Abstract
In conventional written corrective feedback (WCF) practice, teachers spend an inordinate amount of time identifying every error in student writing. Research evidence suggests that such a comprehensive WCF approach is both undesirable and ineffective. Recent research has shown that focused WCF, where teachers respond to errors selectively, is a good practice since it is more manageable and less discouraging for students. Much of existing WCF research on focused WCF, however, has adopted the experimental or quasi-experimental design, involving a very small number of error categories, without paying attention to the real-life classroom conditions in which WCF takes place. To fill the research gap, the present study investigates how two secondary teachers select target language features for focused WCF and the issues that arise from their WCF practice. The paper provides pedagogical implications that contribute to our understanding of how teachers can go about selecting errors for focused WCF in authentic second language writing classrooms, as contrasted with experimental classrooms.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, written corrective feedback (WCF) has attracted a deal of research interest. Of all the existing research strands, feedback scope (i.e., teachers responding to written errors comprehensively or in a focused manner—hence comprehensive or focused WCF, respectively) has received the greatest attention (Mao and Lee, 2020). Conventional WCF practices are predominantly comprehensive in nature, where teachers expend considerable time and effort trying to respond to all errors in student writing. The problems associated with comprehensive WCF, however, are well established in the literature. Not only is it overwhelming and frustrating to second language (L2) teachers and students, its effectiveness has been called into question (Lee, 2019). Research on focused WCF, on the other hand, has found that students improve written accuracy of one or a few targeted grammatical items (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen et al., 2009) in controlled classroom conditions. From second language acquisition (SLA) perspectives, with a focused approach, students are less cognitively overloaded and more likely to engage with teacher WCF, which also facilitates uptake (Bitchener and Storch, 2016). Overall, both research evidence and SLA theory point to the need for teachers to adopt a focused WCF approach—that is, to correct only some rather than all errors, especially for developing L2 writers who tend to make numerous errors in writing.
The bulk of focused WCF research, however, is dominated by the quasi-experimental design conducted in laboratory-like and researcher-driven conditions, where focused WCF is delivered to a very small number of language items throughout the duration of the study with feedback on content, organization, and genre issues withheld from students (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen et al., 2009). The highly controlled classroom conditions in previous research, however, are a far cry from the realities of real-life classrooms, making it virtually impossible for teachers to apply the findings from the quasi-experimental studies. In real-world contexts, WCF decisions are made by classroom teachers (rather than researchers), who do not simply aim to improve students’ accuracy of a narrow range of grammatical items but, rather, overall written accuracy, as well as writing competence that requires attention to content, organization and genre issues. Hence, it is unrealistic for teachers to stick to the same, limited range of error categories throughout a writing course without variation and without attending to other concerns such as content and organization, as in experimental classrooms. Given that giving WCF is an important aspect of the writing teachers’ job, it is useful to find out whether and how focused WCF may work in authentic classroom contexts that are naturalistic and teacher led. To unpack the research–teaching nexus, the crucial questions to ask are: When teachers implement focused WCF as an innovation in authentic classroom conditions, how do they go about it? What challenges do they face? And in what ways can other teachers/researchers learn from their experience? There exists a clear void in WCF research that addresses these significant questions—providing answers to these issues can also throw light on how teachers exercise their agency and professional autonomy to enhance their feedback literacy through WCF innovation, with potential implications for writing teachers who are considering alternative approaches to the traditional comprehensive WCF practice.
Focused WCF in Authentic Classroom Contexts
Defining WCF
To begin with, the definition of focused WCF merits attention. In prior experimental/quasi-experimental research, focused WCF is often associated with feedback that targets a small number of error types, such as one or two, as in research by Bitchener (2008), Bitchener and Knoch (2009), and Sheen et al. (2009). Some researchers do not specify the number of error types in focused WCF. For instance, Ferris describes focused WCF as feedback ‘targeted to specific error types or patterns’ (Ferris, 2011: 30); and similarly, Ellis et al. define focused WCF as feedback that ‘selects specific errors to be corrected and ignores other errors’ (Ellis et al., 2008: 356). To provide greater clarity, Liu and Brown (2015) refer to WCF involving two to five error categories as mid-focused. In other words, when WCF is provided to only one error category, such an approach to WCF is highly focused.
