Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Assessing Writing

“I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional

responses towards teacher written feedback
Omer Hassan Ali Mahfoodh
School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Studies on teacher written feedback in Second Language (L2) contexts have not given
Received 6 November 2014 adequate attention to learners’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback.
Received in revised form 27 June 2016 Thus, this study examined the relationship between emotional responses of EFL univer-
Accepted 8 July 2016
sity students towards teacher written feedback and students’ success of revisions. Data
Available online 7 August 2016
were collected using think-aloud protocols, students’ written texts, and semi-structured
interviews. To obtain students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback,
Keywords:
grounded theory was employed to analyse think-aloud protocols and semi-structured inter-
Emotional responses
views. Teacher written feedback was tabulated and categorised using a coding scheme
Teacher written feedback
Revision which was developed based on Straub and Lunsford (1995) and Ferris (1997). Students’
Second language writing success of revisions was analysed using an analytical scheme based on Conrad and Gold-
EFL university students stein (1999). The results revealed that EFL university students’ emotional responses include
acceptance of feedback, rejection of feedback, surprise, happiness, dissatisfaction, disappoint-
ment, frustration, and satisfaction. Some emotional responses could be attributed to harsh
criticism, negative evaluation, and miscommunication between teachers and their students.
The study also revealed that emotional responses can affect students’ understanding and
utilisation of teacher written feedback.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This study is an attempt to undertake in-depth research which closely examined EFL university students’ emotional
responses, sometimes referred to as affective reactions, towards teacher written feedback in two EFL writing courses. Addi-
tionally, this study intends to find out the relationship between how students respond emotionally towards teacher written
feedback and students’ utilisation of teacher written feedback. The term utilisation of teacher written feedback is used in
this study to refer to students’ successful revisions. The conceptualisations of the major concepts used in this study are given
in Section 2.1 below.
Teachers and researchers in Second Language (L2) contexts have been very much concerned about the most effective way
of responding to L2 learners’ written texts (McMartin-Miller, 2014). As a result of this concern, feedback has been identified
as one of the most powerful influences on learning because it scaffolds students’ cognitive development, highlights their
weaknesses and strengths, assists them to develop writing conventions, and provides them with readers’ judgment of a text
(Hyland, 2013). Furthermore, teacher written feedback is considered to have a very important space in L2 writing courses
(Ferris, 2014). Although teacher written feedback is considered to be difficult, tense, and time-consuming, students and

E-mail addresses: omer@usm.my, omer ed@yahoo.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001
1075-2935/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
54 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

teachers continue to view it as important, useful, and helpful (Anson, 1989; Mahfoodh & Pandian, 2011; Ferris, 1997, 2014;
Goldstein, 2005; Hyland, 2013; Robinson, Pope, & Holyoak, 2013). However, for teacher written feedback to be effective, it
should be formulated, structured, and delivered in a particular way that encourages students’ active engagement (Havnes,
Smith, Dysthe, & Ludvigsen, 2012). Regarding this, Hyland (2000) has argued that clear and full communication is an essential
criterion which can make written feedback effective. The need for examining L2 learners’ emotional responses towards
teacher feedback has been highlighted by Dowden, Pittaway, Yost, and McCarthy (2013), Hyland (1998), Robinson et al.
(2013), and Värlander (2008). In a very recent study, Harris, Brown, and Harnett (2014, p. 110) have pointed out that “While
there is some data around what students report wanting from feedback, student emotional responses to feedback received
have been largely ignored”.
As successful language learning depends on the learners’ emotional responses as well as their cognitive abilities, emotional
responses should not be ignored when discussing L2 learning (Horwitz, 1995). Applying this to teacher written feedback
and L2 students’ development of writing skills, it can be understood that written feedback is an object that is evaluated
by students’ level of emotions. It has been argued that affective factors can influence students’ acquisition and learning
(Hyland, 1999). This has been attested by Swain (2013) who stated that “The relationship between cognition and emotion
is, minimally, interdependent; maximally, they are inseparable/integrated” (p. 196).
Despite the centrality of emotions in language learning, “questions about how emotions fit into an understanding of
L2 learning” have been left aside (Swain, 2013, p. 195). The importance of affect in L2 learning has been also observed by
Imai (2010) who pointed out that “they can in any forms mediate development, especially when learning is embedded in
an interpersonal transaction” (p. 278). Additionally, in L2 writing contexts, there has been a dearth of research connecting
students’ emotions to teacher written feedback, and no published studies have been located on the relationship between
students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback and success of revisions carried out by students.
The main value of this study lies in its contribution to research on L2 writing because it deals with the effect of EFL students’
emotional responses towards teacher written feedback on students’ utilisation of teacher written feedback. Furthermore, the
findings of this study may provide useful insights and ideas on how to provide effective and constructive written feedback
on students’ texts. Thus, this study offers EFL university students opportunities to reveal how they respond emotionally
to teacher written feedback, and allows teachers to be more aware of how their written comments affect their students’
emotions (Ticke, 2003). Furthermore, understanding how L2 students feel and respond emotionally to teacher written
feedback may help teachers to examine the strategies they use for giving written feedback (Lee, 2008). This can, in turn,
helps in developing effective practices of teacher written feedback.

2. Review of literature

Although there is a good body of published studies on written feedback, issues related to the practice of teacher written
feedback in EFL contexts have received little attention from researchers (Lee, 2008). This section consists of three sub-
sections. Section 2.1 presents the most important concepts used in the study. This can help readers to grasp the main
purpose, scope, and major findings of the study. In Section 2.2, the theoretical framework of the study is described. In
Section 2.3, studies that examined students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback are reviewed.

2.1. Important concepts in the study

It is necessary to give definitions of four important concepts in this study: emotional response, written feedback, revision,
and success of revision. There are various definitions of emotional responses, and most of these definitions have their
origins in the psychology literature (Damasio, 1994). For example, Krosnick and Petty (1995) pointed out that an emotional
response refers to the degree of emotions or feelings to which an individual responds when an object is evaluated. Yount
(2010) has pointed out that studies examining emotional responses should take into account that emotional response “refers
to the awareness learners have concerning emotional reactions to learning” (p. 417). In a similar point view, Plotnik and
Kouyoumdjian (2013, p. 201) have recently argued that “a conditioned emotional response refers to feeling some positive or
negative emotion, such as happiness, fear, or anxiety, when experiencing a stimulus”. Quinton and Smallbone (2010) have
pointed out that examining how students feel about feedback is mainly directed towards students’ documenting how they
feel upon receiving feedback. Thus, in this study emotional response refers to students’ feelings towards types of teacher
written feedback. It is essential to mention that emotional responses should not be confused with actions taken by the
students after receiving feedback because actions taken by the students are tangible modifications in their texts.
The term written feedback is used in this study to refer to teachers’ written responses given on students’ texts. These
written responses encompass written annotations and comments on drafts or/and on finalised written texts.
The term revision has been defined in various studies on feedback in L2 writing. Due to the development and growth of
studies on feedback in writing, various authors have presented new conceptualisations of revision. Jung (2005) showed that
the conceptualisation of revision has been largely influenced by the development in approaches of writing instruction. In the
traditional product approach of teaching writing, revision was viewed as “something done to a written product” (Jung, 2005,
p. 4). So, revision in this approach is mainly concerned about the end product. However, this traditional view was criticised
and was followed by the emergence of the process approach which emphasises composing strategies and drafting. In the
process approach, revision is considered to be a complex and recursive process. In reviewing the historical development
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 55

of the conceptualisation of revision, Jung (2005) referred to various writing theorists such as Fitzgerald (1987) and Murray
(1978). Jung showed how Murray (1978) divided revisions into two types: internal and external. While internal revision
refers to writers’ actions to develop what they have to say, external revision is a polishing work which refers to “what writers
do to communicate what they have written to another audience” (Murray, 1978, p. 91). Moreover, Jung pointed out that
Fitzgerald (1987) argued for the importance of having a model of revision that should be based on the linkage between writer
and reader. Based on these definitions, researchers have provided their own definitions of revision with some variations.
For example, Chandrasegaran (1986) stated that revision refers to activities of reviewing a written text with the aim of
modifying and correcting it for the sake of reaching a final draft that is grammatically acceptable and coherent. For Ferris
(2003), revision refers to the percentages of teachers’ responses which were taken up by the students in their revision. Thus,
most of these definitions highlight that revision refers to any type of change done by the students on their written texts.
These changes may involve a range of aspects that may include global aspects (meanings and content) and/or surface aspects
(changes of tenses, punctuation, or spelling).
In the previous paragraph, a general summary of how revision is viewed in literature is reviewed. However, in this study I
differentiate among two terms: the success of revision and the type of revision. I use these two terms in line with what Ferris
(2003) called approaches of measuring revisions. These approaches are two: while the first one uses Faigley and Witte’s
(1981) taxonomy of revision types, the second is used when researchers seek to link teacher written feedback to changes
done by students. Researchers who adapt Faigley and Witte’s taxonomy need to categorise revisions into two major groups:
“surface changes” (with the subcategories “formal changes” and “meaning preserving changes”) or “text-based changes”
(divided into either “microstructure” or “macrostructure” changes). For each category there are some operations (Faigley
& Witte, 1981; Ferris, 2003). Although this taxonomy has been in use for long time, it has been criticised for the lack of
capturing the complexity of students’ revisions. In response to this criticism, in the second approach (which I call measuring
the success of revisions), each written comment is identified and labelled, and its effect is traced through the next draft
using a scheme which includes three categories: not revised, unsuccessful revision, and successful revision. This approach
was proposed by Conrad and Goldstein (1999). Ferris (2003) argued that this approach addresses in a direct way the impact
of teacher written feedback. This scheme has been employed by several researchers (e.g., Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006).
Taking into account the scope of this study, examining the types of revision (analysing revisions) is not one of the research
objectives. In other words, the measurement of operations done by students in their revised drafts is not the concern of this
study. The study rather intends to find out the link between students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback
and successful revisions done by students.

