EFL Teachers' Attempts at Feedback Innovation in The Writing Classroom

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/276166690
EFL teachers' attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom
Article in Language Teaching Research · April 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1362168815581007
CITATIONS READS
19 449
3 authors:
Icy Lee Pauline Mak

The Chinese University of Hong Kong The Education University of Hong Kong
67 PUBLICATIONS 1,549 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Anne Burns
UNSW Sydney
111 PUBLICATIONS 1,732 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
PhD thesis: English language teachers becoming action researchers: questions of sustainability View project
The implementation of English-medium programs in a Vietnamese public university as an educational change View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Anne Burns on 31 August 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

581007
research-article2015
LTR0010.1177/1362168815581007Language Teaching ResearchLee et al.
LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Full Research Article RESEARCH
Language Teaching Research
EFL teachers’ attempts at

1–22
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
feedback innovation in the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362168815581007
writing classroom ltr.sagepub.com
Icy Lee
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Pauline Mak
The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Anne Burns
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Abstract
To date, research on feedback in second language (L2) writing has primarily focused on feedback
per se, with little attention paid to the teachers’ professional development with regard to feedback
in writing. This study aims to explore the ways in which two secondary teachers in Hong Kong
attempted to implement feedback innovation in their writing classrooms after receiving some
professional development input, as well as the factors that influenced their attempts at feedback
innovation. The findings indicate that the teachers were unable to fully translate into practice the
feedback principles acquired from teacher education and reveal a string of factors that influenced
their attempts at feedback innovation. The study has implications for teacher education and
teacher professional development, shedding light on how teachers can be supported to bring
innovation to conventional feedback approaches in the writing classroom.
Keywords
EFL writing, feedback, innovation, L2 writing, professional development
I Introduction
The past few decades have witnessed a surge of research into feedback in second language
(L2) writing. A robust amount of research has addressed written corrective feedback
Corresponding author:
Icy Lee, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Ho Tim Building, Hong Kong.
Email: icylee@cuhk.edu.hk
Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at CHINESE UNIV HONG KONG LIB on August 18, 2015
2 Language Teaching Research
(WCF). For instance, significant effort has been made to investigate the efficacy of WCF
(e.g. Ashwell, 2000; Chandler, 2003; Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2012), feedback
mechanisms and strategies (e.g. Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Ellis, 2009; Ferris, 2006;
Lalande, 1982), and in particular focused WCF (e.g. Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Sheen,
2007). Research has also looked into students’ perceptions of teacher feedback (e.g.
Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Lee, 2005; Radecki & Swales, 1988), as well as the poten-
tial role of formative feedback (e.g. Lee, 2007; F. Hyland, 2010), self-feedback and peer
feedback (e.g. Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Min, 2006; Sullivan & Lindgren, 2002).
Although the literature has highlighted the benefits of different feedback strategies,
many teachers in the context of English as a foreign language (EFL) do not seem to be
practising what has been recommended (Furneaux, Paran & Fairfax, 2007). Take Hong
Kong as an example. As opposed to what the literature has suggested about the need to
provide feedback at intermediate stages to help students improve their writing (e.g.
Ferris, 1995, 2003, 2006), many EFL teachers give feedback to single drafts, playing the
role of ‘error hunters’. They place priority on form-based feedback where errors are
marked comprehensively (Lee, 2004). As writing is performed in product-oriented class-
rooms, students are not afforded the opportunity to act on the teacher’s feedback.
Conferencing, peer and self-evaluation are not commonly practised (Lee, 2004) and, as
a result, students remain passive and are not encouraged to take control of their own writ-
ing (e.g. Furneaux et al., 2007; Yang, Badger & Yu, 2006). Overall, there is a disjuncture
between teachers’ feedback practices and recommended principles in the literature (Lee,
2008), making feedback in writing an urgent area for teachers’ continuing professional
development and an important agenda for writing teacher education.
However, neither the literature on teacher education in L2 writing nor feedback
research itself has addressed teachers’ professional development with regard to feedback
in writing. The present study was conducted against such a backdrop and designed to
investigate how two secondary teachers in Hong Kong attempted to implement feedback
innovation in their writing classrooms after receiving some professional development
input, filling a void in existing feedback research. Specifically, the study explores the
extent to which teachers are able to translate into practice the feedback principles
acquired from professional development input, as well as the factors that influence their
attempts at feedback innovation. Research that examines how teachers undertake feed-
back innovation after receiving training can contribute new knowledge to the writing
teacher education and feedback literature. Such knowledge can throw light on the
theory–practice divide, if any, and the problems that teachers face in undertaking feed-
back innovation, with direct implications for teacher education and teachers’ continuing
professional development with regard to feedback in writing.
Relying on qualitative data collected from interviews with and classroom observations of
two secondary teachers, the study aimed to respond to the following research questions:
1. How did the teachers approach feedback innovation in their writing classrooms,
and to what extent were they able to translate into practice the feedback princi-
ples acquired from professional development input?
2. What factors might have influenced their attempts at feedback innovation in the
writing classrooms?
Lee et al. 3
II Literature review
This study focuses on teachers’ implementation of feedback innovation, which refers
to the feedback strategies that the participating teachers had either not used or not
regularly used before the study commenced. This definition is based on Rogers’
(2003) notion of ‘innovation’ as ‘an idea, practice or object perceived as new by an
individual or other units of adoption’ (p. 12). The innovative feedback strategies
selected by the two participating teachers in the study include focused, coded WCF
and peer feedback. The former was chosen in response to conventional WCF prac-
tices that adopted a comprehensive approach to WCF, where direct WCF was com-
monly practised (Lee, 2004). The latter was selected as an attempt, on the part of the
teachers, to engage students actively during the feedback process and to share
responsibility with them. This section is in two parts. Part one reviews the literature
on the selected innovative feedback strategies, namely focused and coded WCF and
peer feedback, while Part two focuses on professional development in respect to
feedback in L2 writing.
1 Writing feedback approaches: Focused, coded WCF and peer feedback

