As an important instructional affordance, teacher written feedback is widely used in second language (L2) writing contexts. While copious evidence has shown that such a pedagogical practice can facilitate L2 learners’ writing performance, especially their writing accuracy, little is known about how novice writing teachers conceptualize and enact written feedback in contexts of English as a foreign language (EFL). To fill this gap, we examined four novice writing teachers’ espoused written feedback beliefs and their actual practices in Chinese tertiary EFL writing classrooms. Based on data from semi-structured interviews and students’ writing samples, we found that they adopted a comprehensive approach to feedback provision, and were most concerned with errors in language, particularly grammar when providing feedback. These teachers almost reached a consensus in their beliefs about feedback scope and feedback focus, but they held varying beliefs about feedback strategies. Additionally, this study revealed the complexity of belief-practice relationships, in terms of the coexistence of consistencies and inconsistencies. Specifically, these teachers’ beliefs paralleled their practices in feedback scope, but their beliefs and practices mismatched with regard to feedback focus and feedback strategies. This article concludes with a discussion of the important pedagogical implications.
AlkhatibN.I.M. (2015). Written corrective feedback at a Saudi university: English language teachers’ beliefs, students’ preferences, and teachers’ practices. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex, Essex, UK.
2.
AlshahraniA.StorchN. (2014). Investigating teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi EFL context: How do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students’ preferences?Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 101–122.
3.
AshwellT. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257.
4.
BaoC.R.ZhangL.J.DixonH.R. (2021). Teacher engagement in language teaching: Investigating self-efficacy for teaching based on the project ‘Sino-Greece online Chinese language classroom’. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 710736.
5.
BaoR. (2019). Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: Teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System, 82, 140–150.
6.
BasturkmenH. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40, 282–295.
7.
BasturkmenH.LoewenS.EllisR. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272.
8.
BitchenerJ.FerrisD.R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
9.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
10.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204–211.
11.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
12.
BitchenerJ.StorchN. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
13.
BorgS. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.
14.
BorgS. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.
15.
BorgS. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39, 370–380.
16.
BraunV.ClarkV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
17.
BurkhauserM.LesauxN. (2017). Exercising a bounded autonomy: novice and experienced teachers’ adaptations to curriculum materials in an age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49, 291–312.
18.
ButlerJ.A.BrittM.A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication, 28, 70–96.
19.
ChandlerJ. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
20.
ChengA.WangQ. (2012). English language teaching in higher education in China: A historical and social overview. In RuanJ.LeungC.B. (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching and learning English literacy in China (pp. 19–33). Springer.
21.
ChengX.L.ZhangL.J. (2021a). Teacher written feedback on English as a foreign language learners’ writing: Examining native and nonnative English-speaking teachers’ practices in feedback provision. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 629921.
22.
ChengX.L.ZhangL.J. (2021b). Sustaining university English as a foreign language learners’ writing performance through provision of comprehensive written corrective feedback. Sustainability, 13(15), 8192.
23.
CreswellJ.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd edition.Sage.
24.
CreswellJ.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th edition.Sage.
25.
CrusanD.PlakansL.GebrilA. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing, 28, 43–56.
26.
DörnyeiZ. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
27.
DuffP. (2012). Case study research. In ChapelleC. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–8). Wiley-Blackwell.
28.
DuffinL.C.FrenchB.F.PatrickH. (2012). The teachers’ sense of efficacy scale: Confirming the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 827–834.
29.
EllisR. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.
30.
EvansN.HartshornK.J.TuiotiE.A. (2010). Written corrective feedback: Practitioners’ perspectives. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 47–77.
31.
FarrellT.IvesJ. (2015). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19, 594–610.
32.
FarrellT.S.C.BennisK. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher beliefs and classroom practices: A case study. RELC Journal, 44(2), 163–176.
33.
FerrisD.R. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4, 18–22.
34.
FerrisD.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing classes. University of Michigan Press.
35.
FerrisD.R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.
36.
FrearD.ChiuY.H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.
37.
GaoL.X.ZhangL.J. (2020). Teacher learning in difficult times: Examining foreign language teachers’ cognitions about online teaching to tide over COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 549653.
38.
GengH. (2017). The effects of written feedback and revision-focus direction on student revision and writing improvement. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
39.
HartshornJ.EvansN.W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1, 6–34.
40.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
41.
HinkelE. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Erlbaum.
42.
HuangJ.WangY.TengF. (2021). Understanding changes in teacher beliefs and identity formation: A case study of three novice teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching Education, 32, 193–207.
43.
HylandK. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
44.
HylandF.HylandK. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
45.
JiangA.L.ZhangL.J. (2021). Teacher learning as identity change: The case of EFL teachers in the context of curriculum reform. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 271–284.
46.
JinL.X.CortazziM. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19, 5–20.
47.
JunqueiraL.PayantC. (2015). ‘I just want to do it right, but it’s so hard’: A novice teacher’s written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 19–36.
48.
KangE.HanZ.H. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
49.
KangY.ChengX. (2014). Teacher learning in the workplace: A study of the relationship between a novice EFL teacher’s classroom practices and cognition development. Language Teaching Research, 18, 169–186.
50.
KaplanR. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
51.
KarimK.NassajiH. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24, 519–539
52.
KartchavaE.GatbontonE.AmmarA.TrofimovichP. (2020). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 42, 220–249.
53.
KhezrlouS. (2020). The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3, 31–54.
54.
