Journal of Second Language Writing 63 (2024) 101094

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Second Language Writing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw

Short communication

Writing teacher feedback literacy: Surveying second language

teachers’ knowledge, values, and abilities
Icy Lee a, Zhicheng Mao b, *
a
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
b
Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite a significant rise in awareness of the critical role of assessment literacy, teacher feedback
Assessment literacy literacy as an important component of assessment literacy has received scant attention in the
Classroom writing assessment domain of second language (L2) writing. By drawing on questionnaire data gathered from 353
Feedback literacy
English as a foreign language teachers and follow-up interviews with 34 focal teachers, this study
Second language writing
attempts to ascertain L2 writing teachers’ self-reported feedback literacy in relation to their
Writing teacher education
knowledge, values, and abilities regarding feedback. Findings of the study reveal both de­
ficiencies and gaps in the participants’ writing feedback literacy. While the respondents reported
a fundamental understanding of writing teacher feedback literacy, they appeared less certain of
their abilities to implement feedback practices in the writing classroom. Despite this uncertainly,
they held values about feedback that largely align with the principles supported by existing
literature. The current study serves to make a novel contribution to existing research by shedding
light on the underexplored concept of L2 writing teacher feedback literacy, with clear implica­
tions for the delivery of feedback training in teacher education programs.

1. Introduction

Feedback is a critical component of classroom writing assessment, which serves as a formative assessment tool to promote student
learning in the second language (L2) writing classroom (Hyland & Hyland, 2019; Lee, 2017). While feedback is seen as crucial for
encouraging and consolidating learning, it has been acknowledged as a challenging enterprise, as evidenced by students’ limited
engagement with feedback and teachers’ dissatisfaction with feedback processes (Ferris & Kurzer, 2019). Such practical failure may
preclude feedback from promoting assessment for learning – namely, using assessment to improve students’ performance. In order for
student writers to benefit from feedback, there has been a growing emphasis on teachers’ capacities to optimize the potential of
feedback (Boud & Dawson, 2021), termed teacher feedback literacy.
Sutton (2012) introduced the notion of feedback literacy, originating from literature on assessment/academic literacies, to describe
students’ ability to read, interpret and effectively utilize feedback. Drawing on this definition, the concept of student feedback literacy
has been taken up by researchers who have elaborated on it both conceptually and empirically, accentuating its importance for
productive feedback processes (e.g., Carless & Boud, 2018; Yu et al., 2022). Rather than focusing on the student perspective, Lee
(2017) considered writing teacher feedback literacy (WTFL) as an indispensable part of teacher assessment literacy, with a direct
impact on student feedback literacy. Conceptualized as writing teachers’ repertoire of feedback competencies that involve knowledge,

* Correspondence to: Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macao Special Administrative Region, China.
E-mail address: zcmao@um.edu.mo (Z. Mao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101094
Received 3 January 2023; Received in revised form 28 December 2023; Accepted 9 January 2024
Available online 16 January 2024
1060-3743/© 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
I. Lee and Z. Mao Journal of Second Language Writing 63 (2024) 101094

values, and abilities regarding feedback (Lee, 2021), WTFL serves as a holistic construct for investigating teachers’ competencies in
constructing productive feedback processes, representing an important contribution to L2 writing scholarship.
An in-depth understanding of WTFL is crucial for L2 writing teachers, not only for enriching their pedagogical knowledge but also
for helping them address the belief-practice gaps as reported in the literature. For instance, Min’s (2013) self-study examined her
beliefs and practices about providing written feedback over a semester, pointing to the importance of procedural knowledge (i.e., how
to apply acquired technical knowledge from feedback research), as part of teacher feedback literacy, in facilitating congruity between
beliefs and practices. Similarly, the mismatches between teachers’ perceptions of how they provide feedback and their actual practices,
as revealed in Mao and Crosthwaite (2019) and Junqueira and Payant (2015), suggest that writing teachers need to enhance their
feedback literacy to bring their beliefs into better alignment with their practices.
Owing to the theoretical and pedagogical importance of the topic, surveying WTFL will provide a valuable understanding of this
important yet under-researched construct, and inform L2 writing practice and research, as well as teacher education. To our
knowledge, however, no L2 research has explored the level of WTFL – that is, the extent to which writing teachers are feedback literate.
As a preliminary attempt to ascertain L2 teachers’ writing feedback literacy, this study utilizes a combination of questionnaire survey
and follow-up interviews to address the following research question: To what extent are L2 writing teachers feedback literate? The
current study contributes to a clearer picture of WTFL, and generates methodological implications related to eliciting, measuring, and
analyzing WTFL in L2 writing.