Research on teacher feedback has yielded valuable insights on the different types and
forms of written corrective feedback (WCF) teachers can use in the writing classroom.
Recent empirical investigations have focused a great deal on the effectiveness of unfo-
cused versus focused WCF. Unfocused WCF describes a common practice among
teachers, where all errors are corrected (i.e. comprehensive or extensive WCF) (Ellis,
Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, 2008). Those who argue for focused WCF, i.e. focus-
ing on a limited number of pre-selected linguistic features, contend that such an
approach is less overwhelming for the students as unfocused WCF can lead to ‘infor-
mation overload’ (Bitchener, 2008, p. 109) and can be discouraging and hence unhelp-
ful (K. Hyland & F. Hyland, 2006). Instead, focused WCF feedback is proposed as a
viable option in that learners can develop a better understanding of the errors (Bitchener
& Ferris, 2012). According to Ellis et al. (2008), learners are more prone to notice and
understand the feedback when a limited number of error types is targeted. In order to
examine the value of focused WCF, Bitchener (2008), Bitchener and Knoch (2008,
2009, 2010) and Sheen (2007) examined feedback given on one linguistic domain. The
results of their studies yielded evidence for the effectiveness of focused WCF in
improving written accuracy in the short and long run. However, it is also argued that
selecting only one error type for feedback is not practical because, in writing, students
need to focus on different error types at the same time (Van Beuningen, 2010). Thus, a
middle ground is proposed, where teachers select several error categories, instead of
one, for feedback (Storch, 2010). Though there is research that points to the efficacy of
unfocused WCF, studies that indicate its benefits are as yet few and far between
(Truscott & Hsu, 2008; Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2008). Current WCF
research has demonstrated that focused WCF, involving rule-based error categories in
particular, appears to be beneficial to students of lower language proficiency, whereas
unfocused WCF may be useful to advanced learners with a high level of proficiency
(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). Overall, the selection of focused WCF as an innovative
feedback tool in the study is in line with the advice provided in the feedback literature,
especially because the students receiving focused WCF in the study are EFL school
learners, and hence of relatively lower language proficiency.
Apart from the extent of WCF (i.e. focused versus unfocused), teachers are faced
with the choice of giving direct or indirect WCF – that is providing correct answers
(direct) or simply highlighting errors (indirect). Coded WCF is a kind of indirect
WCF (Ferris, 2011) where the teacher makes use of error codes to provide students
with hints for self-correction (without codes such indirect WCF is referred to as
uncoded). Although there are conflicting findings about the merits of direct and indi-
rect WCF, the benefits of indirect WCF have been pointed out by a number of research-
ers (e.g. Ferris, 2006; Lalande, 1982). For example, indirect WCF engages students in
‘guided learning and problem solving’ (Lalande, 1982, p. 143), thereby fostering
reflection upon their existing knowledge or partially internalized knowledge
(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012), which is more likely to lead to improved accuracy in the
long run. Such feedback is most effective when delivered to treatable/rule-governed
items (Ferris, 2001). A handful of studies (e.g. Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Robb, Ross &
Shortreed, 1986) have compared the differences between coded and uncoded feed-
back but yielded no significant difference between the two types of indirect feedback.
Despite this, codes are considered useful as they are conducive to reflection and cog-
nitive engagement on the part of students (Ferris, 2011). In contexts where teachers
are used to giving direct WCF (i.e. providing correct answers to written errors), as in
the study, coded WCF can be considered an innovation and has potential to foster
students’ cognitive engagement.
A growing body of literature has highlighted the importance of engaging students in
the learning process and providing appropriate feedback that informs learning (Black
& Wiliam, 1998), such as engaging students in peer feedback. Peer feedback is associ-
ated with an array of benefits, such as affording students the opportunity to critically
analyse their peers’ writing (and hence gain a better understanding of their own writ-
ing) (Crusan, 2010) and to hone their own proofreading and editing skills (Ferris,
2011). It was also found that students could improve their writing through providing
feedback to their peers (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009), i.e. playing the role of givers,
apart from that of recipients. As compared to teacher feedback, peer comments could
provide equal or even greater benefits to students (Tsui & Ng, 2000), such as enhanced
audience awareness. Specifically, through demystifying the assessment criteria and
outlining them in a peer feedback form, students become cognizant of the assessment
criteria and the requirements of the writing, and teachers can enable students to pro-
gress towards the required standards (Carless, 2006). In the EFL writing classroom,
however, students still tend to believe that it is mainly the teacher’s job to respond to
students’ writing (Sengupta, 1998; Tsui & Ng, 2000). Despite the potential of peer
feedback, research has found that it is hard to alter students’ entrenched beliefs about
the teacher and student roles in the EFL writing classroom. Hence, peer feedback is not
regularly practised in the EFL context. In order to implement peer feedback effec-
tively, it is proposed that peer feedback training be provided (Hansen & Liu, 2005;
Min, 2006; Rollinson, 2005), where teachers give demonstrations, model the peer
Lee et al. 5
feedback procedure, and create a positive and supportive environment for effective
peer feedback to take place (Min, 2005). To enable students to reap maximum benefits
from peer feedback, the focus should not only be confined to language use, but it
should also address content and organizational issues (Hansen & Liu, 2005).
2 Teachers’ professional development with regard to feedback in writing

The research findings and pedagogical principles about feedback in writing delineated
in the above, however, seem to have failed to filter to the classroom level. In EFL
contexts like Hong Kong, teachers’ feedback practices have remained predominantly
product-based and form-focused, with error identification ingrained in their habitual
practices. The ineffectiveness of their feedback practices is well acknowledged by EFL
teachers, such as those in Lee’s (2011) study, who perceive the need to bring innovation
to conventional feedback approaches. While feedback innovation is imperative, training
and professional development are much needed to equip teachers with the knowledge
and skills to go about innovation.
Educating teachers to effect change in their feedback practice, however, can be an
arduous task since professional development does not entail the transmission of
knowledge alone but much professional learning takes place as a result of teachers’
interaction with the context at both the micro (e.g. school culture) and macro (e.g.
examination culture) level, as well as the apprenticeship of observation (Lortie,
1975). Indeed, human learning takes place ‘in the context of our lived experience of
participation in the world’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 3), and there is not a linear relationship
between learning and the appropriation of knowledge. Rather, knowledge is con-
structed in contexts, and both participation and context are crucial to human cogni-
tion and learning (Johnson, 2006). Thus, the way EFL teachers respond to writing is
influenced by the contexts in which teachers are situated (Vygotsky, 1978). Such
contexts can include teachers’ prior learning experiences as students themselves, as
members of the teaching community within their own context and the broader edu-
cational context, and as participants in professional development activities (e.g.
teacher education programmes and professional development seminars and work-
shops). The low impact of teacher education, in particular, has been pointed out in
the teacher socialization literature, pointing to the discrepancy between the knowl-
edge about best professional practice acquired from teacher education, on the one
hand, and the entrenched beliefs and practices that permeate the teaching context, on
the other (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Such entrenched beliefs and practices emanate
largely from the apprenticeship of observation; that is, teachers’ feedback practices
are heavily influenced by the way in which their own teachers responded to their
writing when they were students themselves. Thus, teacher education on feedback in
writing can be met with obstacles; even if teachers receive training and attempt to
undertake feedback innovation, it is unclear how the contextual factors may influ-
ence their innovation attempts. With this purpose in mind, the present study sets
out to explore the possible impact of professional development input on teachers’
innovative feedback attempts, the challenges they may face, and how they navigate
change in their specific teaching contexts.
III The study