2.2. Theoretical issues

The study reported in this paper is supported by three theories: the cognitive process theory of writing, the socio-
constructivism theory of learning, and the sociocultural theory of learning.
From the perspectives of the cognitive process theory of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1981), teacher written feedback is
considered to be an essential part as it helps students to revise their drafts. Furthermore, the cognitive process theory
of writing emphasises multiple drafts and feedback from teachers and/or peers. According to this theory, the process of
producing a finished text is influenced by many factors related to the writer, context, and requirements of the writing task.
Some of these factors are also related to the affective domain.
It has been argued that feedback in L2 learning and acquisition is supported by the sociocultural theory of learning (refer to
Ferris, 2003; Hyland, 2013). According to Vygotsky (1978), teacher written feedback supports and guides students to proceed
through zones of proximal development until they come up with the outcomes (Thurlings, Vermeulen, Bastiaens, & Stijnen,
2013). Scaffolding, which is one of the major concepts in this theory, takes place when the more experienced teacher offers
support and guidance to their students (Lantolf, 2000). Thus, teacher written feedback “draws on the Vygotoskian concept
of scaffolding and how dialogic feedback between teacher and student can enable the student writer to develop both a text
and writing abilities” (Hyland, 2013, p. 247). Similarly, emotional responses towards teacher written feedback is supported
by the sociocultural theory of learning as Vygotsky (1962, p. 252) pointed out that “a true and full understanding of another’s
thought is possible only when we understand its affective-volitional basis”. Furthermore, Bartlett (1967), the father of schema
theory, showed that affect plays an essential role in cognition because it serves as the basis for thinking and remembering.
Building on Bartlett’s schema theory, Fiske (1982) showed that affect is inextricably woven into our knowledge domains as
they are constructed. Moreover, it has been proposed that emotion has a central role in the mediation of written feedback
(Dowden et al., 2013).
The socio-constructivism theory of learning views knowledge as a socially constructed meaning that is evolved through
individuals’ interactions with each other within their environment (Gredler, 1997; Prawat & Floden, 1994). In viewing teacher
written feedback from the perspectives of the socio-constructivism theory, teacher written feedback is understood as an
ongoing exchange of communication between the teacher and the student writers. In this dynamic process of interaction,
the finished text is socially constructed: both the teacher and student writer have their crucial roles to play in such dynamic
interaction through written feedback and drafting.
56 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

2.3. Teacher written feedback and emotions

In L2 writing contexts, early studies examined the focus of teacher written feedback (e.g., Cumming, 1985; Fathman
& Whalley, 1990; Zamel, 1985), and students’ preferences of feedback (e.g., Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Radecki & Swales,
1988). After that, studies shift the focus to be on examining the effectiveness of teacher written feedback on students’
revision and writing (e.g., Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1997; Hyland, 1998; Hyland & Hyland, 2001). However, very few
studies have focused exclusively on L2 students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Enginarlar (1993)
and Radecki and Swales (1988) pointed out that L2 students have positive feelings towards written feedback. Focusing on
students in EFL writing courses, Zacharias (2007) found that the majority of the student respondents (75%) felt excited,
followed by confused (39%), discouraged (25%), irritated (3%), disappointed (3%), and stressed (1%). Rather than examining
the association between emotional responses and types of teacher written feedback, Zacharias examined a general picture of
students’ emotional responses. Mahfoodh and Pandian (2011) focused on EFL university students’ affective reactions to and
perceptions of teacher written feedback. They found that EFL university students revealed some affective reactions towards
teacher written feedback. However, their study has not adequately dealt with the issue of emotional responses towards
teacher written feedback because the main focus of their study was directed towards examining EFL students’ perceptions
of teacher written feedback.
Most studies on teacher written feedback have been conducted in Western contexts and in the United States with a
main focus on advanced students in process-oriented classrooms (refer to Ferris, 2003 for review). In addition to this, it
has been noted that previous research on teacher written feedback has been concerned about describing the characteristics
of the response and students’ interpretation of and attitudes towards teacher written feedback (Parr & Timperley, 2010).
In addition to this, the review of previous studies has revealed that these studies have their shortcomings. For example,
previous studies in EFL context have not given proper attention to students’ emotional responses towards teacher written
feedback. Although Lipnevich and Smith (2009) examined students’ perceptions of the effect of feedback on their motivation
and emotion and found that praise had a positive effect on students’ emotion, they did not focus on exploring the differential
emotional responses to different types of teacher written feedback. Similarly, the need for studies on L2 leaners’ emotional
responses towards feedback has been noticed by Hyland (1998) who indicated that “future research needs to look more
closely at affective factors in feedback situations and especially at student reactions to positive feedback and evaluation in
L2 contexts” (p. 280). Similarly, Värlander (2008) argued that “empirical research investigating students’ emotions related to
feedback situations is needed” (p. 154). Recently, Robinson et al. (2013) have suggested that future research on feedback in
higher education should look into how students respond emotionally to written comments. In another recent study, Dowden
et al. (2013) argued that in higher education research, emotional responses and their role in the process of teachers’ written
feedback have not been addressed adequately.

3. The study

This study is a part of large project which has focused on teacher written feedback in an EFL context. The study reported
in this paper aimed to investigate how EFL university students respond emotionally to teacher written feedback. Thus, the
study seeks to answer the following three research questions:

1. What is the relationship between EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback and the
success of students’ revisions?
2. What is the relationship between EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback and
types of this feedback?
3. Are there variations of emotional responses towards teacher written feedback across students and across essays of an
individual student?

To address these three research questions, the study utilised a qualitative research design to give a thick and detailed
description of EFL university students’ emotional experiences regarding teacher written feedback they received on their
essays throughout one full semester (fourteen weeks) in two EFL writing courses.

4. Methods

4.1. Context of the study

This study is a part of a large research project on teacher written feedback in an EFL university context. The research
context was the Department of English language in a public university in an Arab country, Yemen, where university students
majoring in English have little contact and exposure to English language. However, similar to Arab countries, this country
has witnessed a wide spread of the use of English in different fields of life. Each public university in the country has a
department of English language. In addition, English language is included in the curriculum of primary and secondary
schools in the country.
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 57

The writing courses which were selected for this study were ‘Writing Skills Course 2’ and ‘Writing Skills Course 4’. This
context was selected because the students in these two writing courses were required to write various types of essays
including descriptive and expository essays. Furthermore, in this context, several aspects of the process approach were
applied, and the students were asked to produce multiple drafts. For ethical considerations, written official permissions
for conducting data collection were obtained from the university, faculty, and department. Furthermore, before I started
data collection, I talked to the students and the teachers in the two writing courses about the nature of the study and its
requirements and obtained their consent to be involved in the study.

4.2. Design of the study and the participants

A qualitative approach in designing the study and gathering and analysing data was adopted and found to be appropriate
because this approach has been identified as an important response to the sociocultural turn in L2 writing research. A
qualitative approach has been regarded as gradual extension of the focus of analysis from textual and procedural practices
to the inclusion of the complex interactions of different contextual and social factors that shape L2 students’ texts and their
language development (Kubota, 1998). Additionally, this study was conducted from a constructivist perspective in which
‘realities exist in the form of mental constructions that are socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature
. . ., and dependent for their form and content on the persons who hold them’ (Silva, 2005, p. 8). Regarding this, Stake
(1995) argued that current qualitative researchers support the belief that knowledge should be constructed rather than
explored. This constructivist view can encourage researchers to provide readers with good raw material and thick description
for further generalisations and consideration. The participants were eight EFL university students and two teachers (PhD
holders) in two writing courses. Using Sommers’ (1982) scheme of L2 revisers and with the help of the two teachers, the
eight students (four from each course) were selected. To select the eight students, the teachers of the two writing courses
were asked to identify some students based on Sommers’ (1982) revisers’ scheme. The two teachers were very familiar
with their students’ writing abilities and revision processes because they had taught them in earlier writing courses. The
researcher met the two teachers and gave them a sheet of the characteristics of each type of reviser. The teachers responded
enthusiastically to the researcher’s request: each one provided six to ten names for each category. Some students whom
the researcher contacted expressed their interest in participating but claimed that they had demanding course loads. Eight
students were interested to participate in the study who, in turn, were briefed about the research, its requirements, its
duration, and its sessions. The two teachers of the two selected writing courses participated in this study. It is important to
mention that the researcher was not involved in teaching or marking.
Although the sample of this study may be considered to be small (only eight students and two teachers), I would like
to argue that the focus of the study is on the total number of written feedback points given on students’ written texts.
Furthermore, a small sample size is the recommended procedure in qualitative research. For example, Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls,
and Ormston (2013, p. 117) have argued that “sample size need to be kept to a reasonably small scale” to enable a researcher
to manage “many hundreds of bites of information from each unit of data collection”. In addition, it has been observed
that several published studies on teacher written feedback have used qualitative research designs with small number of
participants (as examples, refer to Mahfoodh & Pandian, 2011; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Hyland, 1998, 2013; Hyland &
Hyland, 2001; Zamel, 1985).