2. The study

2.1. Research methods

As part of a larger research project investigating the development of teachers’ WTFL in L2 contexts, this study consists of two stages:
a questionnaire survey administered to a relatively large group of respondents and follow-up individual interviews conducted with
focal teachers. In the current study WTFL is operationalized with reference to the pedagogical framework of WTFL proposed by Lee
(2021), which consists of three components: (a) teachers’ knowledge about feedback (understanding, awareness, and familiarity about
feedback), (b) teachers’ values about feedback (beliefs, attitudes, goals, dispositions, and perceptions about feedback), and (c)
teachers’ abilities to use feedback to inform learning and teaching (abilities in handling the process of feedback).1
In the first phase of the study, a “Feedback Literacy Scale for L2 Writing Teachers” was developed and validated (see Lee et al.,
2023), which aimed to elicit L2 writing teachers’ backgrounds and perspectives on WTFL. The scale consists of 34 five-point Liker­
t-scale items covering three dimensions of WTFL – namely, knowledge (10 items), values (12 items), and abilities (12 items) regarding
feedback. The survey was administered to prospective respondents on an online platform through various channels, including emails,
QR codes and messaging applications such as WeChat and WhatsApp.
Following the administration of the scale, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with voluntary focal respondents
whose responses served to explain and illustrate salient points and patterns obtained from the survey findings. The interview questions
aimed to probe participants’ perspectives and views about various issues concerning feedback such as their understanding and views
about feedback in L2 writing classrooms (e.g., in your opinion, what are the goals of feedback? Are these goals achieved in your own
writing classroom?). The use of semi-structured interviews to accompany questionnaire results could both illustrate and illuminate
questionnaire results and bring the research study to life (Dörnyei & Dewaele, 2023), thereby helping researchers gain a better un­
derstanding of what the numerical responses actually mean.

2.2. Participants

The participants are 353 English teachers from Hong Kong SAR and mainland China, who speak Cantonese or Mandarin Chinese as
their L1 and teach English as a foreign language at various educational levels. About one third of the participants (N = 114) have a
bachelor’s degree only, and the others also hold a master’s degree or equivalent (N = 212) and a doctoral degree (N = 27). In terms of
teaching experience, nearly half of the participants (N = 168) had more than 10 years of experience in English language teaching,
among whom 72 had been teaching English for over 20 years. Over half of the participants were teaching in secondary schools (N =
211; 58%), followed by universities (N = 109; 30.9%), and primary schools (N = 30; 8.5%). 83% of the respondents are female (N =
293), and 17% are male (N = 60). Of the 353 respondents, 34 focal teachers (named T1-T34) agreed to take part in follow-up individual
interviews conducted in English. They included ten university teachers, twenty-three secondary teachers, and one primary teacher,
who were EFL teachers working at various schools and universities in Hong Kong SAR and mainland China.

2.3. Data analysis

Survey data were entered into SPSS 29.0, with frequency analyses, descriptive analyses, and reliability analyses utilized for
analyzing respondents’ self-reported WTFL. Participants’ responses were categorized into a five-point Likert scale – 1 = not knowl­
edgeable/true/capable at all; 2 = slightly knowledgeable/true/capable, 3 = somewhat knowledgeable/true/capable; 4 =

1
Given the focus of the current study, we center around teachers’ self-reported abilities rather than actual abilities for the third component.

2
I. Lee and Z. Mao Journal of Second Language Writing 63 (2024) 101094

knowledgeable/true/capable; 5 = very knowledgeable/true/capable – for evaluating knowledge, values, and abilities respectively.
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.93.
All the interviews were audio-recorded and conducted in English, which lasted 25 – 40 minutes. After the interviews were tran­
scribed, an inductive approach was employed to analyze the interview data. Based on the operational framework of WTFL, related
themes were identified and then categorized to fit in the three dimensions of the tripartite framework – i.e., knowledge, values and
abilities. Instances of “knowledge” concerned teachers’ understanding of the type, purposes, and strategies of feedback, as well as the
teachers’ knowledge of writing and assessment; data categorized as “values” pertained to teachers’ beliefs about the goals of feedback
and teacher feedback literacy; and examples of “abilities” included teachers’ skills and abilities in designing effective feedback pro­
cesses and engaging students with feedback.