1 Participants and context
The study was conducted in two co-educational secondary schools in Hong Kong. Two
teachers, Gwen and Amelia (pseudonyms), who are native speakers of Cantonese, took
part in the study voluntarily; Gwen taught in a Band 31 school and Amelia in a Band 2
school at the time of the study. Gwen has a Bachelor’s degree in English Language
Teaching (ELT) and was in the second year of a Master’s in ELT program at the time of
the study, whereas Amelia has a Bachelor’s degree in English and a Master’s degree in
ELT. While Gwen had three years of teaching experience, Amelia had 10 years.
Both teachers had attended a 20-hour writing teacher education course (on the MA in
ELT program) taught by the first researcher, as well as a whole-day (six hours) profes-
sional development (PD) workshop held three months before the project commenced. In
the writing teacher education course, a total of six hours was devoted to feedback and
assessment in writing. The PD workshop not only reinforced the ideas introduced in the
writing teacher education course but also engaged teachers actively in challenging their
existing feedback practices and discussing alternative feedback approaches in a work-
shop style that involved discussion and professional sharing. Taken together, the writing
teacher education course and the PD workshop provided opportunities for the partici-
pants to problematize conventional feedback practices prevalent in EFL classrooms,
such as an excessive focus on student errors in writing, lack of student involvement, and
the use of classroom writing as a testing rather than learning activity (i.e. involving little
instruction) that takes place in a product-based classroom (i.e. requiring single drafts). In
particular, alternatives were proposed, e.g. a focused approach to error feedback, the use
of peer feedback, and the use of rubric-based feedback to provide diagnostic information
to students in a process-oriented classroom. Teachers were invited to think outside the
box and to consider the pros and cons of existing and alternative feedback practices. For
instance, the two extreme approaches of over-using error codes and avoidance of error
codes (i.e. teachers using mainly direct WCF) were discussed, and it was concluded that
codes should be used sparingly and judiciously. Also, a student-centred approach to feed-
back was advocated – i.e. teachers should, where possible, vary their feedback according
to student needs. Peer feedback was introduced as a means to involve students more
actively in the writing classroom, and it was suggested that teachers provide training and
encourage students to comment on not only language but also content and organization.
At the end of the one-day PD workshop, the understanding between the research team
and the teachers was that they would return to their schools and implement innovative
feedback strategies (of their own choice) that suited their own context. Gwen and Amelia
(and their schools) gave written consent for data to be collected for the study. In the
article, ‘professional development input’ refers to the input the teachers received from
the teacher education course and the one-day PD workshop.
The study was conducted in two Secondary 3 (Grade 9) classrooms each taught by
Gwen and Amelia, with 34 and 15 students respectively. Secondary 3 was selected as it
was the only grade level that the teachers taught. The students, aged 14–15 years old, had
been studying English for approximately 11–12 years at the time of the study. The
Territory System Assessment (TSA)2, a public examination that all school students in
Lee et al. 7
Hong Kong take at grades 6 and 9, reflects that the English proficiency level of students
in both schools was below the territory’s average.
Before describing the innovative feedback strategies adopted by the participants in
the study, it is important to consider the feedback practices they had used before the
study. Previously, the feedback Gwen and Amelia gave students predominantly focused
on language issues. Their WCF was unfocused; both of them mainly used direct WCF,
i.e. giving correct answers for errors. They primarily adopted a product-oriented
approach, where terminal drafts were collected. After some deliberation (thanks to the
first researcher’s input in the workshop, and the teachers’ careful consideration of the
needs of their students and their own teaching context), both participants decided to
implement coded WCF (instead of direct WCF) and peer feedback (which they had
rarely attempted before) in a process writing classroom. Gwen also aimed to implement
focused WCF (instead of unfocused WCF), delivering feedback to selected errors. It is
noteworthy that the innovative feedback strategies are not ‘new’ in the L2 literature and
may even be considered conventional in certain contexts, but they were selected by the
teachers as innovative practices in their own contexts, as well as viable alternatives to
their existing feedback practices with potential to help improve teaching and learning in
the writing classroom.
2 Data collection and analysis

The objectives of this study are to understand how the teachers attempted to implement
innovative feedback strategies as a result of the PD input they had received, and the fac-
tors that influenced their feedback innovation. Qualitative research is well suited as it
allows the researchers to capture ‘personal perspectives and experiences’ (Patton, 1990,
p. 40) and to understand the context under study (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
In the study, qualitative data were collected systematically from the participating
teachers, the English department heads and school principals during the entire school
year. Data sources include interviews with the principal and English department head of
each school, pre- and post-study interviews with the two participating teachers (for inter-
view questions, see Appendix 1), and classroom observations (three for Gwen and four
for Amelia, conducted by the first two researchers), during which field notes were taken.
Although not part of the analytical focus, written feedback to six students, of high, mid
and low language proficiency, taught by each teacher was also collected (on eight pieces
of writing from Gwen’s students and six from Amelia’s) in order to triangulate with their
self-reported practices. All the teacher interviews were conducted in English and were
audio-recorded and later transcribed.
To answer the first research question about the participants’ implementation of feed-
back innovation, the interview transcripts were read repeatedly to identify the teachers’
self-reports about their feedback practices. Such data were triangulated with the observa-
tional data to find out the extent to which the teachers were able to translate feedback
principles into practice. Although the teachers’ written feedback was not the focus of our
analysis, the selected student texts were read through to identify the main WCF approaches
adopted. To answer the second research question about the factors that influenced teach-
ers’ implementation of feedback innovation, the transcript data were systematically gone
through line by line until general patterns emerged after several rounds of reading. Using
open coding, the data were segmented into categories of information (Strauss & Corbin,
1990), during which codes were assigned. Then, through axial coding, themes pertaining
to the research question were generated.
IV Results and discussion