4.3. Data collection

Students’ written texts, think-aloud protocols, and semi-structured interviews were employed to obtain information on
students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Students’ written essays were 20 with at least two drafts
for each; and the number of words in these essays varied between 280 and 650. While each student in ‘Writing Skills 2’
produced three essays, each student in ‘Writing Skills 4’ produced two essays. Data collection started with the first drafts the
students produced for the first written essay. The second step was requesting the students to think-aloud while referring
to the first commented-on drafts. They were informed to focus on their reactions to teacher written feedback they were
reading. The third step was conducting interviews with the students to obtain their emotional responses towards teacher
written feedback they received on the first drafts. It is important to mention that for each written essays, these steps were
repeated. Detail explanations on these steps are given in Section 4.5 and Fig. 1.
During data collection, teacher written feedback which was provided on all students’ essays was collected. All written
feedback points were sorted. According to Hyland (1998), a feedback point is a piece of written intervention which focuses
on an aspect of a written text. This strategy of identifying and classifying teacher written feedback into points was followed
by Hyland and Hyland (2001) who stated that feedback points may refer to “single written interventions that focused on a
particular aspect of the text” (p. 190). For example, when a feedback point asks the student to change the tense of a clause
in the revised draft, it is considered to be a feedback point because it focuses on a grammatical aspect. All points of teacher
written feedback, which were 944, were tabulated and put into catalogues to prepare them for the analysis phase. These
points of teacher written feedback were also entered in SPSS for further analysis.
58 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

Teacher-students’ activities Researcher’s activities

Teacher’s introduction of
the topic of the composition

Students’ first drafts Collection of the first drafts

Teacher written feedback Collection and cataloguing teacher

on the first drafts written feedback (Table 1)

Students’ think-aloud session regarding

Students’ receiving the their affective reactions to and
commented-one drafts understanding of teacher written feedback

Collection of Analysis of students’

the second utilisation of teacher
Students’ second drafts drafts written feedback

Interviewing students regarding their

affective reactions to and understanding
of teacher written feedback

Teacher written feedback Cataloguing teacher written feedback (Table 1)

on the second drafts

Collection of Analysis of
the final students’ utilisation
Students’ final drafts drafts of teacher written
feedback

Interviewing students regarding their

affective reactions to and understanding
of teacher written feedback

Fig. 1. Research procedures: Teacher-students’ activities and researcher’s activities.

4.4. Data analysis

In this section, first I provide a description of how interviews and think-aloud protocols were analysed. Second, analysis
of teacher written feedback is explained. Finally, a description of how students’ success of revisions was analysed and traced
is given. Yet, before these issues are explained, the approach that has informed data analysis needs to be made clear.
Grounded theory approach (Strauss, 1987) informed data analysis of think-aloud protocols and semi-structured inter-
views. Researchers who adapt this approach are recommended to move back and forth between their empirical data and
theory construction. To analyse data based on this approach, I referred to Corbin and Strauss (2014), Glaser (1998), and Glaser
and Strauss (2009). I analysed the data several times starting with open coding of students’ emotional responses and moving
to axial coding. In the open coding, I applied temporary labels of students’ emotional responses towards teacher written
feedback. In the axial coding, I made connections between the categories established in the open coding. In the selective
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 59

coding, I figured out core variables that include all data. The final codes of emotional responses were also connected to
students’ success of revisions and types of teacher written feedback respectively.

4.4.1. Analysis of interviews and think-aloud

Using ground theory, semi-structured interviews and think-aloud protocols were analysed to examine students’ emo-
tional responses towards teacher written feedback. Interviews and think-aloud protocols were first digitally recorded and
transcribed verbatim. After that, the transcripts were given to the interviewees for validation. Dependability in this study
involves respondent validation and debriefing by two academicians who were experts in applied linguistics. The transcripts
were coded based on emergent themes and categories. Data analysis took the form of constant comparative analysis whereby
themes were identified and coded as they surfaced (Miles & Huberman, 1994). As new themes emerged, they were compared
with the previous ones and regrouped with similar themes. The responses were sorted into conceptual categories on the
basis of similarities and differences. The analytical process was iterative and data analysis involved a number of readings of
transcripts and progressive refining of emerging categories. Two academicians were requested to analyse some portions of
the data independently. Their notes were discussed with the researcher to reach consensus.
The final coding scheme used for analysing emotional responses towards teacher written feedback consists of eight com-
ponents: acceptance of written feedback, rejection of feedback, surprise, happiness, dissatisfaction, disappointment, frustration,
and satisfaction (refer to Table 2). A mere examination of these components may lead to misunderstanding that there is an
overlap. In fact, there are almost no cases of overlapping because this final coding scheme (Table 2) was the outcome of
several times of reading and analysing data employing grounded theory. Most of these emotional responses were derived
from adjectives such as happy, disappointed, dissatisfied, and frustrated which cannot overlap.
Rejection and acceptance are considered emotional responses not cognitive ones because they are not associated with
actions concerning revisions done by the students. Furthermore, acceptance and rejection of feedback report students’
immediate reactions to teacher written feedback (Quinton & Smallbone, 2010) before the do any modification in their texts.
Furthermore, some studies that were conducted on the relationship between emotion and learning have treated acceptance
and rejection as the most commonly mentioned emotional responses. For example, Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, and Perry (2002)
have found that acceptance is one of the emotional responses. In another study, Burkšaitienė (2012) states that “delivering
feedback, especially critical feedback, may cause strong emotional reactions (including defensiveness, rejection of feedback,
perception of feedback as a personal attack, threatening one’s ego” (p. 40).
Surprise is considered in this study as an emotional response for two reasons. First, surprise has been reported as an
emotional reaction not a cognitive one in various studies. For example, Sargeant et al. (2011) explored the use of a model that
included emotion, content, and outcomes for multisource feedback. Their model is a questionnaire-based assessment and
feedback process that is widely used in UK and other countries. They found that feedback “elicited surprise and emotional
responses (e.g., pleasure, disappointment)” (p. 746). Second, surprise is considered an emotional response because the
students in this study expressed this particular feeling several times in their think-aloud sessions and interviews.

4.4.2. Analysis of teacher written feedback

All feedback points were analysed based on a coding scheme which was developed based on the schemes of both Ferris
(1997) and Straub and Lunsford (1995). As shown in Table 1, the coding scheme consists of seven types of teacher written
feedback. In this study, the type of teacher written feedback refers to the intent or purpose of the teacher when giving
written feedback on students’ written texts. All 944 written feedback points were coded using the adapted coding scheme
(refer to Table 1). In Table 1, each type of feedback is described with some examples for some types. Direct coded is a type
of feedback in which codes and symbols, which are taken from “an abbreviated code system”, are used to indicate the type

Table 1
Description of types of teacher written feedback.

Type Description

1. Direct coded Using a code or a symbol such as “SP”, “VF”, “TV”, and “CS”.
2. Giving information Providing student with factual information on the topic
the student wrote on.
3. Giving praise Positive written feedback on student’s writing: a long
sentence to one single word such as “Good introduction”
and “OK”.
4. Grammar/editing Indicating problems in grammar, structures, or editing.
5. Making a request Requests for addition, deletion, or modification in any
aspects of the essay. They can be direct or indirect and
might call for extensive change or minimal one.
6. Negative evaluation Objective criticisms about any aspect of the student’s
written text or general criticism about the student or
his/her draft.
7. Reflective statements Reader-responses, personal notes, funny remarks, and any
apology. Written comments that are not grouped under
one of the category listed here might be grouped under
this category too.
60 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

of error or problem in students’ written texts (Sheen, 2007, p. 258). Grammar/editing type refers to written feedback that
indicates problems in grammar, structures, or punctuation in students’ written texts. Negative evaluation feedback refers to
criticism given by teachers on any aspect of written texts. It may also refer to general criticism about the student or his/her
draft. The type of reflective statements is a category of teacher written feedback that refers to reader-responses, personal and
funny remarks, or statements that cannot be grouped under other types of teacher written feedback (Straub & Lunsford,
1995).
To determine consistency among raters (the researcher and the invited rater), an inter-rater reliability (see, Cohen, 1960)
analysis using the Kappa statistic was performed in SPSS version 22. Kappa value for the inter-rater reliability of coding
types of written feedback was 0.84. This kind of inter-rater reliability measure was chosen because it is the most common
measure and takes into account the agreement among raters. It is significant to mention that most statisticians prefer
Kappa values to be at least 0.6 and most often higher than 0.7 before claiming a good level of agreement (e.g., Cohen, 1960;
Krippendorff, 1980; Landis & Koch, 1977). The researcher sat together with the raters and found solutions for some instances
of discrepancies.