The definitions of focused WCF above fail to take account of the needs of the authentic classroom context as they seem to be based on the assumption that the pre-selected error categories can meet the needs of all students in the same class, whereas in reality there are often diverse abilities and needs among students. Ferris et al. provide a broader definition of focused WCF that better reflects real-world needs, where focused WCF is referred to as feedback on specific error types ‘either predetermined by the researchers for the study or based on individual writers’ needs’ (Ferris et al., 2013: 309). In a further attempt to address the pedagogy of WCF in authentic contexts, Lee suggests that focused WCF be defined as feedback on ‘specific error types pre-selected by the teacher and/or errors based on individual student needs’ (Lee, 2020: 4). Such characterization of focused WCF suggests that the pedagogy of WCF is teacher informed—while teachers may pre-select specific error types for feedback, they may also respond to written errors selectively based on student needs. This definition of focused WCF by Lee (2020) is used to guide the current study, which takes place in authentic classroom contexts.
Error Selection (ES) for Focused WCF
When teachers implement focused WCF in authentic classroom contexts, one key question that faces them is what errors should be selected (perhaps apart from drawing on items in the grammar/writing syllabus). To respond to this issue, some general guidelines can be gleaned from the literature. One approach is to select regular features in English writing that students find hard to learn and master, such as the ‘article’ as a common target error category as in previous research (e.g., Bitchener, 2008)—it is non-salient yet complex, partially acquired yet not an entirely new structure. Truscott proposes that the most correctable errors be the main selection criterion, which involves ‘simple problems in relatively discrete items’ (Truscott, 2001: 93), such as misspelling or missing ‘the’, thereby avoiding complex problems such as syntax-related issues. Ferris (1999) suggests that rule-governed errors (e.g., subject–verb agreement and articles) are more treatable than non-rule governed errors (e.g., word choice and sentence structure) as they tend to be more correctable (Ferris, 2011). Another approach to ES is the identification of recurring errors through a diagnostic writing task (Bitchener et al., 2005), where the most frequent errors are flagged and serve as target items for focused WCF in subsequent writing tasks.
Despite the above guidelines, for teachers who are used to the traditional comprehensive approach to WCF, implementing focused WCF can present a challenge, especially for large class sizes with learners of diverse abilities. Lee’s (2019) survey study has found that teachers have numerous concerns about focused WCF, such as the number of target errors, which errors to select, and what to do with non-target errors. However, not much is known about how teachers tackle these genuine issues in relation to ES for focused WCF in real-world contexts. While previous focused WCF research has been primarily researcher-driven, with target errors selected by the researcher, in real classroom contexts it is the teacher who selects errors and makes pedagogical decisions about WCF. To address real-world issues concerning focused WCF, the study attempts to answer the following research question: How did the participating teachers select errors for focused WCF in naturalistic writing classrooms, and what issues/challenges did they face? By investigating L2 teachers’ selection of errors for focused WCF in authentic classroom contexts, this study will shed light on an important yet underexplored issue, with significant implications for real-world writing contexts.
The Study
Context and Participants
The investigation reported in this paper is part of a larger study that examines the implementation of focused WCF in Hong Kong secondary schools (Lee et al., 2021). We report on two teachers, Jane and Steve, who taught in a secondary school with students with strong academic abilities. The teachers were born and educated in Hong Kong, each with a master’s degree in English language teaching. They were accustomed to comprehensive WCF as a mandatory policy, both as learners in Hong Kong schools themselves, and as English teachers in their school (where they had been teaching for 10 and 12 years, respectively). Despite the time invested in marking all student errors, the teachers found that students did not make much improvement in their written performance, evidenced by their public examination grades in writing, which were the lowest compared with speaking, listening and reading. From the MA program, they learnt about focused WCF but did not have a chance to put it into practice. Contacted by the first author, they decided to participate in the research project to experiment with focused WCF in their Grade 9 classes, with approval sought from their school.
Before the study commenced, the participating teachers and other teachers teaching the same grade attended two three-hour workshops on WCF delivered by the first author, who explored salient aspects of focused WCF by introducing and examining relevant WCF literature, discussing issues and concerns (e.g., how to select errors and what errors to select), encouraging critical and personal reflection on and a flexible approach to ES based on the teachers’ specific context. When the number of target error types was brought up, the general advice was to adopt a mid-focused WCF approach (Liu and Brown, 2015) that targets two to five pre-selected target items, in addition to ES according to individual student needs when responding to student writing, which corresponds to Lee’s (2020) definition of focused WCF as presented above.