In this section, we present and discuss the key themes arising from each of the research
questions that point to the overall findings.
Research question 1: How did teachers approach feedback innovation

in their writing classrooms, and to what extent were they able to
translate into practice the feedback principles acquired from professional
development input?
The first research question focused on the teachers’ implementation of focused, coded
WCF and peer feedback respectively, and the extent to which teachers were able to trans-
late feedback principles into practice.
a Focused, coded WCF. Gwen and Amelia both hoped to improve their WCF strategies.
Gwen wanted to implement focused, coded WCF where she would pre-select a few error
types and indicate the errors by means of codes. Rather than practising focused, coded
WCF, Amelia was interested in coded WCF only, where she would use codes for a few
linguistic items in each piece of writing, and varying the codes according to the different
proficiency levels of the students. The rest of the errors would be marked using a direct
feedback approach, with the correct answers provided. These ideas are all in line with the
input they had gained from the writing teacher education course and the PD workshop.
For Gwen, focused, coded WCF was important because students could be given
opportunities to reflect on and self-correct their errors, and focused WCF was ‘more
manageable’ (teacher interview) for her students. In the study, she pre-selected three to
four items for each text type and responded to those only. She said:
… because the feedback given is focused and not that direct … For example, ‘art’ so they can
think about “Did I use the wrong article, why should I use ‘the’ instead of ‘a’?” They can reflect
in this way. (Teacher interview)
Gwen’s WCF practice was in line with the best practice advice in the feedback literature
(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2014), which she acquired from professional develop-
ment input. She believed that it is important to respond to a number of, instead of all,
grammar items in student writing, and that coded WCF should be used sparingly (Lee,
1997).
The interview data and classroom observations showed that Gwen had a clear concep-
tual understanding of focused and coded WCF. In the first four months of the study, she
did attempt it quite consistently, responding to and coding three to four pre-selected
language items (e.g. sp for spelling and vt for verb tense). Gradually, however, she
Lee et al. 9
marked more and more errors and used fewer and fewer codes. Eventually, Gwen
reverted to marking all errors and providing correct answers (i.e. unfocused, direct
WCF). She confessed that she had lost her determination to persevere after the first term,
mainly because of her worry about the different practices of other colleagues and her
uncertainty about students’ attitudes to her new approach. Since both teachers and stu-
dents in her school were used to the conventional practice of giving unfocused, direct
WCF to student writing (Lee, 2004), Gwen became unsure if she should insist on her
new approach, particularly when she felt that she was operating in isolation. Although
Gwen understood that students should not be ‘overwhelmed by a large amount of WCF’
(teacher interview), she felt that she was a minority in her attempt at feedback innovation
and hence found it hard to persist. Re-adopting her previous approach gave her a
sense of comfort and security. She felt that if the innovative feedback strategies she was
attempting were mandated by the school, then everyone would follow:
Because it’s like a policy and the students will feel more comfortable in it …, as students
compare and colleagues will also compare. (Teacher interview)
While Gwen was convinced by the importance of focused, coded WCF in her context,
she was unable to implement the principles fully (as acquired from the teacher education
course and PD workshop) due to the constraints of her context. The factors that account
for this situation will be further explored in the section related to research question 2.
Amelia also attempted to use codes but her approach to WCF was unfocused as previ-
ously practised i.e. she responded to all written errors. Although she was aware of the
benefits of a focused approach to WCF, as emphasized in the writing teacher education
course and the PD workshop, she said that it was almost impossible to implement focused
WCF because of her school policy:
I think according to the school policy, we have to let students know every error in their
composition … we have to pinpoint all their errors. (Teacher interview)
Instead, she considered coded feedback a viable option worth experimenting with, as
students would need ‘more guidance on how to correct errors’. To begin with, as empha-
sized in the writing teacher education course and PD workshop, Amelia said she would
focus on a few grammar items, varying the codes according to the different proficiency
levels of the students (Ferris, 2004). For other grammar items, Amelia said she would
mainly give direct feedback:
… maybe the more difficult ones, maybe the expressions, they don’t know the expression, I
give them the expression but for my area of concern like past tense, like spelling, I’ll ask them
to check their work, give them a code and ask them to search for their own corrections. (Teacher
interview)
The quote above showed that Amelia regarded coded WCF as a means to help students
reflect on and correct their mistakes (Lalande, 1982), and she used codes for the less dif-
ficult grammar items like verb tense and spelling as she believed these two categories
were manageable for students. Analysis of her written feedback showed that the codes
Amelia used were confined to sp (spelling) and t (tense), though her plan was to vary her
error codes according to students’ proficiency level. Lack of time was put forward as a
reason to explain why she was not able to fully practise what she believed, as it would
require time to take a more student-centred approach to varying codes according to indi-
vidual student needs and explaining codes to students:
As my class is Form 3, so they’re quite busy. They have to do TSA training. They have to do
different kinds of exercises. It involves lots of time in explaining codes … (Teacher interview)
In terms of WCF, overall Amelia was unable to fully practise the feedback principles as
recommended in the literature (and acquired from the teacher education course and PD
workshop she had attended). The factors that influenced Amelia’s implementation of
WCF will be explored in greater depth in the following section that addresses research
question 2.
b Peer feedback. In addition to focused and coded WCF, another innovation the two
teachers adopted was peer feedback. Gwen conducted peer feedback on a regular basis
during the study. She explained the purpose of peer feedback as follows:
Peer feedback provides a chance for students to learn from each other and if their peer can do