3. Results

In the following, we report the results of the analysis on each dimension of WTFL as per the survey and interview data.

3.1. Knowledge

As shown in Table 1, the average mean value of the knowledge-related items ranged from 2.99 to 3.61, showing that the re­
spondents considered themselves somewhat knowledgeable or knowledgeable about the different sources of feedback (74.7%), fea­
tures of good writing (79.3%), the role of feedback in formative assessment (71.1%), feedback strategies (75.9%), contextualized
feedback (75.7%), feedback modes (73.6%), individualized feedback (77.3%), peer feedback (73.4%), and assessment criteria for
effective feedback (70.2%). Of all the items, the participants appeared to be least knowledgeable about the role of students’ affective
dimension in feedback practices (Item 9, M = 2.99, SD = 1.008), with 22.9% and 36.8% of the respondents reporting that they were
only slightly or somewhat knowledgeable about it.
From the interviews, teachers appeared to pay a great deal of attention to feedback as a means to help students get rid of their
weaknesses and problems in writing, especially grammar errors. Yet, they showed little awareness that students’ ability to do so hinges
largely on their affective states – that is, if students are not motivated they are unlikely to engage with the feedback received. Most
informants remarked that effective feedback should “identify the problems in student writing” (N = 28), “improve student perfor­
mance” (N = 20), and/or “suit individual needs” (N = 6):

Effective feedback should help students identify their writing problems and weaknesses, and student performance on the
subsequent writing could be the evidence about its effectiveness. What is effective will be that feedback could arouse students’
awareness of the problems in their writing, and help them avoid making the same mistakes again (T12, follow-up interview).
Among the 34 focal teachers, however, only three mentioned that feedback should not discourage students or demotivate students
to act upon it. Without due consideration of students’ affective responses to the feedback received, it would be challenging for teachers
to fully understand the role of student affective states in the feedback processes.

3.2. Values

Concerning teachers’ values about feedback, the average mean of the items ranged from 3.83 to 4.59 (see Table 2). Out of the
eleven items, the mean of nine items was above 4. Generally, teachers believed that feedback should be understandable (M = 4.59, SD
= 0.611), is both a process and product (M = 4.39, SD = 0.687), is contingent on teacher feedback literacy promoted through pro­
fessional development (M = 4.36, SD = 0.722), is a shared responsibility between teachers and students (M = 4.29, SD = 0.685),
should enable students to set further learning goals (M = 4.28, SD = 0.738) and revise their writing (M = 4.24, SD = 0.797), should
help teachers to improve their teaching (M = 4.24, SD = 0.734), should be supplemented with post-feedback reinforcement (M = 4.09,

Table 1
L2 Writing Teachers’ Knowledge about Feedback.
What is the extent of your knowledge about… NK SlK SoK K VK Mean

1 how feedback from different sources can be given i.e., teachers, peers, and self? 1.4% 14.7% 36.5% 38.2% 9.1% 3.39
2 the features of good writing that enable you to provide accurate judgement of student writing? 0.6% 9.6% 28.6% 50.7% 10.5% 3.61
3 the role of feedback in formative assessment? 3.1% 11.9% 29.2% 41.9% 13.9% 3.52
4 relevant strategies for giving effective feedback? 2.5% 15.9% 37.4% 38.5% 5.7% 3.29
5 how to give feedback according to the needs of your teaching context (e.g., age, educational level and 2.5% 17% 39.7% 36% 4.8% 3.24
expectations of students)?
6 different delivery modes for feedback – i.e., written, oral, and technology supported? 2% 15.9% 33.1% 40.5% 8.5% 3.38
7 how to give feedback according to individual student needs? 2.8% 14.7% 38.5% 38.8% 5.1% 3.29
8 the benefits of peer feedback? 3.1% 12.7% 30.3% 43.1% 10.8% 3.46
9 the role of students’ affective dimension (e.g., emotions, attitudes, and motivation) in the feedback 7.6% 22.9% 36.8% 27.5% 5.1% 2.99
process?
10 the impact of clear assessment criteria for effective feedback? 3.7% 15.9% 29.7% 40.5% 10.2% 3.38