To serve the purpose of the larger study, the research team administered pre-study and post-study picture writing tests to the two classes taught by Jane and Steve, with the pre-study test providing diagnostic information about students’ written accuracy performance at the beginning of the study (reported in Lee et al., 2021), and the post-study test results showing improvement, if any, in student written accuracy.
Data Collection and Analysis
The study lasted for one academic year, relying on two main data sources: teacher interviews and their feedback on the texts of selected students. The teachers were interviewed three times—before, during and after implementing focused WCF. All the interviews were conducted in English and audio-recorded. Soon after the first teacher interview (that gathered background information and teachers’ motivations for the study) and the commencement of the study, we learnt that the teachers found ES for focused WCF a great challenge. To probe the issue further, we included the following questions in the second and third teacher interviews:
(a) How and why did you choose the target errors for Tasks 1 and 2?
(b) What challenges did you encounter in selecting the target errors?
(c) To what extent did you find the selected target error types suitable?
(d) How and why did you choose the target errors for Tasks 3 and 4?
(e) You mentioned that it was quite challenging to select target errors for Tasks 1 and 2. Was this still a problem for you in the later writing tasks?
In addition to the teacher interviews, teacher-marked texts were collected from three students in each class, randomly selected by the teachers from high, mid- and low English proficiency. This data source was used to ascertain the teachers’ focused WCF practice in order to triangulate with their self-reported interview data. Four writing tasks (with two drafts each) were completed during the study (i.e., a total of 48 drafts from the six focal students)—the genres included story, leaflet, debate speech, and persuasive letter (determined by all teachers teaching the same grade). As some students failed to submit both drafts for some writing tasks, a total of 42 student texts (22 from Jane’s and 20 from Steve’s class) were collected for analysis of teacher WCF.
The interviews were transcribed verbatim. The coding process started with two broad categories that reflected the research question: (a) ways of selecting target errors; and (b) issues/challenges with regard to target ES. The transcripts were then read line by line, with codes assigned to the relevant categories during the process—for example, ‘observation of student needs via marking’ and ‘perceived importance of a specific language feature’ were subsumed under ‘ways of target ES’, and ‘whether target error types suit both classes of students’ and ‘possible over marking of errors’ were assigned to ‘issues/challenges with regard to target ES’. The different codes arising from the two teachers were subject to cross-case comparison to generate the final interpretation of the results. The marked texts from the focal students were coded for teacher WCF, including the number of WCF points for the pre-selected target items and other non-target language features where focused WCF was also provided. While the data analysis was performed by the second researcher, the research team were engaged in ongoing discussion and data interpretation during the data analysis process to enhance reliability of the findings.
Findings
Teachers’ Pre-Selection of Errors
In the participating school, teachers were expected to adopt uniform feedback practice. After discussion, Jane and Steve agreed to pre-select two target error types for focused WCF as the number was deemed manageable. Table 1 provides an overview of the target error types the teachers selected for the four writing tasks.
Pre-selected language features of the writing tasks.
Task 1: Missing the Mark
The original intention of the research team was to share the diagnostic information generated from the pre-study test results with the teachers, which could guide their ES for the first writing task. Due to some miscommunication, the teachers began Task 1 without waiting for the results. Not knowing the students’ abilities (as it was the beginning of a new academic year), Jane and Steve decided to choose two target language features, verb tense and subject–verb agreement, based on their impression of the most common errors among their former students in Grade 9. After marking the first drafts, however, both teachers found that students made few errors in subject–verb agreement. Jane noted that the pre-selection of errors was not properly done: ‘. . .this time we chose verb tense and agreement. But I found that for my class the most obvious problem is punctuation.’ Steve added that ES should be tied to the target genre: ‘. . . it is a story. It is in past tense. So, students don’t have to use subject–verb agreement very often because in past tense they don’t have to add an “s” if the person is singular.’ In hindsight, the teachers realized that they should have selected ‘punctuation’ to address students’ major weakness, in addition to ‘verb tense’, which is tied to the target genre.
The pre-study picture writing test turned out to produce results that dovetailed with the teachers’ post-feedback realization of the need to target ‘verb tense’ and ‘punctuation’ for Task 1, as these two language items were found to be high-frequency errors in the pre-study picture writing test. Although the teachers missed the mark to begin with, the adoption of focused WCF started them reflecting on the criteria for ES—for example, to tie in with common problems in student writing and typical features of target genres. Overall, in the first writing task, the teachers had little idea about how to pre-select errors though they learnt a good lesson from reflecting on their misjudgment.