something good, they can learn from it and if they find that there is something that they have to
improve, they can reflect on their own work and, they will not make the same mistakes.
(Teacher interview)
Gwen thought that peer feedback gave students an opportunity to analyse the writing of
their peers and to hone their writing skills. To implement peer feedback, Gwen designed
a peer feedback form for different writing tasks. There were six areas of focus in the peer
feedback form, which were targeted at mostly global aspects (e.g. structure and develop-
ment of ideas), and the form was based on a four-point scale, ranging from Excellent,
Pretty Good to Average and Needs Improvement. The criteria included in the form
reflected her instructional focuses, which were borne out in the classroom observational
data, enabling her to integrate assessment and teaching. For instance, in one observed
lesson where Gwen taught students how to carry out peer feedback on a film review with
a detailed feedback form, she first highlighted the major features such as background
information about the film, the plot, and relevant comments on the film. She then asked
students to evaluate whether their peers had fulfilled the criteria specified in the feedback
form. The observational data show that Gwen provided some peer feedback training for
her students, drawing attention to not only micro but also macro issues in writing (Hansen
& Liu, 2005; Min, 2005, 2006). The feedback form used was able to help students stay
focused on the peer feedback activity, as well as the criteria for judging the quality of the
peers’ writing. Overall, the findings show that Gwen was able to translate into practice
the general peer feedback principles, which she had learnt from the writing teacher edu-
cation course and the PD workshop.
In another peer feedback lesson, Gwen first refreshed the students’ memories about
the necessary elements of the piece of writing they had completed and then went over the
Lee et al. 11
criteria in the feedback form with the students. Then she gave students a piece of writing,
as part of peer feedback training, and asked them to rate it by placing stickers on the
feedback form. In the observed lesson, she spent approximately 35 minutes on training
and then the students were left to perform peer feedback in pairs, during which they were
also required to put stickers on the feedback form to evaluate their peer’s writing (as in
the peer feedback training). The observational data show that students tended to rush
through the task by putting stickers next to the scale on the peer feedback form, which
might draw their attention away from the student text and the peer feedback task itself.
Gwen could have asked students to focus on the text first, identify areas of strengths and
weaknesses with reference to the criteria, use these to justify their evaluation, and then
place stickers next to the scale. Through doing these, students could have engaged with
the text and the peer feedback activity at a deeper level. Nonetheless, the findings sug-
gest that Gwen understood the value of peer feedback in the writing classroom, attempted
to implement it in a systematic manner, but that further professional development in peer
feedback is probably needed to help her develop expertise in the implementation of peer
feedback. In fact, Gwen herself admitted that she was doubtful about the effectiveness of
the approach she took in conducting peer feedback, especially the way in which peer
feedback training was provided. Her uncertainty is reflected in the quote below:
For the peer assessment, just like the lesson you observed last time I tried to provide some
training. I asked them to focus on one special aspect first and give the work some stickers and
something like that, right! And I’m not sure if it’s effective or not I’m not sure this can be
regarded as training. (Teacher interview)
For Amelia, peer feedback was attempted a few times within a process approach that was
practised in a limited manner. In the writing lessons, Amelia instructed students to write
a first draft and then, after peer feedback, to use white-out to make changes only at the
word/phrase level on their original draft. Students were not required to write a fresh
draft. As a result, the changes students made remained at the word, phrase or sentence
level. The observational data show that in one peer feedback lesson, Amelia focused on
the past tense and spelling in a narrative writing task. She first reviewed the past tense
and returned students’ writing, with all the verbs in the past tense underlined by herself
(instead of by the students). She then asked them to swap their writing with their peers
and check whether the verbs underlined were correct or not. After checking their peers’
writing, the students then wrote down the total number of mistakes their peers had made.
Amelia’s students were asked to engage in relatively low-level work as compared to the
students of Gwen, though her students were generally more proficient than those of
Gwen. In another peer feedback lesson, Amelia drew students’ attention to vocabulary
use. First, she reviewed 20 items about outdoor activities in the vocabulary book. Then
she asked the class to read their partner’s text and underline 10 vocabulary items they had
learnt from the vocabulary book, circling those about outdoor activities. Finally, she
asked students to correct the spelling of the underlined/circled vocabulary. Again, the
focus of peer review was rather limited, and the approach adopted by Amelia was highly
controlled. Overall, in peer feedback sessions, Amelia mainly focused on micro features
such as the past tense and spelling, implementing peer feedback in a pretty limiting and
decontextualized way. For vocabulary, she directed students’ attention to whether or not
the taught items had been used and whether they were correctly spelt, rather than whether
they were appropriately used in context. Although Amelia attempted to experiment with
peer feedback as an innovative attempt, what occurred in the classroom appeared to
depart from recommended principles (as presented in the writing teacher education
course and PD workshop), which suggest that teachers draw student attention to both
macro and micro features of student text (Hansen & Liu, 2005) and allow them to take
greater responsibility for learning.
To answer the first research question about the teachers’ approach to feedback inno-
vation and the extent to which they were able to translate into practice the feedback
principles acquired from teacher education, the findings show that while Gwen and
Amelia made efforts in their attempts, in different ways there was a gap between the
ideal as recommended in the PD input and the reality experienced by the teachers. In
the next section we move on to discuss the factors that influenced their attempts at
feedback innovation, shedding light on the possible causes of the limited impact of the
PD input.
Research question 2: What factors might have influenced their attempts

