A Case Study of EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices in Written Corrective Feedback

Hussam Rajab, Khalid Khan, Tariq Elyas


Based on a mixed-method approach, this interpretive exploratory case study aimed to identify English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ perceptions and practices in Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in the Saudi context. The study analysed quantitative data gathered from an anonymous custom designed 15-question online survey and qualitative data from an open-ended question (at the end of the online survey) and semi-structured interviews. Participants were one hundred and eighty-four English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers (n =184) who responded to the online survey (113 females and 71 males) and 7 participants who responded to the semi-structured interview (5 males and 2 females). The study findings indicated no significant differences between male and female teachers in considering “time” as the main factor in following a particular strategy for written corrective feedback (93%). The results from the semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for further research in written corrective feedback in the Saudi context to address serious issues related to the teachers’ work-load. Some recommendations were identified for further research in written corrective feedback.



Saudi, Mixed methods, Survey, Written corrective feedback

Full Text:



Al-Shammari, H. (2005). An evaluation of the English textbook series (Say It in English) for the first and second intermediate grades from teachers’ perspectives in Hai’l city in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The University of Jordan. Amman, Jordan, University of Jordan.

Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127.

Bailey, K. M. (2001). Action research, teacher research, and classroom research in language teaching. In Marianne Celce-Murcia. (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 489–498). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, (2): 102–118.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, (3): 409–431.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, (3): 191–205.

Chandler, J. (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, (3): 267–296.

Coffin, C. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London, Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, (2): 315–339.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, (1): 1–11.

Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, USA.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing; Implications for second language students.

Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go

from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, (1): 49–62.

Ferris, D. (2006). Feedback in second language writing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, (3): 165–193.

Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. The American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver, B.C, Canada.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, (3): 161–184.

Gunderson, L. (2009). ESL (ELL) literacy instruction: a guidebook to theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Hairston, Maxine. “On Not Being a Composition Slave.” Training the New Teacher of Composition. Ed. Charles W. Bridges. Urbana: NCTE, 1986. Print. 117-124.

Holtgraves, T. (1999). Comprehending indirect replies: when and how are their conveyed meanings activated? Journal of Memory and Language, 41, (4): 519–540.

Hong, Y.(2004). The effect of teachers’ error feedback on international students’ self correction ability, Published Master’s Thesis. Brigham Young University, Utah, The USA. Hopkins, D., & Ahtaridou, E. (2008). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, (3): 185–212.

Kemper, E., Stringfield. S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research (pp. 273–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75, (3): 305–313.

Lacorte, M., & Krastel, T. C. (2002). ¿Zapatero a tus zapatos? Action research in the Spanish language classroom. Hispania, 85, (4): 907–917.

Lalande, J. F. (1984). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Foreign Language Annals, 17, (2): 109–118.

Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, (3): 144–164.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. London: Routledge.

Matsuda, P. K., Cox, M., Jordan, J., & Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2010). Second-language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook. London: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, (2): 82–99.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, (2): 283–331.

Rod, E. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, (3): 195–202.

Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, (1): 103–110.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,

, 206-226.

Squires, D. & Bliss, T. (2004). Teacher visions: Navigating beliefs about literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 57, (8): 756–763.

Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is “success”? Assessing Writing, 8, (2): 110–134.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, (2): 327–369.

Truscott, J. (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.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, UK.

Vyatkina, N. (2010). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 43, (4): 671–689.

Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wayne, E.A. (2013). Written corrective feedback: the parameters and the opinions.

Humanising Language Teaching Online Magazine, Year 15; Issue 1; February 2013. http://www.hltmag.co.uk/feb13/mart03.htm , accessed 10th April, 2013.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.119


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.