KirkpatrickA. (1997). Traditional Chinese text structures and their influence on the writing in Chinese and English of contemporary mainland Chinese students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 223–244.
55.
LalandeJ. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
56.
LeeI. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for college-level teaching. System, 25, 465–477.
57.
LeeI. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63, 13–22.
58.
LeeI. (2011). Working smarter, not working harder: Revisiting teacher feedback in the L2 writing classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67, 377–399.
59.
LeeI. (2013a). Implementing innovative feedback approaches in English as a foreign language contexts through university-school collaboration. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39, 602–605.
60.
LeeI. (2013b). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46, 108–119.
61.
LeeI. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer.
62.
LeeI.MakP.BurnsA. (2015). Bringing innovation to conventional feedback approaches in EFL secondary writing classrooms: A Hong Kong case study. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 14, 140–163.
63.
LengH. (2005). Chinese cultural schema of education: Implications for communication between Chinese students and Australian educators. Issues in Educational Research, 15, 17–36.
64.
LevinB.B. (2015). The development of teachers’ beliefs. In FivesH.GillM.G. (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 48–65). Routledge.
65.
LiB. (2014). Becoming English language teachers: A multiple case study on transnational native English-speaking teachers’ identities construction. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
66.
LiS.F.VuonoA. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.
67.
LiuQ.BrownD. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.
68.
MaoS.CrosthwaiteP. (2019) Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46–60.
69.
MerriamS. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. Jossey-Bass.
70.
MilesM.B.HubermanA.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. 2nd edition.Sage.
71.
MinH. (2013). A case study of an EFL writing teacher’s belief and practice about written feedback. System, 41, 625–638.
72.
MontgomeryJ.BakerW. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82–99.
73.
PajaresM.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
74.
RahimiM. (2009). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: Is learner’s mother tongue relevant?Reading and Writing, 22, 219–243.
75.
RaoZ.H.LiX. (2017). Native and Non-native teachers’ perceptions of error gravity: The effects of cultural and educational factors. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26, 51–59.
76.
RoothooftH. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65–79.
77.
Schatz-OppenheimerO.DvirN. (2014). From ugly ducklings to swan: Stories of novice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 140–149.
78.
SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
79.
SheenY. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer.
80.
ShengX. (2019). Confucian home education in China. Educational Review, 71, 712–729.
81.
StorchN. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 29–46.
82.
StorchN.TapperJ. (2000). The focus of teacher and student concerns in discipline-specific writing by university students. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 337–355.
83.
SunQ.ZhangL.J. (2021). A sociocultural perspective on English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) teachers’ cognitions about form-focused instruction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 593172.
84.
SuzukiW.NassajiH.SatoK. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.
85.
TengL.S.ZhangL.J. (2016). Fostering strategic learning: The development and validation of the Writing Strategies for Motivational Regulation Questionnaire (WSMRQ). Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 123–134.
86.
TengL.S.ZhangL.J. (2020). Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: Can self-regulated learning strategies-based writing instruction make a difference?Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 1–13.
87.
TsuiA.B. (2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 15, 421–439.
88.
UrmstonA.PenningtonM.C. (2008). The beliefs and practices of novice teachers in Hong Kong: Change and resistance to change in an Asian teaching context. In FarrellT.S.C. (Ed.), Novice language teachers: Insights and perspectives for the first year (pp. 89–103). Equinox.
89.
Van BeuningenC. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–27.
90.
Van BeuningenC.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
91.
VygotskyL. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
92.
WallaceD.HayesJ.R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 54–64.
93.
WangZ.J. (2015). Teachers’ feedback on discourse features in EFL writing: Case studies in the Chinese context. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
94.
WuX.M.ZhangL.J.DixonH.R. (2021). EFL teachers’ understanding of assessment for learning (AfL) and the potential challenges for its implementation in Chinese university EFL classes. System, 101, 102589.
95.
YangL.X.GaoS. (2013). Beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing instruction. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26, 128–145.
96.
YinR.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd edition.Sage.
97.
YuS.L.LeeI. (2014). An analysis of Chinese EFL students’ use of first and second language in peer feedback of L2 writing. System, 47, 28–38.
98.
YuS.L.XuH.JiangL.ChanI. (2020). Understanding Macau novice secondary teachers’ beliefs and practices of EFL writing instruction: A complexity theory perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 1–13.
99.
ZhangL.J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 446–447.
100.
ZhangL.J. (2016). Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 203–232.
101.
ZhangL.J. (2018). Appraising the role of written corrective feedback in EFL writing. In LeungY.-N.KatchenJ.HwangS.-Y.ChenY. (Eds.), Reconceptualizing English language teaching and learning in the 21st century (pp. 134–146). Crane.
102.
ZhangL.J.Ben SaidS. (2014). Toward a global understanding of local initiatives in education: Global rules, local roles. In Ben SaidS.ZhangL.J. (Eds.), Language teachers and teaching: Global perspectives, local initiatives (pp. i–vii). Routledge.
103.
ZhangL.J.ChengX. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043.
104.
ZhangL.J.ZhangD.L. (2020). Dialogic discussion as a platform for constructing knowledge: student-teachers’ interaction patterns and strategies in learning to teach English. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5, 22.
105.
ZhangT.F.ChenX.HuJ.H.KetwanP. (2021). EFL students’ preferences for written corrective feedback: Do error types, language proficiency, and foreign language enjoyment matter?Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–12.
106.
ZhengY.YuS.L. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.
107.
ZhuY.WangB. (2019). Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: A large-scale survey. Language Awareness, 28, 139–161.