at feedback innovation in the writing classrooms?
The data analysis shows that a number of factors exerted influence on teachers’ feedback
innovation, also providing reasons to explain the limited impact of the PD input.
a School rules and limited power of teachers. A significant factor that impinged on the
teachers’ implementation of feedback innovation was the set of rules governing their
work, and their lack of power and autonomy in their school contexts. Because of the
fixed curriculum and syllabus, and hence the time constraint, Gwen reverted from
focused, coded WCF to unfocused, direct WCF in the second school term. She had the
following to say about coded WCF:
In the beginning, I think it (coded feedback) worked because at the start of the academic year,
we still had time I mean for both teachers and the students but after a while, maybe one or two
months later, we all got busy and then many students just do not bother about what the codes
mean. I have to remind them every time for the meaning of the code ‘t’ means tense, so I kind
of go back to my original practice. (Teacher interview)
As Gwen had a packed syllabus to teach, it left her with insufficient time in the lesson to
constantly remind students what the codes stood for. As a result, she gave up the use of
coded WCF after one semester.
Moreover, Gwen was aware that though the principal and English department head
were generally supportive of her innovation (which was approved by them), they were
primarily concerned with the need for teachers to cover the syllabus and finish the tight
teaching schedule. She knew that she had to be compliant, and somehow knowing the
school leaders’ priority discouraged her from persisting in her feedback innovation. In
the interviews with Gwen’s English department head and principal, a recurring theme
Lee et al. 13
was the importance for teachers to navigate change within the packed syllabus and time
constraint:
Our heavy workload … and very tight teaching schedule, so I think it’s these two factors
inhibiting change. (Interview with the English department head)
Time, time, because, you know, in the coming year, the NSS,3 so I think teachers could be very
busy, preparing students for this public examination … So while they’re coaching students for
learning, at the same time, getting involved in this project, I think the teachers themselves have
to learn how to manage their time appropriately. (Interview with the Principal)
The rule imposed by the tight curriculum, coupled with the teachers’ limited power,
explains why Gwen was unable to fully implement the feedback innovation as planned.
As pointed out in the teacher professional development literature (Johnson, 2006),
Gwen’s attempts at feedback innovation were stymied by the dominant, formidable
school culture that mandated compliance with established school rules and regulations
governing different aspects of teachers’ work.
Amelia was faced with a similar problem. The prescribed curriculum and syllabus
imposed constraints, as she explained below:
I think it’s the time problem. It takes up lots of time and if we put more time here, maybe you
have to sacrifice the time for doing other things. You have to strike a balance between these
two. (Teacher interview)
Amelia explained that she had to set aside time for preparing students for public exami-
nations (mainly TSA for Secondary 3 students). She found it hard to juggle the time
constraint required for the feedback innovation, namely peer feedback and coded WCF,
which she attempted to implement.
As my class is Form 3, so they’re quite busy. They have to do TSA training. They have to do
different kinds of exercises. It involves lots of time in peer feedback and explaining codes …
(Teacher interview)
For coded WCF, she did not fully implement what she had planned for, focusing mainly
on verb tense and spelling in the study. This, according to Amelia, was a time-saving
practice as using more error codes would take her more time to explain to students.
Amelia’s principal and English department head shared the same concern about the
time constraint. The English department head said:
… but in terms of time, very limited to try, like process writing and peer feedback, it’s very
difficult, hard to find the time. (Interview with the English department head)
This concern with time could also partly explain why students were not required to pro-
duce another draft but instead they only needed to make changes to the first draft with
white-out. This was definitely more time-saving than a ‘real’ process approach that
involves multiple drafting.
Amelia’s attempt at feedback innovation was further impacted upon by the limited
power of teachers. She said that she was allowed to practise innovative feedback strate-
gies to the extent that the approaches did not affect the usual operation of the school:
According to the school’s policy, we have to let students know every error in compositions.
(Teacher interview)
Comments from Amelia’s English department head affirmed the position taken by the
school on what was approved practice. It was clear that focused WCF was not seen
positively:
I think there are some standards like you should mark all the mistakes. The students should
know what they have done wrong but we did not say the mistakes should be told in the way of
a comment, having the whole line corrected or using symbols. They can use these methods as
long as the message is clear that the students understand. (Interview with the English department
head)
Because of the strong view of the English department head about the need to mark errors
comprehensively, Amelia had reservations about focused WCF and adhered to compre-
hensive WCF. The findings suggest that entrenched school rules and limited power
of teachers made it difficult for the teachers to fully translate recommended feedback
principles into practice.
b Lack of support from colleagues. Another factor that influenced the teachers’ feedback
innovation was the lack of involvement of colleagues in the English team, and an ensu-
ing sense of insecurity. In Gwen’s case, she experienced a sense of discomfort and feared
being excluded by members of the team because of her nonconformity to the usual feed-
back approaches.
Students compare and colleagues also compare. We have composition inspection and they (the
colleagues) will question why Gwen is marking in a different way, like using focused marking
but why they have to spot out every mistake … (Teacher interview)
As Gwen innovated in isolation without the involvement of key members of the com-
munity, she had a strong sense of insecurity and anxiety. For Amelia, the colleagues in
her school gave limited support to feedback innovation in general. According to Amelia,
if more colleagues had been involved, there would have been more ideas and she would
have been less tight with time. She explained as follows:
If there are different people or different teachers doing the same thing, we have more minds. We
can generate more ideas and also do the preparation work like the design of assessment forms,
so it’s easier, maybe this time you do it, next time I do it, so it will involve less time preparing
all this. (Teacher interview)
The emphasis on the need to respond to all written errors and to use teaching time in con-
ventional ways (to cover the syllabus and to prepare students for public examinations),
Lee et al. 15
among her colleagues, made it very difficult for Amelia to achieve breakthrough in her
feedback innovation. Effective change in schools requires a strong teaching mission and
vision based on a collective wisdom among teachers (Fullan, 2009). In order that teachers’
attempts at feedback innovation can come to fruition, support from colleagues is crucial.
As Gwen said, a whole-school approach is deemed necessary.
We concern a lot about our students’ performance. If everyone has the same practice, it won’t
seem like you are alienated. The students would also think that it is the whole-school policy. It’s
not Teacher A’s practice, so I think at the end we can help the development of the school.
c Teachers’ professional learning. In the study, the teachers received some PD input and
returned to their schools to implement feedback innovation. Since the research was
designed as a naturalistic study without further intervention from the research team, for-
mal university-school partnership was not forged between the team and the participating
schools. The absence of ongoing PD input, however, had made it hard for teachers to get
continuing support to enhance their professional learning, which was found to be crucial
to the feedback innovation. As Gwen reflected on her involvement in the project at the
end of the study, she said:
Maybe the research team could have given us some feedback when observing our lessons or
you could have looked at some sample work … (Teacher interview)
Amelia expressed a similar view:
We thought we could be given more advice on how to improve what we were doing in
learning, in teaching writing in terms of the approach or also giving grades or feedback to
students and also how to do it systemically in the junior curriculum. (Teacher interview)
The absence of ongoing external support for teachers’ professional learning, together
with a lack of school-based collaborative professional learning as revealed in the preced-
ing sub-section, could explain the limited impact of the PD input on teachers’ feedback
practices.
d Teacher appraisal. Unfocused WCF was practised in the large majority of schools in
Hong Kong, including those of Gwen and Amelia, and it was directly related to teacher
appraisal (Lee, 2008), where school leaders would examine the amount and types of
teacher feedback. Not responding to every single error in student writing was conven-
tionally evaluated unfavourably, and this was probably one reason why Amelia adhered
to unfocused WCF in the study. As can be seen from the quote below, adopting focused
WCF made Gwen feel that she was very different: and different in a risky way, as she
might be perceived as irresponsible and appraised negatively as a result. This situation
could explain why she was unable to adhere to focused WCF in the study:
Because we have book inspection. The colleagues will ponder why I am marking student
writing using focused marking while they spot out every mistake …
The findings of the study suggest that teachers’ feedback innovation in schools is inex-
tricably linked with the teacher appraisal system; unless school leaders are made aware
of the need to re-visit the conventional teacher appraisal system with regard to teacher
written feedback, implementing and sustaining focused WCF is likely to be an impossi-
ble mission.
e Students’ attitudes. Finally, the findings suggest that teachers’ feedback innovation