Task 2: Uphill Task
The target error types for Task 1 were ‘verb tense’ and ‘subject–verb agreement’, which the teachers felt were not the most appropriate choices. Having learned from their experience in Task 1 about the importance of targeting language items that are specific to the genre and student needs, the teachers believed ‘verb tense’ should not be selected for leaflet writing in Task 2 since the genre requires the use of the present tense, which was unlikely to be a problem for their students. As students made few errors in subject–verb agreement in Task 1, the teachers were at a loss about what target error categories to choose for Task 2. They were particularly perplexed because their initial plan was to adhere to the same target features until students had mastered them before moving to other language features. Jane felt skeptical about having to turn to a different error category only after one writing task: ‘Every time the target errors are different. Can we really do so. . .I’m just thinking that every time if the target errors are different, how can I really know whether my students have improved?’
Based on student needs, nevertheless, the teachers decided to drop the two language features selected for Task 1 (i.e., ‘subject–verb agreement’ and ‘verb tense’) as target error types for Task 2. As Jane noticed that her students produced many punctuation errors in Task 1, she decided to select punctuation for Task 2. Both teachers wanted to adhere to their original idea of having two target grammar items; however, they had no clue about the second target language feature for leaflet writing. Rather randomly Steve suggested making do with ‘spelling’, to which Jane agreed, with reservation, as she thought it would be best to select rule-governed errors according to what she had learnt from the literature (Ferris, 1999): ‘. . .spelling is decided by Steve. . . .But it’s very difficult to, you know, because for spelling, there is not a rule to follow.’ Although their school required teachers to standardize their feedback practice, Jane began to develop misgivings about a one-size-fits-all approach and expressed concern about the need to address variations in errors produced by students in different classes: ‘I think it’s difficult to come up with target errors for the whole form. . .When we discuss, we found that his [Steve] class might get problems with spelling, but for my class, I don’t think so.’
In fact, at one point, the teachers were considering ‘imperative’ as the second target item, which was emphasized in their pre-writing instruction for leaflet writing. Their belief was that feedback should be aligned with instruction. In this sense, ‘imperative’ was deemed a suitable target item for Task 2. The problem was that the school’s error coding list (handed down from previous teachers) did not contain an error code for ‘imperative’, and since they used coded WCF for pre-selected target items, they concluded that ‘imperative’ was not possible. In our informal post-task communication with the teachers, we suggested that selecting error types not included in their error coding list would still be possible. Our informal discussion provided Jane and Steve with an opportunity for critical reflection, enabling them to examine the functions of the error coding list vis-à-vis the purposes of ES for focused WCF.
To sum up, although the teachers confidently pre-selected ‘punctuation’ as a target item for Task 2 based on students’ performance in Task 1, they were at a loss about the second target error category to select. They still found ES to be a conundrum.
Task 3: Getting the Hang Of It
Drawing on their experience with ES in the first two tasks, when they came to Task 3, Steve and Jane found it easier to select target errors. Observing students’ writing performance in the previous task, they believed that students needed further improvement in punctuation, so they decided to stick to it. Since Task 3 is a debate speech that involved language input on ‘inversion’, and having learnt from their experience in Task 2, the teachers chose this structure as the other target feature for focused WCF to align feedback with instruction, even though ‘inversion’ was not included in their error coding list. They decided to invent a new code for it, which solved their original problem in Task 2 (i.e., no code for ‘imperative’). Realizing that students in the two classes were likely to have different needs, Jane began to feel uncomfortable about the standardized WCF practice mandated by the school and proposed that every teacher could choose one extra target error based on the needs of their own class (and she selected ‘agreement’, in addition to punctuation and inversion). In sum, Jane and Steve developed some new insights into ES for focused WCF—namely, teachers need not refer to the error types in the error coding list to guide their ES, and that greater flexibility is needed in ES in order to cater for diverse student needs. By the time they got to Task 3, they appeared to understand ES.
Task 4: In a Quandary Again
Although in Task 3, Jane and Steve demonstrated a better grasp of ES, when they came to Task 4 (persuasive letter writing), they were in a quandary again. Given some students’ obvious improvement in the use of punctuation in Task 3, and the irrelevance of the inversion structure for persuasive letters, they believed that they would have to select new target language features. However, they failed to identify appropriate error types for the target genre (persuasive writing) and areas in which most students had trouble with; thus, the teachers decided to keep ‘punctuation’ even though they were unsure if it was appropriate (given the general progress students had shown in the previous task). With little idea about the second target error type, Jane suggested ‘agreement’, which she selected as an extra target error for her own class in Task 3. Jane, however, noted the wishy-washy manner in which ES was made: ‘The last one, I think we did it in a bit hurry. . .we couldn’t figure out any kind of errors that the majority of students might have. And that’s why we let agreement appear again.’
