Written corrective feedback: A comparative study of the preferences and beliefs of EFL teachers and learners in Saudi Arabia
Open accessAbstract
Background: Corrective feedback plays the role of enabling both teachers and learners to gauge their performance and reflect on their development. It can vary in nature, amount, and focus; nevertheless, its centrality to the classroom cannot be ignored. At the same time, what makes it effective is the way it is communicated. The role of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is vital as both a corrective measure and durability for future reference. Foreign language classrooms are an active foreground for feedback practices, given that the bulk of correction is multifaceted and multimodal. However, teachers are left to their devices to formulate best practices in the absence of defined classroom feedback mechanisms. The purposes of this study are (i) to evaluate Saudi English as a foreign language (EFL) instructors’ real practices in supporting their students with corrective feedback; and (ii) to check the students’ beliefs about the feedback they receive from their instructors. Methods: Using the writing output of 92 EFL learners from Qassim University, Saudi Arabia, and the nature of WCF provided to them by three university instructors who were free to choose their feedback strategies in two phases of writing and correction, followed by learners’ cumulative response to the two, the study concludes that a number of difficulties surrounding the scope of feedback need to be researched. Results: The study found that the most used type of WCF is direct in regard to grammatical errors, vocabulary, syntax, and content evaluation. However, the Saudi EFL learners prefer direct corrective feedback for grammatical errors but indirect coded feedback for content correcting their writing assignments. Conclusions: The study encourages EFL teachers to focus on the different types of WCF when reverting to their learners. Furthermore, students’ preference for feedback should be the cornerstone teachers begin with while giving the WCF.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous studies have identified various types of errors made by Arabic EFL learners, including grammatical, lexical, and word combination errors.
“Moreover, previous studies by Albelihi(2022), Barcroft (2007), and Salem (2007) have identified various types of errors made by Arabic EFL learners, including grammatical, lexical, and word combination errors.”
From Overcoming error fossilization in academic writing: strategies for Saudi EFL learners to move beyond the plateau (2024) · cites this paper as Albelihi(2022)
The Results (page not available) describe teachers’ corrective comments on Saudi EFL learners’ grammar and vocabulary, supporting the grammatical and lexical parts of the claim. The paper does not identify word-combination errors as a category; its focus is on types of written corrective feedback rather than a taxonomy of learner errors. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [1]1. Tseng S-S, Yeh H-C: The impact of video and written feedback on student preferences of English speaking practice. Lang. Learn. Technol. 2019; 23 (2): 145 -158. Publisher Full Text
- [2]2. Wilson J, Czik A: Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Comput. Educ. 2016; 100 : 94 -109.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Albelihi, H. H. M., & Al-Ahdal, A. (2024) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-024-00303-y · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- M Albelihi, H. H.
- Venue
- F1000Research
- Publisher
- F1000 Research Ltd
- Published
- 2022-04-22
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 452
- ISSN
- 2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4224292746
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 4.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- F1000Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- written corrective feedback, EFL writing, direct and indirect feedback, grammatical error correction, content feedback, Saudi EFL learners, university writing instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review