could also be influenced by student attitudes, including their expectations and prefer-
ences. In Amelia’s case, she ascribed her peer feedback practice to her students’ unsup-
portive attitude; her students did not feel comfortable about having peers read their writing
lest their weaknesses would be exposed. Knowing her students’ unfavourable attitude to
peer feedback and the fact that they did not like the idea of revising their composition on
the same topic, Amelia did not require students to write another draft. She said:
My students do not like multiple drafting as they think they’re copying out their drafts again
and again and that’s why I just asked them to make changes in their initial draft using white-out.
(Teacher interview)
After receiving peer feedback, students did not have to write a second draft based on the
feedback. Changes to the first draft, if any, were minimal and could be made with white-
out; revision to content and organization was not applied in any real sense. Thus, stu-
dents’ preferences could partly explain why Amelia did not fully translate what was
learned from the PD input into her own practice.
V Implications and conclusions

In the study, PD input comprising sound feedback principles derived from the research
literature was provided to Gwen and Amelia, who were encouraged to challenge conven-
tional practices and undertake possible feedback innovation based on their understand-
ing of their specific contexts. While the teachers both made efforts to implement what
was learnt, the findings of the study indicate some discrepancy between what was recom-
mended and what was implemented by the teachers, pointing to the limited impact of the
PD input and uncovering the challenges the teachers faced.
Despite the teachers’ relevant subject knowledge educational background, their
attempts were impeded by the unsupportive environment of their school. For instance,
the teachers were faced with limited time within a prescribed curriculum, which impinged
on their capacity to implement the alternative approaches. The value systems of the com-
munity members also had a powerful impact in shaping the teachers’ feedback practices
and their willingness to persist in the face of deviation from the norm. In some way, the
reactions of the students also led the teachers away from their original intentions to intro-
duce and/or sustain new feedback practices, such as using focused and coded WCF.
Although the feedback innovation attempted by the two teachers in the study may not
be relevant to all teachers in EFL or similar contexts, and despite the small sample size,
the teachers’ innovation and the influencing factors could provide useful insights into
how innovation in writing feedback can be facilitated. First of all, teachers must be given
Lee et al. 17
opportunities to engage in continuing professional development to sharpen their peda-

gogical knowledge of innovative feedback strategies. While one-off or short-lived PD
courses can provide preliminary input to help teachers with critical reflection on conven-
tional feedback practices (as in the study), opportunities for ongoing professional learning
are important. In the study, while the teachers had exercised their discretion to implement
what they believed was feasible in their own contexts after receiving PD input, the find-
ings suggest that their feedback practices could be further developed and enhanced to
maximize student learning. To achieve this, teachers should be assisted over time to
enrich their understanding about how innovative feedback strategies could be integrated
into the writing curriculum in their own teaching contexts. As noted by K. Hyland and
Wong (2013), innovations cannot be sustained unless teachers have a firm grasp of the
new concepts. More importantly, to carry out change successfully, it is crucial to involve
the collaboration of other community members rather than for teachers to work in isola-
tion. Insofar as innovative feedback approaches are concerned, a whole-school approach
to change is crucial. Small innovations of the type initiated by the teachers in this study
need not be restricted to only one or two classrooms; they could be introduced in all
classes within the same year or school. This approach would also minimize comparisons
that students might make about different practices across similar classroom contexts, as
occurred in this study. Thus, school-based collaborative professional learning has a piv-
otal role to play to help teachers implement and sustain innovative feedback practices.
University–school collaboration could be exploited so that external assistance can be
provided to teachers to support their ongoing collaborative professional learning. Instead
of providing professional development input in university-based programs, it is desirable
if professional development can also take place in the teachers’ own schools so that feed-
back strategies that suit their specific contexts could be discussed, negotiated, and devel-
oped to cater for students’ needs.
Second, the findings show that, within the school context, existing rules (e.g. the
packed syllabus and fixed curriculum) and unequal power relationships can pose consid-
erable impediments to feedback innovation, and therefore need to be more open if change
is to take place. Flexibility on the part of school administrators and other key community
members is crucial in granting teachers greater autonomy to adjust the curriculum for
enhanced student learning. Teachers need to be empowered and supported by school
leaders to initiate professional dialogue regarding the advantages and disadvantages of
different innovative feedback tools. School leaders need to be sufficiently open-minded
to allow for the bending of the rules of the system, where appropriate and necessary.
Overall, the findings suggest that for feedback innovation to succeed, school administra-
tors and leaders have a crucial role to play. Teacher education on feedback in writing has
to take this into consideration and involve, as much as possible, the participation of
school administrators and leaders, aside from frontline teachers, to help them develop a
common vision so as to improve the effectiveness of feedback in writing. As Fullan
(2007) notes, change does not occur at the individual level, and supportive or stimulating
conditions are necessary to foster real change in practice.
Finally, when undertaking innovation teachers need to take into consideration students’
needs, values and assumptions. Unfavourable responses from students towards new feed-
back practices could be attributed to inadequate instruction, as well as students’ lack of
understanding of the philosophy and rationale of new practices. As Hu (2005) points out,
raising students’ awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of innovative pedagogies
is extremely important. In the case of peer feedback, for example, awareness-raising is
important for students from Asian countries where cultural norms ‘may be antithetical to
the pedagogical principles’ (Hu, 2005, p. 332) of peer feedback. Discussion about the role
of peer feedback, its benefits, its problematic aspects, etc. (Rollinson, 2005) can help raise
students’ awareness of the usefulness of peer feedback in the writing classroom. By the
same token, teachers can discuss with students the pros and cons of focused versus unfo-
cused WCF, and coded versus uncoded WCF so as to raise their awareness of the purposes
of teacher/WCF feedback and students’ own role in the feedback process.
In conclusion, the study has shed light on how teachers attempt to bring innovation to
their feedback practices, as well as the factors that influence feedback innovation in their
specific contexts. It has also uncovered the limited impact of short-term professional
development input, with clear implications for how teachers can be better supported to
implement and sustain feedback innovation. Future research could explore how a whole-
school approach can be implemented to help teachers undertake feedback innovation,
and how teacher learning can be promoted through collaboration among key community
members within the school and through ongoing collaborative professional learning.
Teacher education on feedback in writing, in particular, is an area worthy of further
exploration, both in terms of practice and research.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a research project supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council
of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (CUHK 448610).
Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Notes
1. There is a three-band system in Hong Kong, with Band 1 schools being the top academically.
2. One of the key aims of TSA is to measure the students’ attainment of the fundamental skills
set out in the curriculum, which enables the government to monitor the effectiveness of their
policies and to provide focused support to schools in need (Education Commission, 2000).
3. NSS stands for New Senior Secondary, which is a new academic structure and curriculum.
Under the new academic structure, there is one public (university entrance) examination
called the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE).
References
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composi-
tion classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of
Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D.R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition
and writing. New York: Routledge.
Lee et al. 19
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and inter-
national students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback.
ELT Journal, 63, 204–211.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language
development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7–74.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education,
31, 219–233.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accu-
racy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
Crusan, D. (2010). Assessment in the second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: The
University of Michigan Press.
Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for
education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused
written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
Ferris, D.R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition class-
rooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
Ferris, D.R. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock
(Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 298–314). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, D.R. (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, 49–62.
Ferris, D.R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-
term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second
language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D.R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D.R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing
Writing, 19, 6–23.
Ferris, D.R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need
to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. (2009). The challenge of change: Start school improvement now! (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on stu-
dent writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 69–94.
Hansen, J.G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59,
31–38.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to
teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research,
9, 321–342.
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and
research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 171–182.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction.
In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues
(pp. 1–22). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Wong, L.L.C. (2013). Innovation and change in English language education.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Johnson, K.E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher educa-
tion. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257.
Lalande, J.F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language
Journal, 66, 140–149.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for
teaching. System, 25, 465–477.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada
Journal, 22, 1–16.
Lee, I. (2007). Assessment for learning: Integrating assessment, teaching, and learning in the ESL/
EFL writing classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 199–214.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary class-
rooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85.
Lee, I. (2011). Feedback revolution: What gets in the way? ELT Journal, 65, 1–12.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review
to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Min, H.T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.
Min, H.T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing
quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work.
System, 16, 355–365.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL
writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–96.
Rogers, M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30.
Sengupta, S. (1998). From text revision to text improvement: A story of secondary school compo-
sition. RELC Journal, 29, 110–137.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL
learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal
of English Studies, 10, 29–46.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lee et al. 21
Sullivan, K., & Lindgren, E. (2002). Self-assessment in autonomous computer-aided second lan-
guage writing. ELT Journal, 56, 258–266.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A.Y.-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
Tsui, A.B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of
Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
Van Beuningen, C.G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empiri-
cal insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–27.
Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect correc-
tive feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
156, 279–296.
Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness
of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62,
1–41.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a
Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
Zeichner, K.M., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W.K. Houston, M. Haberan, & J.
Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York:
Macmillan.
Appendix 1. Interview questions.

