “accept” and not to “resist” feedback and “marked everything” when providing feedback. Similarly, Emily in EAP appreciated the standardized nature of the program, which aligned with her beliefs about feedback, creating an affordance that enhanced her practice, while Eric, also in EAP, felt constrained to adapt to practices that were contrary to his beliefs and preferences. These findings are highly relevant when querying the disconnect between teachers’ practices and beliefs that has been noted previously (e.g., Lee, 2009; Li and Barnard, 2011; Montgomery and Baker, 2007).

Prior learning and experiences also complexified this relationship; Pierre, Sylvia and Parviz received little feedback in their own learning experiences and believed in the value of extensive feedback yet struggled to provide this and responded differently. Emily believed the highly structure nature of the EAP program aligned well with her previous education and helped her thrive.

The study merits attention from a broad community concerned with language teaching and learning and the role of feedback. Researchers need to rethink how we describe and define context in language teaching, and resist isolating contextual factors and treating context as monolithic. In this way, future research could query the ways in which, for example, employment conditions intersect with assessment policy and individual beliefs to mediate practice. Policy makers would benefit from a more nuanced understanding of the contexts in which they attempt to implement innovation. In particular, the impact of national policy imposed on the local classroom was highlighted in the ESL context where a mandated assessment system was misaligned with program goals. Employers would do well to consider the impact of differential employment status among teachers and program developers and can consider how to engage teachers in developing curriculum that leverages the power of teachers’ beliefs and experiences in effective teaching.

The study holds implications for language teacher education as well. Teachers need to be able to understand diverse contexts and develop the skills to navigate the diverse conditions that they will experience throughout their careers. Teacher experiences and beliefs must be explicitly addressed through activities that anchor teacher learning in those experiences.

For teachers, this study brings to the forefront what many teachers intuitively know – that context matters. Teachers need to be aware of not only their practice but also the beliefs and experiences in which their practice is rooted, which may shape the decisions they make in the classroom. The ability to understand the ways in which context, beliefs and practices intersect to create affordances and constraints may enable them to successfully adapt and navigate career development and professional success.

This study was, in some ways, ambitious and faced limitations. For example, the data regarding teacher beliefs and practices were situated not only in a context but also a period of time. As such, the data represent a snapshot that is static and does not account for the change that is part of teacher development and growth. Future research could benefit from a longitudinal design working closely with individual teachers. In addition, the number of participants, five in each context, limited the depth of analysis without enhancing the breadth of understanding. A large study might reveal patterns of engagement among beliefs, practices and context that can inform the community. Future directions for this study include a deeper examination of individual teacher data, as the notion of context remains elusive and merits further exploration, particularly as may be constructed by teachers drawing on their beliefs and experiences.

The contextual features that were examined in this study were largely limited to what might be considered meso and macro, as described by Housen et al. (2011), and did not fully explore the “constellation of social factors” described by Ellis (1994: 197). It did, however, reflect the complexity of the nested model explored by Cooper (2009); while context was operationalized methodologically as program, individual experiences emerged as influences that did not operate in isolation. In addition, while this study has not contributed significantly to a shared understanding of context for future research, it has shifted attention to contexts, settings and communities that have been relatively neglected and, in doing so, has highlighted the impact of models such as top-down programming and policies on the realities of the classroom.