4.4.3. Analysis of students’ success of revisions

Students’ success of revisions after using teacher written feedback was also analysed. To carry out this analysis, the first
draft and drafts following it in each essay were analysed very carefully to trace students’ success of revisions. This was done
using an analytical scheme based on Conrad and Goldstein (1999). This analytical scheme consists of three points on a scale:
not revised, unsuccessful revision, and successful revision. As pointed out by Ferris (2003), one of the positive features of
this analytical scheme is that it provides ideas on the influence of teacher written feedback on students’ revisions. Some
written comments were not included in this analysis because they did not ask the students to do any modifications in their
texts.
Using SPSS version 22, all 944 feedback points were entered. For each point of written feedback, the essay number, type of
teacher written feedback, student’s emotional response, and student’s degree of utilisation were also entered. This was done
to examine the relationship between students’ emotional responses and students’ success of revisions. Besides, this step in
the analysis was employed to understand whether there was a relationship between types of teacher written feedback and
students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback.

4.5. Procedures of the research

Fig. 1 summarises the research procedures of and the researcher’s activities. Teacher-students’ activities are given on the
left of the figure, and they include two activities: students’ production of drafts of essays and teachers’ provision of feedback.
On the right of the figure, teacher’s activities are presented. These activities include collecting and analysing data. As shown
in Fig. 1, for each essay, I collected students’ first drafts which were written based on the topic given by the teachers. After
the teachers provided feedback on students’ first drafts, the commented-on first drafts were photocopied for the purpose of
listing and cataloguing all feedback points. When the students received their first commented-on drafts, they were asked to
reveal their emotional responses towards teacher written feedback in thinking-aloud sessions. After that, students’ second
drafts were collected to be used in the interviews and in the analysis of students’ utilisation of teacher written feedback. In
addition, the students were interviewed regarding their emotional responses towards, their understanding of, and their use
of teacher written feedback. After the teachers provided feedback on the second drafts, these drafts were photocopied for
the purpose of listing and cataloguing all feedback points. These steps/procedures were followed for all essays.

5. Results

In reporting the results, students’ voices concerning their emotional responses towards teacher written feedback are
reflected in representative quotations taken from their interviews and think-aloud protocols. In these representative quota-
tions, extra explanation is given in square brackets, if needed. Taking into account the three research questions of the study,
the results are reported in three sub-sections here: 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. While Section 5.1 reports the important concern of
this study which is the relationship between students’ emotional responses and success of revisions, Section 5.2 deals with
the results of examining the relationship between EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written
feedback and types of this feedback. Section 5.3 is a short one in which variations of emotional responses towards teacher
written feedback across students and across essays of an individual student are reported.

5.1. Students’ emotional responses and students’ success of revisions

The analysis of data revealed that students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback include acceptance of
written feedback, rejection of written feedback, surprise, happiness, dissatisfaction, disappointment, frustration, and satisfaction.
Table 2 summarises the frequencies and percentages of students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. As
shown in Table 2, the most recurring emotional response is acceptance of feedback with 710 times (75.2%). This is followed
by 86 cases of rejection of feedback (9.1%). The emotional response of surprise constituted 4% of the total number of emotional
responses, and feeling of happiness happened 32 times (3.4%). While data analysis revealed that there were 27 instances of
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 61

Table 2
Emotional responses towards teacher written feedback.

Emotional response Frequency Percentage

1. Acceptance of feedback 710 75.2%

2. Rejection of feedback 86 9.1%
3. Surprise 38 4.0%
4. Feeling of happiness 32 3.4%
5. Dissatisfaction 27 2.9%
6. Disappointment 21 2.2%
7. Frustration 16 1.7%
8. Satisfaction 14 1.5%
Total 944 100%

dissatisfaction (2.9%), 21 instances of disappointment (2.2%) were found. The emotional responses of frustration and satisfaction
had small percentages: 1.7% and 1.5% respectively.
It is worthy to mention that rejection of feedback is considered to be constructive because this type of emotional response
provides feedback to teachers on the effectiveness of their written feedback. When a student rejects to do a change based
on a specific point of written feedback, a teacher needs to understand the cause of this rejection. Furthermore, rejection
of feedback can be understood as a sign of students’ development because, based on the constructivist view of learning,
knowledge is constructed through negotiation between teachers and students. In other words, the finished texts are not
purely owned and shaped by the students; rather these texts have been also shaped by the teacher who gave feedback on
these texts.
One of the emotional responses towards teacher written feedback revealed by the students was that they accepted a great
deal of teacher written feedback they received. In this way, the students also revealed that they paid great attention to teacher
written feedback because they relied on it for revising their drafts and developing their writing skills. An important piece of
evidence of this is that for each written essay, each student produced at least two drafts based on their utilisation of teacher
written feedback. This also shows that the students gave careful attention to most of teacher written feedback they received.
To express their engagement with teacher written feedback, the students also showed that they read their commented-on
essays several times. Excerpts 1–4 below obviously reveal these emotional responses towards teacher written feedback.
In Excerpt 1 below, Faizah expressed she felt happy. Her justification for this feeling was that she liked to receive comments
from her teacher. She considered her teacher’s comments useful as her teacher raised aspects of weaknesses in her written
texts. In Excerpt 2, Ahmad shows that he did not like comments in which correction codes were used because he did not
understand the meanings of these codes. Thus, both Faizah and Ahmad justified their emotional responses.

Excerpt 1
Interviewer What is your reaction to teacher written comments? Are you happy with it or you feel angry or disappointed
when you read the comments given by the teacher? Are you satisfied?
Faizah Happy. I like teacher feedback.
Interviewer You need the teacher to give you more comments.
Faizah I prefer the teacher give their comments and corrections because after his comments and corrections I will learn
from my mistakes.
Interviewer Good. (Faizah, 1st Interview)

Excerpt 2
Interviewer Do you like the teacher written comments?
Ahmad Yes.
Interviewer All written comments?
Ahmad No. The codes I don’t like because I did not understand. (Ahmad, 1st Interview)

Excerpt 3
Interviewer Do you like the teacher written comments? Some students may feel unhappy disappointed when they read
and look at the comments given by the teacher.
Faizah For me, no [She means she liked teacher written feedback].(Faizah, 1st Interview)

Excerpt 4
Interviewer Do you like to the teacher to continue giving comments and corrections on your essays?
Najwa Yes. (Najwa, 2nd Interview)

The students also revealed that they liked written feedback which praised their writing. Although teacher written feed-
back that praised students’ written texts did not help the students to revise their essays, comments praising students’ work
encouraged them to revise their essays. It is significant to mention that this finding may be viewed as a predicted one.
62 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

However, this study has revealed an important issue: the students did not like plenty of praising comments. This is because
some students pointed out that a balance between praise and criticism was necessary. In one of Najwa’s written texts, she
received a written comment which was “this is a nice and good introduction”. Najwa’s emotional response to this written
comment was “I liked this comment very much. I love it so much because this comment encouraged me to do the best” (Najwa,
2nd Think-aloud protocol). Furthermore, the interviews with Ahmad highlighted the importance of the balance between
praise and criticism as shown in Excerpt 5. For Ahmad, some feedback inspired positive feelings, but Ahmad here did not
indicate that he needed all written feedback to be positive. Rather for him, the provision of feedback which praises students’
work with indication of the good and well-written aspects in the written product is useful.