NK = Not Knowledgeable at All; SlK = Slightly Knowledgeable; SoK = Somewhat Knowledgeable; K = Knowledgeable; VK = Very Knowledgeable

3
I. Lee and Z. Mao Journal of Second Language Writing 63 (2024) 101094

Table 2
L2 Writing Teachers’ Values about Feedback.
To what extent do the following statements reflect your values about feedback? NT SlT SoT T VT Mean

11 Feedback should aim to make students become autonomous writers. 1.1% 9.1% 22.9% 39.4% 27.5% 3.83
12 Feedback should encourage students to revise their writing. 0.8% 2.5% 9.9% 45.6% 41.1% 4.24
13 Feedback should be given to multiple drafts rather than one draft. 2.3% 6.5% 22.7% 41.6% 26.9% 3.84
14 Teachers should provide students with reinforcement after feedback is provided. 0.3% 3.7% 12.5% 53.8% 29.7% 4.09
15 Feedback should be given timely without delay. 1.4% 5.7% 16.4% 47.9% 28.6% 3.97
16 Feedback should be understandable to students. 0% 1.1% 3.1% 31.7% 64% 4.59
17 Feedback is a shared responsibility between teachers and students. 0% 1.4% 8.8% 48.7% 41.1% 4.29
18 Continuing professional development is important for teachers’ feedback literacy. 0.3% 1.1% 9.3% 40.8% 48.4% 4.36
19 Feedback is both a process and a product. 0.6% 0.8% 5.7% 44.5% 48.4% 4.39
20 Teachers should encourage students to make individual feedback requests. 0.8% 2.5% 16.1% 49.6% 30.9% 4.07
21 Feedback information should enable teachers to improve their teaching. 0% 2% 11.9% 46.7% 39.4% 4.24
22 Feedback information should enable students to set further learning goals for their writing 0% 2% 11% 43.6% 43.3% 4.28
development.

NT = Not True at All; SlT = Slightly True; SoT = Somewhat True; T = True; VT = Very True

SD = 0.767), and should be tailored to individual feedback requests (M = 4.07, SD = 0.803). For example, during the follow-up in­
terviews, the focal teachers demonstrated espoused beliefs that effective feedback should be understandable and actionable to stu­
dents, and it should help students to improve writing in certain areas such as language and organization (32 out of the 34 teachers).
Over half of the focal teachers (22 out of 34) also noted the need to take into consideration student diversity (e.g., students’ language
proficiency and variations in their writing weaknesses) so as to better suit individual students’ needs, as shown in the following
excerpt:

For higher proficiency students who are able to figure out their problems, I could just highlight the language errors and provide
more feedback on organization in writing. But some low proficiency students are not able to identify the problems and I need to
give feedback in more detail (T8, follow-up interview).
As for the other three items with lower mean scores, the results suggest that teachers were less certain about the truthfulness of
whether feedback should be timely (76.5% – true or very true), whether it should be given to multiple drafts rather than one draft
(68.5% – true or very true), and whether it should make students become autonomous writers (66.9% – true or very true). In the follow-
up interviews, many teachers related their uncertainty about timely feedback and multiple-drafting practices to the shortage of time.
As they needed to spend a huge amount of time commenting on students writing (e.g., responding to writing errors) and fulfilling other
teaching duties, they were unsure about the necessity to return timely feedback to students for review. As remarked by T16, Hong Kong
teachers usually teach at least two or three large classes (up to 35 students in each class) and “it is quite stressful for teachers to mark
and return students’ compositions within a short period” and meanwhile “keep a balance between work efficiency and feedback
quality”. Similarly, seven teachers also mentioned the “practical difficulty” in implementing multiple drafts in the writing classroom
while completing the required number of writing tasks stipulated by their curriculum outline. As regards teachers’ values about the
purpose of feedback, the majority of survey respondents taught secondary students preparing for university-entrance examinations. In
the follow-up interviews, they tended to associate the goal of feedback to motivating students to revise their writing (M = 4.24, SD =
0.797) and establishing additional learning goals, particularly for the examinations (M = 4.28, SD = 0.738). However, there was less
emphasis on fostering students’ autonomy (M = 3.83, SD = 0.971).