What Teachers Did with Non-target Errors
In addition to the pre-selected error types, Jane and Steve marked some non-target errors (such as verb form, noun ending, article, preposition, and word choice) according to individual student needs, targeting mainly major and frequently occurring errors. Analysis of the selected student drafts shows that the teachers consistently marked more non-target errors than target errors (see Table 2) though they recalled that they gave feedback on many more errors in their previous comprehensive WCF practice.
Teacher-marked errors (target and non-target) in focal students’ texts.
As shown in Table 2, the number of teacher-marked target errors from Tasks 1 to 4 was 40, 21, 31 and 40, respectively, while the number of non-target errors rose to 204, 86, 203, and 167, respectively. Judging from the extent of WCF the teachers gave to target and non-target errors throughout the four tasks, it seems that the teachers maintained a similar pattern over time, with an average of one WCF point in approximately every 21, 27, 21 and 23 words from Tasks 1 to 4, respectively.
The teachers provided two reasons for this. First, it was probably due to their habitual comprehensive WCF practice, where they simply ‘cannot control’ (Jane) themselves. Another reason is the department head’s imperative to underline all other non-target errors. Although Jane and Steve disapproved of the department head’s suggestion as indicating all errors would defeat the purpose of their focused WCF innovation, they were under pressure to show that they did more than just responding to two pre-selected error categories, which was perceived as ‘not enough’ by the department head.
Discussion and Implications
The participating teachers’ first-hand experience with focused WCF has uncovered a range of issues that other teachers may face when implementing focused WCF in real-life classrooms. They are examined and discussed in the following subsections, alongside the implications.
Pre-Selection of Error Types before Feedback
Through trial and error, Jane and Steve learnt that the pre-selected error types should be linked to the typical features of the target genre, especially those that students have only partially acquired (e.g., ‘inversion’ for debate speech in the study). Such an approach enabled them to interweave feedback with instruction, which is in line with the spirit of formative assessment, in which feedback has a pivotal role to play (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Regardless of the genre-specific language features, another principle for ES is to target language items that most students have trouble with—that is, those that are partially acquired (Bitchener, 2008). In the study, for instance, based on students’ performance in Task 1, the teachers identified ‘punctuation’ as a common weak spot, which was targeted for focused WCF in the study. The findings of the study also point to the potential of a diagnostic test to identify students’ major weaknesses in grammatical accuracy so as to guide teachers’ initial ES (Bitchener et al., 2005). Results of the pre-study diagnostic picture writing test in the study revealed that ‘punctuation’ and ‘verb tense’ were high-frequency errors. It turned out that in Task 1 that involved a similar genre (story writing), ‘punctuation’ was also identified by the teachers as one of the most serious error types for students. A caveat is that since the genre may have a direct influence on the types of errors students make in writing, results of the diagnostic test may not be able to guide ES for unrelated genres. For instance, students in the study made many verb tense errors in story writing, but ‘verb tense’ was not considered an appropriate target for focused WCF in leaflet writing (Task 2) involving mainly the use of the simple present tense.
In the study, the teachers did not demonstrate much explicit awareness of the nature of error that is most amenable to focused WCF, though in Task 2 Jane expressed her doubt about the suitability of ‘spelling’ as a target error category as it is not rule-governed. Previous research has not provided conclusive evidence about the grammatical structures that benefit most from focused WCF, with earlier research addressing mainly rule-governed categories (Ferris, 2011) but more recent research suggesting that attention should also be paid to structures that are salient and meaning related (Rahimi, 2019). Bitchener and Ferris (2012) think that focused WCF may be more useful for more complex errors since such errors are cognitively more demanding for students to process than simpler ones. In the study, Jane and Steve targeted relatively simple error categories such as ‘verb tense’ and ‘subject–verb agreement’—that is, simple problems in discrete items (Truscott, 2001)—probably because of the proficiency level of the students (who were secondary students in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context). Whether simple or complex error is more amenable to focused WCF, however, is not within the scope of the study.