Interview with the principal
1. Is teacher feedback evaluated in their annual appraisal? What criteria are applied
to determine if teacher feedback is effective or not?
2. How much autonomy do you give the teachers to make decisions regarding
English writing, including feedback?
3. What is your attitude to teachers’ innovative attempts in the writing classroom?
How do you see your role as a principal in facilitating change?
Interview with the English department head

1. What do you think is the best way of giving feedback?
2. How do you view the traditional feedback approach that consists of comprehen-
sive marking of errors as opposed to the less traditional approach of feedback
(e.g. selective marking of errors, using error codes and peer feedback)?
3. Is there a feedback policy stipulated by the school? What is the rationale behind?
4. How much flexibility are teachers given in marking their own students’ writing?
5. What is your attitude to teachers’ innovative attempts in the writing classroom?
How do you see your role as a department head in facilitating change?
Pre-study interview with teachers

1. In your opinion, what makes feedback effective? Why should feedback be given?
Who should give feedback?
2. What is your attitude to error correction? Should all errors be pointed out for
students? Why?
3. What do you think of direct and indirect error feedback (e.g. coded feedback)?
4. What do you think of involving students in the writing process – e.g. process
writing, self-feedback / peer feedback?
5. Do you (and your colleagues) adopt a particular approach in teaching writing;
e.g. a product-oriented approach? Explain the philosophy/rationale.
6. Currently how is feedback given? Why? How does feedback relate to teaching
and learning? How do you assess the effectiveness of such practice?
7. As far as writing feedback is concerned, what do you want to change most? Why?
8. In considering ‘change’, what are your worries or concerns, if any?
Post-study interview with teachers

Questions 1–6 in the pre-study interview, as well as the following:
1. What are strengths/weaknesses of the innovative approaches as compared to the

feedback approaches you used to adopt in the past?
2. How have the innovative approaches influenced the way your students view writ-
ing/feedback?
3. What factors have facilitated and/or inhibited the implementation of the innova-
tive approaches?
4. Where will you go from here?
View publication stats

EFL Teachers' Attempts at Feedback Innovation in The Writing Classroom

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFL Teachers' Attempts at Feedback Innovation in The Writing Classroom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

EFL teachers' attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom

Article in Language Teaching Research · April 2015

Icy Lee Pauline Mak

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Language Teaching Research

EFL teachers’ attempts at

1 Writing feedback approaches: Focused, coded WCF and peer feedback

2 Teachers’ professional development with regard to feedback in writing

III The study

2 Data collection and analysis

IV Results and discussion

Research question 1: How did teachers approach feedback innovation

Research question 2: What factors might have influenced their attempts

Amelia expressed a similar view:

e Students’ attitudes. Finally, the findings suggest that teachers’ feedback innovation

V Implications and conclusions

opportunities to engage in continuing professional development to sharpen their peda-

Declaration of conflicting interest

Appendix 1. Interview questions.

Interview with the English department head

Pre-study interview with teachers

Post-study interview with teachers

1. What are strengths/weaknesses of the innovative approaches as compared to the

You might also like