Excerpt 5
Interviewer So you better prefer using comments that praise?
Ahmad Not exactly but praising and giving good feedback that help me to improve not only blaming. (Ahmad, 1st Interview)

The feeling of happiness as an emotional response towards teacher written feedback was also reported by some students in
their think-aloud protocols and interviews. Excerpts 6 and 7 below clearly reflect how some students responded emotionally
to positive and encouraging written comments such as “Good conclusion” and “Nice”. It can be found that Ahmad expressed
happiness because he found that good things he did in his text were accepted and endorsed by his teacher (refer to Excerpt
6). In Excerpt 7, Shams revealed that she felt happy because she found that her teacher praised the introduction paragraph
in one of her written texts.
Excerpt 6
First he [his teacher] wrote “you have done a good job” and second wrote “your organization is good”. Thank you. I
am happy . . . as my teacher finds that I did good things in my essays.
(Ahmad, 3rd Think-aloud protocol)
Excerpt 7
Here the teacher wrote “good introduction”. I am happy because he wrote about my good introduction.
(Shams, 2nd Think-aloud protocol)
The students also showed their acceptance of a great deal of teacher written comments they received. The following
representative quotations (Excerpts 8–12) from students’ interviews and think-aloud protocols are some of many pieces
of evidence that can clearly reflect students’ acceptance of feedback. The majority of the students accepted teacher written
feedback because they found teacher feedback useful for developing their writing skills and improving their written texts.
Excerpt 8
The teacher gave me here a structure to use [feedback is “was used/has been used”]. I agree.
(Shams, 2nd Think-aloud protocol)
Excerpt 9
In fact I agree with all comments given by my teacher because they helped me.
(Sameerah, 2nd Think-aloud protocol)
Excerpt 10
Well! But I agree with the teacher’s comment [feedback: “Give a general statement on tourism industry”].
(Faizah, 3rd Think-aloud protocol)
Excerpt 11
There he wrote ‘What’ after ‘some’ . . . Yeah I forget to write ‘people’ or ‘some people learn English [Writing feedback
is writing “What” after ‘some’] I agree with this with this ‘What’.
(Shams, 1st Think-aloud protocol)

Excerpt 12
Interviewer Here the lecturer gave this comment “What do you mean? Clarify or delete?” Do you agree with this comment?
Najwa I agree with this comment. (Najwa, 1st Interview)

The students showed rejection of feedback and expressed also dissatisfaction to some written feedback that they did not
understand. The students did not like written comments in which their teachers used codes and correction symbols such
as “VF” (verb form), “PL” (plural), and “CS” (comma splice). In some situations, the students explained that their rejection of
particular written feedback was due to the issue that the teachers did not understand what the students conveyed in their
texts. It is shown in the excerpts given below that the communication between the teachers and the students over a written
text sometimes was unsuccessful because the students insisted that their teachers did not understand what students wanted
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 63

to convey in particular parts of their written texts. This miscommunication between students and their teachers resulted
in emotional responses of rejection of feedback, as shown Excerpts 13–20 below. In this study, rejection of feedback has been
found to be an important aspect of emotional responses because it relates to future revisions that students do. Rejection of
feedback shows that the students gained enough confidence as writers and intellectuals to make judgments about rhetorical
choices that contradict the teacher’s instruction.

Excerpt 13
Interviewer What about these corrections [Interviewer points at some of the teacher’s correction symbols]. You also did
not understand?
Ahmad Which?
Interviewer I mean these “VF” and others here.
Ahmad Not understand.
Interviewer Why? Because they are codes?
Ahmad Yes. You are right. (Ahmad, 1st Interview)

Excerpt 14
Interviewer Ok. You like the teacher written comments and corrections
Faizah Yeah I like but mmm sometimes I don’t like because I don’t agree with the comments. (Faizah, 2nd interview)

Excerpt 15
Faizah I am sure my word ‘teachers’ is correct. [Written feedback is crossing ‘teachers’ and writing ‘instructors’]
Interviewer You don’t agree, do you?
Faizah The word ‘teachers’ is right. (Faizah, 1st interview)

Excerpt 16
And I don’t agree with others because the teacher did not understand what I meant or the meaning of the whole
sentence was not clear to the teacher. (Sameerah, 3rd think-aloud protocol)

Excerpt 17
Mazen Yeah. I don’t agree with this comment.
Interviewer Is it because you wanted to say something but the teacher could not understand it because of your misspelling
[the talk is on Mazen’s reasons for disagreement on the correction of ‘next’]
Mazen Yes and I think ‘next’ not come here cannot be used here. (Mazen, 1st interview)

Excerpt 18
Interviewer Here the teacher circled the word ‘father’.
Shams Father . . . Yes.
Interviewer And then the teacher gave you here a comment ‘Call it parents’.
Shams I wrote ‘father’ because father is who responsible for family.
Interviewer So, you don’t agree with this correction?
Shams Yeah.
Interviewer Because?
Shams My intention is different than the teacher’s. (Shams, 2nd Interview)

Excerpt 19
My teacher’s comment is ‘Inadequate coverage of the topic. You included many irrelevant pieces of information’ . . . I
think my information were clear . . . I think the reader will understand the meaning I want him to understand. (Shams,
1st interview)

Excerpt 20
Interviewer Ok. The teacher gave you one feedback at the end of the first draft [feedback is “This paragraph is good and it
can be added to the previous one. And then you should give conclusion”]. Was it useful for you?
Najwa No.
Interviewer Why wasn’t this comment useful for you?
Najwa Teacher asking me to add a conclusion but I did not agree because my conclusion in the first draft was enough.
(Najwa, 2nd Interview)

This study also revealed that with their rejection of some points of feedback, Sameerah, Shams, and Swasan in Excerpts
21–24 given below insisted that they were sure about the use of some particular content in their written texts. However,
64 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

in some cases the students revealed their rejection of teacher written feedback without the inclusion of any reason. This
type of emotional response can be attributed to the fact that some students lacked knowledge to justify their rejection of
feedback in the semi-structured interviews and/or think-aloud sessions.

Excerpt 21
Interviewer The teacher wrote here “studied”.
Sameerah Just I should change the form of the verb. I did not agree with some comments and corrections given by my
teacher because he did not understand what I wanted to say. (Sameerah, 2nd Interview)

Excerpt 22
When the teacher wrote “You are not asked about the purpose of learning English” I don’t like it really.
(Shams, 1st Think-aloud protocol)
Excerpt 23
I think I did not agree with him [she means her teacher; feedback is “putting a big circle on the third paragraph” and
wrote “irrelevant”]
(Sawsan, 1st Think-aloud protocol)
Excerpt 24
I wanted to say there are many problems in our country and because of these problems we are called third world and
dropping out of school can be because many problems [teacher underlined ‘for that reason, we . . . world’]. I think I
did not add anything irrelevant to the introduction.
(Shams, 3rd Think-aloud protocol)
Other emotional responses the students revealed were surprise, frustration, and disappointment. Excerpts 25–26 from
students’ interviews and think-aloud sessions show how some students revealed their surprise.
Excerpt 25
But when I see this [Fatima means when she saw this correction] when I found this comment I felt surprised [the
teacher deleted “teachers” and wrote “instructors”] . . . why did he made this correction.
(Faizah, 1st Interview)

Excerpt 26
Interviewer Do you feel frustrated when you see these comments and corrections in your drafts?
Mazen No. I rather feel surprised because I did not expect all these comments from my teacher. (Mazen, 2nd Interview)

When the students were asked about the causes of their emotional responses of surprise, dissatisfaction, frustration, and
disappointment, they offered some situations in which they felt frustrated when they read or saw too many written comments
in red colour on their drafts. In one of the interviews, Shams stated, “When I see this big circle and these comments I feel I don’t
like even to read these comments” (Shams, 1st Think-aloud protocol). Shams’s emotional response here could be attributed to
the way in which her teacher put his written feedback (i.e., using a big circle on one of the paragraphs of the first draft of her
first essay). In the same think-aloud protocol, Shams declared, “I want to say that all these comments made me feel upset and
frustrated to write another essay” (Shams, 1st Think-aloud protocol). In general, the students felt frustrated and disappointed
when they found their drafts full of comments, corrections, circles, and marks in red colour.
So far in this section, the students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback are reported. However, a
question may be raised regarding the relationship between emotional responses and students’ success of revisions. A similar
important question may be raised concerning the relationship between emotional responses and types of teacher written
feedback. Thus, the rest of this section focuses on the first important concern and Section 5.2 deals with the second one.
To examine the relationship between students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback and success of
their revisions, the analysis focuses on (1) both interviews and think-aloud sessions (reported above in this section), (2)
types of teacher written feedback, and (3) students’ success of revisions. While Table 3 displays frequencies of types of
teacher written feedback, frequencies of students’ revisions are presented in Table 4. Moreover, the Crosstabs procedure in
SPSS was also used to summarise the relationship between the two variables (emotional responses and students’ success of
revisions). Through cross-tabulation the number of times each of the possible category combinations occurred in the data
was obtained.
Using SPSS, the frequency and percentage of each type of teacher written feedback were obtained (refer to Table 3). The
highest number of feedback were in direct coded, giving information, and grammar/editing types with 26.4%, 26.3%, and 24.5%
respectively. For making request, there were 144 points of teacher written feedback (15.3%). As shown in Table 3, only 36
points of written feedback (3.8%) were categorised under giving praise. The frequencies of negative evaluation and reflective
statements were very small: 22 (2.3%) and 14 (1.5) respectively.
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 65

Table 3
Total of teacher written feedback in each type.

Types of teacher written feedback Total Percentage

1. Direct coded 249 26.4%

2. Giving information 248 26.3%
3. Grammar/editing 231 24.5%
4. Making request 144 15.3%
5. Giving praise 36 3.8%
6. Negative evaluation 22 2.3%
7. Reflective statements 14 1.5%
Total 944 100.0%

Table 4
Students’ success of revisions after teacher written feedback.