Table 3
L2 Writing Teachers’ Abilities about Feedback.
How would you rate your ability to… NC SlC SoC C VC Mean

23 reflect on your own feedback practice to further improve it? 1.1% 10.2% 44.5% 40.2% 4% 3.36
24 help students determine their own learning goals to guide self- and/or peer feedback? 1.4% 14.4% 42.4% 38.5% 3.4% 3.28
25 help students use feedback to monitor their own learning and writing? 0.8% 17.6% 36.8% 39.9% 4.8% 3.30
26 involve other colleagues in professional learning about feedback? 11.6% 31.4% 34.8% 19.3% 2.8% 2.70
27 avoid overwhelming students by addressing every problem in giving feedback? 4.2% 17.3% 36% 35.3% 7.1% 3.24
28 use information from feedback to improve your own teaching? 1.1% 9.9% 28.3% 50.7% 9.9% 3.58
29 engage students actively throughout the feedback process? 2.5% 20.4% 36.3% 34.3% 6.5% 3.22
30 provide effective training to prepare students for peer feedback? 6.2% 24.9% 33.7% 30.6% 4.5% 3.02
31 plan and organize peer feedback activities effectively? 4% 26.1% 34.8% 30.3% 4.8% 3.06
32 provide feedback that addresses individual student needs? 2% 15.3% 33.1% 42.8% 6.8% 3.37
33 empower students to use self-feedback effectively? 5.7% 24.6% 38.2% 26.3% 5.1% 3.01
34 make use of technology to enhance feedback in the writing classroom? 5.4% 26.9% 31.7% 30% 5.9% 3.04

NC = Not Capable at All; SlK = Slightly Capable; SoK = Somewhat Capable; C = Capable; VC = Very Capable

4
I. Lee and Z. Mao Journal of Second Language Writing 63 (2024) 101094

3.3. Abilities

Regarding the abilities dimension, the mean values of all the 11 items were below 3.60 (see Table 3). In particular, the teachers
reported a lack of competence in involving other colleagues in professional learning (M = 2.7, SD = 1.000), as only 19.3% and 2.8% of
them rated themselves as capable and very capable in response to this item. Other issues that posed challenges to the teachers included
how to empower students to use self-feedback (M = 3.01, SD = 0.971), set goals (M = 3.28, SD = 0.803), monitor their own learning
and writing (M = 3.30, SD = 0.844), provide effective peer feedback training (M = 3.02, SD = 0.994), and make use of technology-
mediated feedback (M = 3.04, SD = 1.012) and peer feedback activities (M = 3.06, SD = 0.956). Based on descriptive statistics,
teachers felt most capable of using feedback information to inform their own teaching (with the highest mean = 3.58, SD = 0.842) but
least capable of involving colleagues in professional learning about feedback (with the lowest mean = 2.7, SD = 1.000).
The lack of abilities in providing effective feedback, as reported by the respondents, was partially due to their scant exposure to
professional learning opportunities. When asked about the importance of and their experience with professional development pro­
grams, the focal teachers noted insufficient opportunities to receive guidance about providing feedback on student writing, although
they consider such training essential for constructive teacher feedback. Specifically, all the primary and secondary teachers reported
that they had never engaged in professional learning programs, except for three who received relevant instruction about marking
English writing for the university-entrance examination. As for the ten university teachers, only three of them underwent related
training: two participated in academic lectures and one participated in online professional learning communities. The following
remark by T13 illustrated this:

I think it’s important to learn how to give proper feedback because the teacher spent so much time reading student writing. Not
much time is spent on telling teachers how to give feedback on writing, so attending these professional development programs
would be pretty important for teachers to refresh their memory and maybe learn new methods and methodologies for this.
However, it [how to give feedback] is not something that everybody knows, even with teacher training, and many teachers at
our school are too busy to participate in these programs (T13, follow-up interview).

