This study investigates the written feedback practices of Cambodian university teachers of English, drawing on 390 student journals and interviews with 11 instructors at a public university. Teacher feedback was dominated by grammar-focused, direct correction, influenced by student expectations for comprehensive error marking, heavy teaching loads, and limited institutional guidance. At the same time, many teachers described feedback as encouragement and emphasized the emotional support they hoped to provide, revealing a tension between their relational intentions and the predominantly form-focused practices. This pattern reflected not only pedagogical beliefs but also the institutional, cultural, and evaluative conditions that made surface-level correction the most feasible and professionally legible option. While these dynamics echo findings from other exam-driven English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) settings, the Cambodian case illustrates how institutional ambiguity, workload constraints, and hierarchical classroom norms can intensify belief-practice tensions. The study offers context-sensitive empirical insight from a less-researched setting and suggests that improving feedback practice requires both teacher preparation and institutional frameworks that acknowledge workload demands, cultural expectations, and the emotional labor of feedback.
Abdel LatifM.M.M.AlsahilA.AlsuhaibaniZ. (2024). Profiling EFL writing teachers’ feedback provision practices and activity uses in Saudi universities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 1120. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03639-5
2.
AlmaneaM. (2025). Less is NOT more for learners: EFL learners’ preferences and perceptions of teachers’ written corrective feedback. Acta Psychologica, 255, 104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104926
3.
ArndtV. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In BrookM.WalterL. (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific rim: Politics and pedagogy (pp. 90–116). Multilingual Matters.
4.
BallS.J. (1990). Politics and policy-making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. Routledge.
5.
BatesL.LaneJ.LangeE. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL composition. Heinle and Heinle.
6.
BeneschS. (2001). Critical pragmatism: A politics of L2 composition. In SilvaT.MatsudaP. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 161–172). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
BitchenerJ.FerrisD.R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
9.
BoudD.DawsonP. (2023). What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928
10.
CarlessD. (2020). Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: A need for teacher–student partnerships. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455
11.
CarlessD.BoudD. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
CarlessD.WinstoneN. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
14.
ChandlerJ. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement of the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
15.
Chang-BaconC.K.PedersenJ.M. (2023). From frustration to fascination: Discourse analysis as writing feedback for multilingual learners. Linguistics and Education, 77, 101229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2023.101229
16.
ChengX.ZhangL.J. (2021). 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629921
17.
ChengX.ZhangL.J.YanQ. (2025). Exploring teacher written feedback in EFL writing classrooms: Beliefs and practices in interaction. Language Teaching Research, 29(1), 385–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211057665
18.
ChongS.W. (2019). A systematic review of written corrective feedback research in ESL/EFL contexts. Language Education & Assessment, 2(2), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n2.138
19.
CohenA. (1991). Feedback on writing: The use of verbal report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 133–159.
20.
CohenA.CavalcantiM. (1990). Feedback on composition: Teacher and student verbal reports. In KrollB. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155–177). Cambridge University Press.
21.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
22.
ConnorU.AsenavageK. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90019-1
23.
ConradS.GoldsteinL. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 147–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80126-X
24.
CrawfordJ. (1992). Student response to feedback strategies in an English for academic purpose program. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.15.2.04cra
25.
CrusanD.PlakansL.GebrilA. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing, 28, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.03.001
26.
CummingA. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In BelcherD.BraineG. (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 375–397). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
27.
de KleijnR.A.M. (2023). Supporting student and teacher feedback literacy: An instructional model for student feedback processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967283
28.
DengC.CarlessD. (2009). The communicativeness of activities in a task-based innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 113–134.
29.
DiabR.L. (2005a). EFL university students’ preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38(1), 27–51.
30.
DiabR.L. (2005b). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v23i1.76
31.
DoH.M.NguyenH. (2025). Two sides of the same coin: EFL students’ emotions towards teacher-written feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(1), 42–67.
32.
EllisR.SheenY.MurakamiM.TakashimaH. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
33.
ErlandsonD.A.HarrisE.L.SkipperB.AllenS.D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage Publications.
34.
FarrellT.S.C.IvesJ. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541722
35.
FerrisD.R. (1995a). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804
36.
FerrisD.R. (1995b). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent editors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18–22.
37.
FerrisD.R. (1999a). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
38.
FerrisD.R. (1999b). One size does not fit all: Response and revision issues for immigrant student writers. In HarklauL.LoseyK.SiegalM. (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition (pp. 143–158). Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
FerrisD.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.
40.
FerrisD.R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
FerrisD.R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where we are, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime. . .?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
42.