Analytical scheme Frequency Percentage

1 Not revised 83 9.4%

2 Unsuccessful revision 60 6.8%
3 Successful revision 741 83.8%
Total 884 100%

Note: 60 written feedback points were not rated.

Table 5
Crosstabs of students’ emotional responses and revisions.

Not revised Unsuccessful revision Successful revision Not rated Total

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

1. Acceptance of feedback 1 – 26 3.7% 676 95.2% 7 – 710

2. Rejection of feedback 73 84.9% 13 15.1% 0 – 0 – 86
3. Surprise 0 – 3 – 35 92.1% 0 – 38
4. Feeling of happiness 0 – 0 – 0 – 32 100.0% 32
5. Dissatisfaction 3 – 12 44.4% 10 – 2 – 27
6. Disappointment 2 – 5 23.8% 07 33.3% 7 33.3% 21
7. Frustration 4 – 0 – 12 75.0% 0 – 16
8. Satisfaction 0 – 1 – 1 – 12 85.7% 14
Total 83 60 741 60 944

Notes: No percentages were provided for small frequencies.

60 written feedback points were not rated.

Table 4 presents the frequencies for each component in the analytical scheme which was used to analyse students’
success of revisions. It is important to consider that 60 points of written feedback were not rated because these points of
written feedback did not require the students to do any changes in their revised drafts. Some of these unrated comments are
categorised as giving praise. As shown in Table 4, the students did 741 (83.8%) successful revisions. Although the students did
their best to use teacher written feedback in their revised drafts, the components of unsuccessful revisions and not revised
constituted 143 (16.2%).
Regarding the relationship between students’ emotional responses and students’ success of revisions, Table 5 presents
the frequencies of emotional responses in association with the components in the analytical scheme. The emotional response
of acceptance of feedback was reflected in 95.2% of successful revisions. On the other hand, the emotional response of rejection
of feedback was largely reflected in two categories in the analytical scheme: not revised (84.9%) and unsuccessful revision
(15.1%). While the feeling of happiness appeared in 100% of not rated feedback, satisfaction was reflected in 85.7% of not rated
feedback. The emotional response of dissatisfaction appeared in unsuccessful revisions with 44%. Surprisingly, the emotional
responses of surprise, frustration, and disappointment were reflected in only one category of the analytical scheme which is
successful revision with 92.1%, 75%, and 33.35% respectively. In addition, the emotional response of disappointment appeared
in not rated feedback with 33.3%.
With reference to the results presented in Table 5 regarding the relationship between students’ emotional responses
towards teacher written feedback and success of revisions, the most important findings in this study are:

1. Acceptance of feedback as one of the emotional responses towards teacher written feedback could definitely lead the
students to score high percentage of successful revisions.
2. Rejection of feedback as another important emotional response towards teacher written feedback could almost result in
high percentage of not revised actions taken by students.
3. Feeling of happiness occurred mostly when students’ work/written texts were praised. Praising students’ strengths can
help them to build confidence and improve their writing skills.
66 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

Table 6
Crosstabs of emotional responses and types of teacher written feedback.

Direct coded Giving Giving praise Grammar/editing Making request Negative Reflective Total
informa- information evaluation statements
tion

1. Acceptance of 183 (25.8%) 220 0 199 105 (14.8%) 0 3 710

feedback (31.0%) (28.0%)
2. Rejection of 22 (25.6%) 21 0 26 17 0 0 86
feedback (24.4%) (30.2%) (19.8%)
3. Surprise 22 2 0 5 2 4 3 38
(57.9%)
4. Feeling of 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 32
happiness (100%)
5. Dissatisfaction13 2 0 0 6 4 2 27
(48%)
6. Disappointment 1 1 0 1 7 22 2 21
(42.9%)
7. Frustration 8 0 0 0 1 9 2 16
(50.0%) (31.3%)
8. Satisfaction 0 2 4 0 6 0 2 14
(22.2%)
Total 249 248 36 231 144 22 14 944

Note: No percentages were provided for small frequencies.

4. Although surprise, disappointment, and frustration are emotional responses that may discourage students to revise their
work, in this study they yielded cases of successful revisions. This can be attributed to EFL students’ strong beliefs in the
authority of their teachers. EFL students think that their teachers’ knowledge is the best.
5. Disappointment was an emotional response towards teacher written feedback that could most probably lead to unsuc-
cessful revisions.
6. The emotional response of satisfaction was mostly associated with feedback points that did not require the students to
do any revisions.

5.2. Students’ emotional responses and types of teacher written feedback

The second research question in this study is to examine the relationship between students’ emotional responses towards
teacher written feedback and types of feedback. The Crosstabs procedure in SPSS was used to summarise the relationship
between two variables (emotional responses and types of feedback). Through cross-tabulation, which is also known as a
contingency table, the number of times each of the possible category combinations occurred in the data was obtained. Table 6
below shows that the major instances of acceptance of feedback was shown in four types of teacher written feedback: giving
information (31%), grammar/editing (28%), direct coded (25.8%), and making request (14.8%). For the feeling of happiness, 100%
of this type of emotional response was associated with giving praise. The feeling of satisfaction was mostly reflected in making
request feedback type with 22.2%. Regarding rejection of feedback, it was shown in four types of teacher written feedback:
grammar/editing (30.2%), direct coded (25.6%), giving information (24.4%), and making request (19.8%). Emotional responses of
surprise, frustration, and dissatisfaction were reflected in direct coded with 57.9%, 50%, and 48% respectively. In addition, data
analysis revealed that the emotional response of disappointment was mostly associated with negative evaluation (42.9%).
Generally, this study has revealed that teacher written feedback evoked various types of students’ emotional responses.
However, most of the emotional responses were associated with direct coded, giving information, and giving praise types of
teacher written feedback. Furthermore, types of teacher written feedback on which the students agreed with their teachers
or feedback that praised students’ work evoked emotional responses of acceptance of feedback, satisfaction, and feeling of
happiness because these types of feedback helped the students to be aware of the weaknesses in their texts. Giving information
type of teacher written feedback made the students feel happy and satisfied because the students’ task in incorporating this
type of feedback was easy.
Data analysis has also shown that emotional responses of rejection of feedback, surprise, and dissatisfaction were also
evoked by direct coded, making request, and grammar/editing types of teacher written feedback because the students did
not understand the codes and symbols used by the teachers, did not understand the request conveyed in written feedback
messages, or were harshly criticised. In addition, having too much feedback of direct coded, grammar/editing, and making
request types of teacher written feedback evoked emotional responses of surprise and disappointment because the students
felt that their texts were not good. On the other hand, negative evaluation type of feedback clearly made the students in this
study feel surprised, disappointed, and frustrated because such feedback, although constituted small percentages, included
harsh criticism of students’ texts. Thus we can conclude that there is a relationship between negative emotional responses
(such as rejection of feedback, surprise, and dissatisfaction) and direct coded, making request, and grammar/editing types of
teacher written feedback. These negative emotional responses can be attributed to students’ lack of understanding teacher
written feedback and miscommunication between the students and their teachers. This is what has been noticed by Hyland
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 67

250
219

200

158
150
128

100
100 92 92 89
66

50

Fig. 2. Variations in students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback.

(2000) who pointed out that effective communication between students and their teacher is one of the factors that can
influence the students to use written feedback successfully.
It is important to mention that I encountered several difficulties in classifying/matching types of teacher written feedback
with emotional responses revealed in this study. However, I did the best in reporting this through doing a repetition of data
analysis. Difficulties I encountered in the analysis of teacher written feedback and students’ emotional responses were all
solved through discussing them with the raters who offered their help in the analysis of the qualitative data and with the
statistician who helped in the use of SPSS.

5.3. Variations of emotional responses towards teacher written feedback

Generally, the results of this study have revealed that EFL university students showed a reasonable range of emotional
responses varying from one student to another. Additionally, this study did not only reveal that EFL students had various types
of emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Rather, the study shown variations in emotional responses across
individual students and across essays of each individual student. To examine these variations, the Crosstabs procedure in SPSS
was used. Table 7 and Fig. 2 are given to reveal variations of emotional responses towards teacher written feedback across
students and even within the essays produced by each individual student. Generally speaking, as presented in Fig. 2, each
student expressed different frequency of emotional responses. While Mazen expressed 219 times of emotional responses,
other students expressed different frequencies of emotional responses: Ahmad (185 times), Sameerah (128 times), Sawsan
(100 times), Faizah and Najwa (92 times each), and Zohoor (66 times).
Data analysis also revealed variations of emotional responses within each type of emotional responses across students. For
example, Mazen expressed 136 instances of acceptance of feedback (19.2%), while other students did not express the identical
number/parentage of acceptance of feedback: Ahmad (18%), Sameerah (14.4%), Najwa (11.1%), Sawsan (10.7%), Faizah (10.3%),
Shams (8.9%), and Zohoor (7.5%) (refer to Table 7). With reference to the feeling of happiness which occurred 32 times in this
study, Shams expressed happiness 7 times, Sawsan expressed this emotional response 6 times, and Najwa expressed it 4
times (refer to Table 7 for further examples).