4. Discussion and implications

The current study employed the “Feedback Literacy Scale for L2 Writing Teachers” and follow-up individual interviews to
investigate teachers’ self-reported WTFL in relation to their knowledge, values, and abilities about feedback in L2 writing. The findings
point to some deficiencies and gaps in L2 writing teachers’ WTFL, especially in terms of their knowledge and abilities, despite their
espoused values about the importance of various aspects of feedback.
In the knowledge dimension, the survey results suggest that the teacher participants considered themselves to be more knowl­
edgeable about some technical aspects of feedback such as strategies and modes than the role of student affective reactions (e.g.,
emotions, attitudes, and motivation) in the feedback process. Such results are not surprising, given that previous research (e.g., Yu,
2021) has found that L2 teachers tend to provide error-focused feedback even though such feedback is overwhelming, frustrating,
confusing and demotivational for students. In addition, owing to the lack of attention to the motivating role of feedback and student
subsequent responses, it is unlikely for teachers to engender student active engagement and positive affective states in feedback
practices (Lee, 2021).
The results of the values dimension reveal the participants’ general support of different feedback principles espoused in the
literature, except that they seemed less sure about feedback in multiple-draft classrooms, timely feedback, and feedback for fostering
learner autonomy. It is possible that some teachers found it hard to put the abovementioned into practice, as demonstrated in the
predominance of single drafting in many EFL classrooms, large class sizes, and heavy workloads and hence difficulty in providing
timely feedback, as well as students’ tendency to rely on teachers (Ferris & Kurzer, 2019; Lam, 2019). Teachers’ values about the role
and purpose of feedback might also be influenced by their EFL work contexts dominated by an examination culture (Lee, 2017), where
a primary emphasis is placed more on written production than learner autonomy.
Pointedly, the results from the abilities dimension demonstrate that the participants considered themselves to be only somewhat
capable of most aspects WTFL included in the section. Specifically, the participants did not report strong confidence in their ability to
use feedback for fostering students’ ability to engage in peer and self-feedback, and to exploit technology to enhance feedback, which
suggests that these feedback strategies were unlikely to be part of their regular practice, as in many EFL classrooms (e.g., Junqueira &
Payant, 2015; Mao & Crosthwaite, 2019). The findings indicate the necessity of putting stronger emphasis on teachers’ professional
training in different educational contexts, the lack of which is likely to exert a negative influence on the teaching and assessment of
writing (Lam, 2019). Considering that primary and secondary teachers have limited access to resources and facilities that can enhance
their feedback practices, more opportunities should be provided to create a need and motivation for them to collaborate with col­
leagues and experts in pursuit of professional development.
The results of the survey have clear implications for teacher education, pointing to the need to enhance L2 teachers’ knowledge and
skills with regard to feedback in writing. In light of teachers’ sense of inadequacy in heeding student affective reactions and balancing
the roles of the teacher and the student in feedback processes, it is crucial for them to develop visions about feedback and to sharpen
awareness of student individual needs as well as the ultimate goal of fostering learner autonomy through effective feedback practices.
Notably, this requires teachers to be well-informed and responsive to the diverse needs and contexts of their students, and in particular
to heighten awareness of students’ emotions and feelings in response to feedback, and to equip teachers with skills to share

5
I. Lee and Z. Mao Journal of Second Language Writing 63 (2024) 101094

responsibility with students through providing opportunities for goal-setting, self-evaluation, self-reflection, and peer evaluation.
Given that many writing teachers lack professional development opportunities to enhance their feedback literacy, teacher education
programs should encourage teachers to engage in critical reflection and continuing professional development so as to build their
expertise and refine their feedback practice. Teachers can form school-based collaborative professional learning communities, through
which they collectively enhance their professional learning about assessment principles and practices to utilize feedback appropriately
and effectively, reflect on and improve their feedback techniques, and enact WTFL in their own writing classroom to benefit student
learning. Indeed, WTFL should be accorded an important place in L2 writing teacher education – the development of WTFL for teachers
is not a fad; it is a must.

5. Conclusion

As an important element of classroom writing assessment literacy, WTFL has received insufficient attention in the L2 writing
literature. The current study is one of the first endeavors to understand and explore this important construct by investigating a cohort
of L2 writing teachers’ WTFL. Results of the study revealed gaps in the participants’ WTFL as well as an imbalance of the three di­
mensions of knowledge, values, and abilities within their WTFL. It should be acknowledged that the participants are all from EFL
contexts and their self-reported data cannot be representative of the entire L2 teacher population. Nonetheless, this study serves to
make a novel contribution to existing research on writing assessment literacy by shedding light on EFL teachers’ WTFL, informing
teacher education programs for exploiting feedback opportunities in L2 writing classrooms.

