IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i3p2158244020934886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Written Corrective Feedback Strategies Employed by University English Lecturers: A Teacher Cognition Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Wei
  • Yiqian (Katherine) Cao

Abstract

Examining EFL (English as a foreign language) teachers’ beliefs and cognition has become an essential area of research as teachers are seen as active decision makers. This study addresses teachers’ beliefs as specific to the strategies they employ when providing corrective feedback to students’ writing. Drawing on Ellis’s typology of written corrective feedback and Borg’s teacher cognition theory, this survey study investigated university EFL lecturers’ self-reported strategy use in the provision of feedback to students’ written compositions. A total of 254 respondents completed this survey from universities in Thailand, China, and Vietnam. The findings showed that the teachers provided different types of strategies, namely, high-demand (e.g., students’ response to feedback required), low-demand (e.g., correcting all errors), and no-demand feedback in relation to their students’ proficiency levels. Their choices of high-demand feedback strategies seemed to be associated with their pre- and in-service professional training experiences as well as contextual factors including local cultural influence and limited resources; whereas their uses of no-demand and low-demand feedback strategies seemed to be associated with their prior language learning experiences and classroom teaching practice. This study also revealed an inconsistency between teachers’ cognition about provision of feedback and their reported feedback strategy use. Pedagogical implications and directions for future research were also proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Wei & Yiqian (Katherine) Cao, 2020. "Written Corrective Feedback Strategies Employed by University English Lecturers: A Teacher Cognition Perspective," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:3:p:2158244020934886
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244020934886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020934886
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244020934886?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Murad Abdu Saeed & Huda Suleiman Al Qunayeer & Musheer Abdulwahid AL-Jaberi, 2021. "Exploring Supervisory Feedback Formulation on Academic Writing of Research Proposals and Postgraduates’ Responses to Feedback: A Case Study," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    2. Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif & Asma Alsahil & Zainab Alsuhaibani, 2024. "Profiling EFL writing teachers’ feedback provision practices and activity uses in Saudi universities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:3:p:2158244020934886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.