6. Discussion

This study investigated EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback employing a
qualitative, interpretative approach (see Merriam, 2009; Silverman, 2004). Grounded theory was employed to analyse think-
aloud protocols and semi-structured interviews. Teacher written feedback was analysed using a coding scheme which was
developed based on Ferris (1997) and Straub and Lunsford (1995). Students’ revisions were analysed using an analytical
scheme based on Conrad and Goldstein (1999). Generally speaking, most of the students expressed their acceptance of
feedback (75.2%). This can be attributed to the dependence of EFL students on their teachers as the main source of feedback.
In other words, this reveals that EFL students in writing courses highly appreciate and trust their teachers and consider
 68
Table 7
Variations of emotional responses towards feedback across individual students.

Students Essays Acceptance of Feeling of Satisfaction Rejection of Dissatisfaction Surprise Frustration Disappointment Total
feedback happiness feedback

Ahmad Essay 1 42 0 1 3 5 1 3 0 55
Essay 2 35 1 0 3 2 1 1 0 43
Essay 3 51 3 0 2 4 0 0 0 60
Total 128 4 1 8 11 2 4 0 158
% 18.0% 12.5% 7.1% 9.3% 40.7% 5.3% 25.0% 0.0% 16.7%

Faizah Essay 1 23 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 26
Essay 2 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
Essay 3 18 3 1 10 1 1 0 0 34
Total 73 3 1 12 1 2 0 0 92

O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

% 10.3% 9.4% 7.1% 14.0% 3.7% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7%

Mazen Essay 1 38 2 0 13 5 11 4 4 77
Essay 2 55 1 0 17 0 16 1 1 91
Essay 3 43 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 51
Total 136 5 0 33 5 28 5 7 219
% 19.2% 15.6% 0.0% 38.4% 18.5% 73.7% 31.3% 33.3% 23.2%

Sameerah Essay 1 17 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 20
Essay 2 33 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 40
Essay 3 52 0 0 14 1 0 0 1 68
Total 102 0 1 15 4 1 2 3 128
% 14.4% 0.0% 7.1% 17.4% 14.8% 2.6% 12.5% 14.3% 13.6%

Shams Essay 1 37 4 0 12 1 3 4 1 62
Essay 2 26 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 30
Total 63 7 0 12 2 3 4 1 92
% 8.9% 21.9% 0.0% 14.0% 7.4% 7.9% 25.0% 4.8% 9.7%

Sawsan Essay 1 40 4 0 4 1 0 1 2 52
Essay 2 36 2 4 1 1 0 0 4 48
Total 76 6 4 5 2 0 1 6 100
% 10.7% 18.8% 28.6% 5.8% 7.4% 0.0% 6.3% 28.6% 10.6%

Najwa Essay 1 27 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 28
Essay 2 52 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 61
Total 79 4 3 1 1 1 0 0 89
% 11.1% 12.5% 21.4% 1.2% 3.7% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4%

Zohoor Essay 1 10 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 15
Essay 2 43 3 2 0 1 0 0 2 51
Total 53 3 4 0 1 1 0 4 66
% 7.5% 9.4% 28.6% 0.0% 3.7% 2.6% 0.0% 19.0% 7.0%
Grand total 710 32 14 86 27 38 16 21 944
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 69

them knowledgeable to provide feedback. This is supported by previous studies (e.g., Chiang, 2004; Diab, 2005; Radecki &
Swales, 1988; Zhang, 1995) which showed that EFL students prefer to receive teacher feedback and rate it more highly than
other sources of feedback (i.e., peer feedback and teacher-student conferencing). However, rejection of feedback (as one of
the emotional responses towards teacher written feedback) scored 9.1% of the total number of emotional responses (refer
to Table 2).
Similar to the findings of Zacharias (2007), the students in this study showed a range of emotional responses such as
feeling of happiness, satisfaction, and acceptance of feedback. These findings are in agreement with those of Enginarlar (1993)
and Radecki and Swales (1988) who found that L2 students had positive feelings towards teacher written feedback because
they believed that it helped them to develop and learn more. Students’ emotional responses of satisfaction and acceptance
of feedback towards teacher written feedback can be attributed to suggestions for improvement given by their teachers.
Moreover, these particular emotional responses can be attributed to feedback points (such as grammar/editing and giving
information) that were easy for the students to utilise.
On the other hand, emotional responses of rejection of feedback, surprise, dissatisfaction, disappointment, and frustration
were related to students’ lack of understanding of some written feedback, receiving too many comments on the first/early
draft, or receiving very harsh criticism in which unpleasant words or/and phrases were used. In addition to this, these
particular emotional responses were revealed by the students when they did not agree to feedback points. These findings
are similar to the findings of Hyland (1998) who stressed that negative comments given on students’ written texts can make
students feel disappointed and thus they may postpone revising their written texts. Similar to the findings of Sadler (1998),
this study showed that the negative written comments are discouraging because they may arouse negative emotional
responses. What is new in this study is that emotional responses of rejection of written feedback, surprise, dissatisfaction,
disappointment, and frustration have sometimes resulted in students’ rejection of utilising teacher written feedback for
revising their written texts. This is not general in all written comments because this study has shown that negative feelings
(such as disappointment, frustration, and dissatisfaction) may not lead to unsuccessful use of teacher written. Although it can
be truly claimed that negative reactions most probably yield positive actions or positive outcomes, this study has clearly
revealed that negative emotional responses such as frustration and surprise did not prevent the students to use teacher
written feedback successfully. To make this very clear, we can refer to Table 5 above which shows frustration has led to 12
(75%) successful revisions out of 16 written feedback points that evoked frustration.
The study also revealed that EFL university students expressed that they felt frustrated when they saw their drafts full
of written comments. Although the students wanted to have written feedback, they felt frustrated when they struggled
to understand teacher feedback. Similar to Brice’s (2005) who found that all of the participants involved in her study had
difficulty in understanding teacher written feedback and were frustrated with the symbol system used to indicate grammar,
editing, and vocabulary errors, this study supported this finding.
It is significant to mention that emotional responses differed from one student to another based on contextual factors such
as the type of teacher written feedback and the amount of feedback received on a single draft. In other words, while giving
praise aroused emotional responses such as the feeling of happiness and satisfaction, criticism with unpleasant words has
evoked disappointment and frustration. Thus, EFL university students reacted positively to teacher written feedback points.
This was shown in the high percentage of acceptance of feedback. This finding is in agreement with the findings reported
in Radecki and Swales (1988). However, in my study the students expressed acceptance of feedback, feeling of happiness,
and satisfaction towards feedback that they considered useful for them and to those written feedback points that praised
strengths in their written texts. It is worthy to mention here that researchers do not agree on the impact of praise on students’
revisions or writing quality. While Gee (1972) and Hyland and Hyland (2001) found that praise does not help students to
improve their written texts, other researchers (e.g., Daiker, 1989) have convincingly argued that praise is crucial to students’
successful revisions because praise can alert students to what is good in their texts and what should not be changed when
they revise. Furthermore, Daiker (1989) pointed out that when students are praised, they can experience success that can
encourage them to learn. Regarding this, Hyland and Hyland (2001) confirm that praise may “help reinforce appropriate
language behaviours and foster students’ self-esteem” (p. 186).
Thus, there is relationships between EFL students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback and successful
revisions on one hand, and between emotional responses and types of teacher written feedback on the other hand.

7. The theory

Due to the dearth of research on the relationship between students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feed-
back and students utilisation of teacher feedback, I propose a model on this relationship. This model is presented in Fig. 3
below and it conceptualises the complex and interwoven interaction between four elements/components: students’ texts,
types of teacher written feedback, students’ emotional responses, and students’ success of revision. The central element in
this theory is emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. This model/theory is the potential contribution of my
study as it focuses on an important area in writing and can inspire more research on this neglected area.
The model shows that direct coded feedback leads to acceptance of feedback, rejection of feedback, surprise, and dissatisfac-
tion. Additionally, the model displays that giving information, making request, and grammar/editing types of feedback lead to
both acceptance of feedback and rejection of feedback. Giving praise feedback leads to the feeling of happiness. While negative
evaluation can stimulate disappointment and frustration, reflective statements feedback can make students feel surprise. As
70 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

Teacher written feedback Students’ emotional responses Students’ success of revisions

Direct coded
Acceptance of feedback Not revised

Giving information
Rejection of feedback
Unsuccessful
Giving praise revision
Students’ written texts

Surprise
Grammar/editing
Feeling of happiness
Successful
revision
Making a request Dissatisfaction

Disappointment
Negative evaluation
Not rated
(No revision
Frustration
required)
Reflective statements
Satisfaction

Fig. 3. A model of emotional responses towards teacher written feedback and students’ revisions.
Notes: Dotted squares are the main elements in the model.
Oval shapes are the components of the analytical scheme used for analysing students’ success of revisions.

shown in the model, acceptance of feedback, surprise, disappointment, and frustration can surprisingly yield successful use of
teacher writing feedback. This can be attributed to EFL students’ beliefs that teachers’ written comments should be followed
strictly as his knowledge is better than others (such as peers).
Another relationship shown in the model is that emotional responses of rejection of feedback and dissatisfaction do not
encourage students to use teacher written feedback successfully. In addition to this, there is a direct relationship between
students’ rejection of feedback and the complete ignorance of teacher written feedback.