FerrisD.R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press.
43.
FerrisD.R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.
FerrisD.R.PezoneS.TadeC.TintiS. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90032-1
46.
FerrisD.R.RobertsB. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
47.
FitriyahI.NingrumA.S.B.GozaliI. (2024). An investigation of written corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: How teachers’ feedback practices meet students’ expectations. International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 166–184.
48.
GayL.R.AirasianP. (2003). Educational research competencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
49.
GoldsteinL.M. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers. In SilvaT.MatsudaP. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 73–90). Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
GoldsteinL.M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.006
51.
GoldsteinL.M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. The University of Michigan Press.
HamoudaA. (2011). A study of students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p128
HylandK.HylandF. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8
KarimK.NassajiH. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
61.
KartchavaE.GatbontonE.AmmarA.TrofimovichP. (2020). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818787546
62.
KepnerC. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/328724
63.
KeukC.N. (2009). Direct form-focused written corrective feedback and critical thinking in teaching literature in EFL classrooms in Cambodia. Englishes and Literatures-in-English in a Globalised World: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on English in Southeast Asia, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
64.
KhonM. (2024). Dynamic development of Cambodian university students’ feedback literacy: A longitudinal case study. Doctoral dissertation, The Education University of Hong Kong.
LeeI. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
68.
LeeI. (2008a). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn010
69.
LeeI. (2008b). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
70.
LeeI. (2013). Becoming a writing teacher: Using “identity” as an analytic lens to understand EFL writing teachers’ development. Journal of Second Language Writing22(3), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.07.001
LimL.ChhengS.LongC.SokV.KhanB. (2016). Use of teacher feedback to improve academic written work: A case study of Cambodian EFL students. NELTA ELT Forum. https://neltaeltforum.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/930/
MaoS.S.CrosthwaiteP. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004
77.
MaoZ.LeeI. (2024). Student engagement with written feedback: Critical issues and way forward. RELC Journal, 55(4), 810–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221150811
78.
McDonoughJ.McDonoughS. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. Arnold.
79.
McMartin-MillerC. (2014). How much feedback is enough?: Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008
80.
MerriamS.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
81.
NgL.L.IshakS.N.A. (2018). Instructor’s direct and indirect feedback: How do they impact learners’ written performance?Language, Linguistics, Literature, 24(3), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2403-08
82.
ParkE.S.KimO.Y. (2019). Learners’ engagement with indirect written corrective feedback: Depth of processing and self-correction. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 212–226). Routledge.
SaitoH. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46–70.
87.
SavitriW.E.KadarismanA.E. (2019). Some proposed efforts to overcome grammar error fossilization. The International English Language Teachers and Lecturers Conference2018, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM), Indonesia.
88.
SearleD.DillonD. (1980). The message of marking: Teacher written responses to student writing at intermediate grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 14(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte198015797
StraubR. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte19973873
92.
TregliaM.O. (2008). Feedback on feedback: Exploring student responses to teachers’ written commentary. Journal of Basic Writing, 27(1), 105–137.
TruscottJ. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
95.
TruscottJ.(2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
96.
VandergriftL. (1986). Second language writing and correction: Toward an improved model for composition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 42(3), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.42.3.658
97.
WangY.DerakhshanA.PanZ.GhiasvandF. (2023). Chinese EFL teachers’ writing assessment feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 56, 100726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100726
98.
WeiW.YanmeiX. (2018). University teachers’ reflections on the reasons behind their changing feedback practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1414146
99.
WondimB.M.BishawK.S.ZelekeY.T. (2023). Effects of teachers’ written corrective feedback on the writing achievement of first-year Ethiopian university students. Education Research International, 2023, 7129978. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7129978
100.
Wyatt-SmithC. (1999). Reading for assessment: How teachers ascribe meaning and value to student writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(2), 195–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949992874
101.
XuC. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.005
102.
YangL.ZhangL.J.DixonH.R. (2023). Understanding the impact of teacher feedback on EFL students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101015
103.
YuS.JiangL.ZhouY. (2020). Investigating what feedback practices contribute to students’ writing motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context: A large-scale study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100451
104.
YuS.ZhengY.JiangL.LiuC.XuY. (2021). “I even feel annoyed and angry”: Teacher emotional experiences in giving feedback on student writing. Assessing Writing, 48, 100528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100528
ZhanY. (2016). Written teacher feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment and actual teacher performance. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p73
107.
ZinnA. (1998). Ideas in practice: Assessing writing in the developmental classroom. Journal of Developmental Education, 22(2), 28–39.