Research funding

This work is funded by the Language Fund under Research and Development Projects 2021–22 of the Standing Committee on
Language Education and Research (SCOLAR), Hong Kong SAR. The project reference number is (EDB(LE)/P&R/EL/203/3). The study
was undertaken when the first author was a professor and the second author worked as a postdoctoral fellow at the Faculty of Edu­
cation of The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Summary of the brief report

Despite a significant rise in awareness of the critical role of assessment literacy, teacher feedback literacy as an important
component of assessment literacy has received scant attention in the domain of second language (L2) writing. By drawing on ques­
tionnaire data gathered from 353 English as a foreign language teachers and follow-up interviews with 34 focal teachers, this study
attempts to ascertain L2 writing teachers’ self-reported feedback literacy in relation to their knowledge, values, and abilities regarding
feedback. Findings of the study reveal both deficiencies and gaps in the participants’ writing feedback literacy. While the respondents
reported a fundamental understanding of writing teacher feedback literacy, they appeared less certain of their abilities to implement
feedback practices in the writing classroom. Despite this uncertainly, they held values about feedback that largely align with the
principles supported by existing literature. The current study serves to make a novel contribution to existing research by shedding light
on the underexplored concept of L2 writing teacher feedback literacy, with clear implications for the delivery of feedback training in
teacher education programs.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Lee Icy: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Mao Zhicheng: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing, Resources.

Declaration of Competing Interest

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A

Follow-up Interview Questions.

1. Tell me about your experiences of teaching English writing.

2. In your opinion, what are the goals of feedback? Are these goals achieved in your own writing classroom?
3. How would you characterize feedback: Is it primarily a product or a process? In your own writing classroom, is feedback
implemented more as a product or a process?

6
I. Lee and Z. Mao Journal of Second Language Writing 63 (2024) 101094

4. How do you see the connections between feedback, teaching and learning? Explain with reference to your own writing
classroom.
5. What counts as ‘effective’ feedback? In your own writing classroom, to what extent is feedback effective?
6. What should be the sources of feedback? In your own writing classroom, what are the sources of feedback?
7. How often do you use different modes of feedback – e.g., written, oral, technology enhanced feedback? How would you evaluate
the effectiveness of each mode of feedback?
8. What role should students play in the feedback process? How do you see the role of students in the feedback process of your own
writing classroom?
9. Should feedback be given to single-draft or multiple-draft writing classrooms? What is the situation like in your own writing
classroom?
10. To what extent do you think students have understood your written feedback?
11. To what extent do you think your feedback has improved students’ writing?
12. How do you see the importance of teacher professional development with regard to feedback in writing? How would you
describe the situation in your school – e.g., do teachers engage in professional development to enhance their feedback practices?
13. Do you have any suggestions as to how teachers can make better use of feedback to help students improve English writing?

References

Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2021). What feedback literate teachers do: an empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8),
1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Dörnyei, Z., & Dewaele, J. M. (2023). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (3rd ed..,). Routledge,.
Ferris, D., & Kurzer, K. (2019). Does error feedback help L2 writers? Latest evidence on the efficacy of written corrective feedback. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.),
Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed..,, pp. 109–124). Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed..,). Cambridge University Press,.
Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). I just want to do it right, but it’s so hard”: A novice teacher’s written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 27, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.11.001
Lam, R. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: Surveying knowledge, conceptions and practices of classroom-based writing assessment in Hong Kong. System, 81,
78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.006
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer,.
Lee, I. (2021). The development of feedback literacy for writing teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 1048–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3012
Lee, I., Karaca, M., & Inan, S. (2023). The development and validation of a scale on L2 writing teacher feedback literacy. Assessing Writing, 57, Article 100743. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100743
Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback:(Mis) alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing,
45, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004
Min, H. T. (2013). A case study of an EFL writing teacher’s belief and practice about written feedback. System, 41(3), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2013.07.018
Sutton, P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14703297.2012.647781
Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, Article 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jslw.2021.100798
Yu, S., Di Zhang, E., & Liu, C. (2022). Assessing L2 student writing feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 53, Article 100643.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100643

Dr. Icy Lee is Professor of Education at the National Institute of Education of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research interests include second
language writing and second language teacher education. Her publications have appeared in numerous international journals, including the Journal of Second Language
Writing, TESOL Quarterly, Language Teaching, Language Teaching Research, System, ELT Journal, Assessing Writing, and The Canadian Modern Language Review. She is former
Co-editor of the Journal of Second Language Writing and currently Principal Associate Editor of The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher.

Dr. Zhicheng Mao is a Research Assistant Professor at Faculty of Education, University of Macau. His research interests include second language writing and second
language acquisition. His publications have appeared in TESOL Quarterly, Language Teaching, Assessing Writing, and RELC Journal.