8. Conclusions and implications

This study contributes to a growing, but still relatively small, body of research which emphasises the importance of exam-
ining students’ emotional responses which should not be ignored in L2 learning. Another contribution of this study is that
it proposes a theory of emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. The study has clearly shown that emotional
responses towards teacher written feedback may affect students’ use of teacher written feedback because sometimes stu-
dents may not agree on some written feedback. To facilitate L2 students’ learning, teachers should not ignore their students’
emotional responses because when students feel insecure and apprehensive about their learning or feel negatively towards
their learning experience, they might not learn to write effectively. As a result of this, students may not approach using
written feedback with a desire to utilise it. Although it may be argued that L2 students need encouraging written feedback,
the balance between criticism and praise is an important factor that teachers should take into consideration.
Some emotional responses towards teacher written feedback may result in students’ rejection of utilising feedback in
their revised drafts. Since students may feel frustrated when they find their essays full of written comments, teachers should
take this into consideration and, in turn, should not provide all written comments on the first drafts. Teachers should not
ignore their students’ emotional responses because students can experience negative attitudes towards written feedback
when they receive harsh criticism. Furthermore, training students on how to use feedback can be regarded as initial ‘feedback
preparation activities’, as suggested by Värlander (2008), and it could be arranged for the benefit of preparing students for
receiving feedback. Furthermore, Värlander argued that teachers need to make it clear to their students that emotions are
closely related to learning.
Taking into account that some students may feel disappointed when they receive too much feedback, teachers can dis-
tribute their written feedback to be over subsequent drafts. For example, written feedback focusing on organisation and
content of written texts can be provided on the first draft. After that, teacher written feedback focusing on grammar and
mechanical aspects of students’ written texts can be given on the second draft and the following ones. In other words,
focusing on organisation and content should be on the early drafts to assist students produce good essays with good and
acceptable content. Comments on grammar and other surface changes can wait until future drafts.
With reference the percentage of each type of teacher written feedback, this study revealed that most of teacher written
feedback belonged to direct coded, giving information, and grammar/editing types. Although written feedback points on such
aspects on students’ written texts may facilitate students’ revisions, they neither help students to develop the content of
 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72 71

their essays nor encourage them to revise the organisation of their written texts. Such written feedback points focusing
on mechanical aspects can give students chances to improve the accuracy not the quality of their essays. Thus, teachers of
EFL writing courses may find this finding interesting as it reflects the current practice of teacher written feedback in EFL
contexts. Teachers of EFL writing courses may need to consider giving constructive comments on global issues of written
texts (i.e., organisation and content).
Students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback is a complex issue that is highly shaped by various
factors, and thus deserves further attention by researchers in L2 writing contexts. Emotional responses may vary from
one context to another. This study is one of the early studies on emotional responses towards teacher written feedback
and thus it may have some limitations. Given the small sample size of this study, it is difficult to give generalisations. So,
another study using random sampling with a large population may yield different results or confirm the results of this study.
Although this study has shown that there is a relationship between students’ emotional responses towards teacher written
feedback and students’ success of revisions, further studies may carry out experimental studies to examine the strength
of this relationship. Another limitation is related to the questions asked in the interviews. Although very few questions
in the interviews appeared to divert the interviewees’ attention away from the focus on emotion, it should be taken into
account that questions in the interviews were based on the analysis of think-aloud protocols which were collected before the
interviews. Future studies may try to avoid this problem by using other methods of data collection such as asking students to
keep journals in which they can reveal their feelings when responding to teacher written feedback. Moreover, this problem
can be avoided by giving students a checklist to rate their emotional responses towards each individual written feedback
point. As this study strives to provide a model/theory for the first time in literature (refer to Fig. 3), future research may be
carried out to improve this current model.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Mr. Ibrahim Mahfoodh, a lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Hodeidah University, Yemen, for
his assistance in collecting and analysing data. My thanks also go to the teachers and students at the Faculty of Education,
Hodeidah University for their cooperation with me during data collection. I would like to thank Mr. Mohammad Alhabahba at
the School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia for his help in the use of SPSS for data analysis.
I wish to offer my most profound thanks and appreciation to the reviewers whose constructive comments have tremen-
dously improved the quality of my article.

References

Anson, C. (1989). Response styles and ways of knowing. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response (pp. 332–365). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Bartlett, F. (1967). Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.
Brice, C. (2005). Coding data in qualitative research on L2 writing: Issues and implications. In P. K. Matsuda, & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing
research: perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 159–176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burkšaitienė, N. (2012). Promoting student learning through feedback in higher education. Socialiniu˛ mokslu˛ studijos/Societal Studies, 4(1), 33–46.
Chandrasegaran, A. (1986). An exploratory study of EL2 students’ revision and self-correction skills. RELC Journal, 17(2), 26–40.
Chiang, K. (2004). An investigation into students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback and its implications for writing teachers. Hong Kong
Teachers’ Centre Journal, 3, 98–115.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research
insights for the classroom (pp. 155–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8, 147–180.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
publications.
Cumming, A. (1985). Patterns of development. In M. Maguire, & A. Par (Eds.), Teachers’ procedures for responding to the writing of students of a second
language (pp. 58–75). Montreal: Canadian Council of Teachers of English.
Daiker, D. A. (1989). Learning to praise. In C. A. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: theory, practice, and research (pp. 103–113). Urbana, IL: National Council
of Teachers of English.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL university students’ preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38, 27–51.
Dowden, T., Pittaway, S., Yost, H., & McCarthy, R. (2013). Students’ perceptions of written feedback in teacher education: Ideally feedback is a continuing
two-way communication that encourages progress. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 349–362.
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher written feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193–204.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: research
insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–337.
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.
Fiske, S. T. (1982). Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In M. S. Clarke, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: the seventeenth
annual carnegie symposium on cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.
Gee, T. C. (1972). Students’ responses to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching of English, 6(2), 212–221.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
72 O.H.A. Mahfoodh / Assessing Writing 31 (2017) 53–72

Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: theory into practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T., & Harnett, J. A. (2014). Understanding classroom feedback practices: A study of New Zealand student experiences, perceptions,
and emotional responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 107–133.
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38,
21–27.
Horwitz, E. K. (1995). Student affective reactions and the teaching and learning of foreign languages. International Journal of Educational Research, 23,
573–579.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: texts, processes, and practices (pp.
99–121). Harlow: Longman.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33–54.
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 240–253.
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 278–292.
Jung, J. (2005). Revisionary rhetoric, feminist pedagogy, and multigenre texts. SIU Press.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty, & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences
(pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 7, 69–100.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). I really need feedback to learn: Students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the differential feedback messages.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 347–367.
Mahfoodh, O. H. A., & Pandian, A. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written
feedback. English Language Teaching, 4, 14–27.
McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough?: Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language
writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24–35.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murray, D. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. Copper, & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
in English.
Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing: Assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15, 68–85.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and
quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.
Plotnik, R., & Kouyoumdjian, H. (2013). Introduction to psychology. Independence. KY: Cengage Learning.
Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychologist, 29, 37–48.
Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: Using feedback to promote student reflection and learning—A teaching model. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 125–135.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355–365.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.
Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. (2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate
students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 260–272.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5, 77–84.
Sargeant, J., Mcnaughton, E., Mercer, S., Murphy, D., Sullivan, P., & Bruce, D. A. (2011). Providing feedback: Exploring a model (emotion, content,
outcomes) for facilitating multisource feedback. Medical Teacher, 33(9), 744–749.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2),
255–283.
Silva, T. (2005). On the philosophical bases of inquiry in second language writing: Metaphysics, inquiry paradigms, and the intellectual zeitgeist. In P. K.
Matsuda, & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 3–15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2004). Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. In. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148–156.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Straub, R., & Lunsford, R. F. (1995). Twelve readers reading: responding to college student writing. New Jersey: Cresskill.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46, 195–207.
Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective. Educational Research Review, 9,
1–15.
Ticke, L. (2003). Opening dialogue: Students respond to teacher comments in a psychology classroom. The WAC Journal, 14, 19–35.
Värlander, S. (2008). The role of students’ emotions in formal feedback situations. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 145–156.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 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(3), 179–200.
Yount, W. (2010). Created to learn: a Christian teacher’s introduction to educational psychology. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, Publishers.
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38, 38–52.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–101.
Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209–222.

Omer Hassan Ali Mahfoodh is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He received a PhD in
English Language Studies from Universiti Sains Malaysia. His research and teaching interests include second language writing, feedback in L2 writing,
language education, EAP, ESP, pragmatics, and assessment in higher education.