Apart from the nature of error in relation to whether it should be governed by rules or simplicity/complexity in linguistic processing as a criterion for ES, emerging from the findings is another issue about whether teachers should target small error categories such as ‘imperative’ or larger ones such as ‘verb form’. Through undertaking the WCF innovation, Jane and Steve learnt that the target error types could be delinked from the error categories provided in their error coding list, which mainly included larger error categories (e.g., ‘verb form’ rather than ‘imperative’ and ‘infinitive’). In Task 2, the teachers almost selected ‘imperative’ as a target error category but dropped the idea because it was not included in their error coding list. The researchers’ informal communication with the teachers prompted them to challenge their previous assumption about the primacy of the error types included in the coding sheet. Findings of the study suggest that it is helpful for teachers to target the error categories covered in pre-writing instruction—such as ‘imperative’ and ‘inversion’ in the study, which happen to be small categories—and align them with WCF. In other contexts where learners are more advanced in their proficiency, it may be appropriate for teachers to target large error categories such as ‘sentence structure’ (rather than ‘inversion’ in the study) (e.g., Rahimi, 2019). As Lee (2020) suggests, the choice of large or small error categories should be context-dependent.
Another issue that arose from the study is whether teachers should adhere to the same target error types for some time before moving to other categories. When Jane and Steve found themselves having to shift to new target errors from Task 1 to Task 2 due to the different requirements of the target genres, they felt uncomfortable about their approach. In the study, when the teachers planned for the writing tasks (and selected the target genres) before the start of the academic year, they did not do so with ES for focused WCF in mind. The finding suggests that a systematic approach to writing curriculum planning should take account of not only target genres, but also how they should be sequenced so that similar target language items could be taught and reinforced through instruction and feedback in an organized manner. For example, recount writing can be followed by story writing with verb tense and connectives as pre-selected target items for focused WCF (instead of story writing, letter of advice, and then recount writing).
A further issue about pre-selection of target errors concerns the optimal number of error types for focused WCF. The teachers began the study by pre-selecting two error types and from Task 3 they agreed that they could flexibly add one more error type based on student needs. Liu and Brown (2015) refer to focused WCF on two to five error categories as mid-focused, which is apparently a range that most teachers find manageable. In the secondary context where Jane and Steve were situated, their EFL students tended to make a large number of errors. With a class size of slightly over 30 students and a heavy teaching load in the Hong Kong context (each English teacher normally teaching three English classes with regular compositions to mark), a mid-focused approach to WCF is definitely less time-consuming than comprehensive WCF, and at the same time teachers are freed up to respond to other dimensions of student writing, as in the study. Mid-focused WCF is also likely to be manageable for students (though student perceptions are beyond the scope of this study). The optimal number of target error categories, however, is context-dependent since what is appropriate and manageable in one context may not be so in another. It is also noteworthy that teachers need not adhere to the same number of pre-selected error types for all writing assignments. They can vary the number according to the nature of the writing tasks and needs of students (e.g., students of different proficiency levels and/or motivations), and at different times of the writing course, unlike in experimentally based research, where focused WCF is usually delivered to a fixed number of error categories throughout the duration of the study (e.g., Bitchener, 2008).
ES During Feedback
In the study, the teachers underlined non-target errors selectively according to student needs, with approximately one WCF point in every 20 plus words. Such focused WCF is meant to be student-specific, not linked to the pre-selected error types. Although Jane and Steve did not indicate all errors for students, similar to the teachers in McMartin-Miller (2014), they admitted a tendency to mark more errors because they were too used to their previous comprehensive WCF practice. Also, they were influenced by the department head, who advised them to point out all errors for students by underlining them. As shown in Lee (2008), school teachers generally worry that if they do less in WCF they may be negatively perceived by the department head, which may explain why teachers in the study found themselves giving quite a lot of feedback on non-target errors to individual students, though their approach was still primarily selective rather than comprehensive. Indeed, ES for focused WCF in the study was found to be inextricably linked with power relationships in the sociocultural context of teachers’ work (Lee, 2008). To support teachers in their WCF innovation (and development of feedback literacy), it is important that school leaders are sensitive to teachers’ needs and allow them to exercise professional autonomy in their WCF practices.
While the question of an optimal amount of student-specific WCF remains to be investigated, to maximize the potential of WCF that is geared towards individual student needs it is crucial that WCF decisions are shared with students. Feedback is a process rather than a mere product, as well as a shared responsibility between teacher and students (Carless and Winstone, 2020; Lee, 2021). In the study, however, teachers dominated the WCF process, where standardized WCF practice was promoted by the school. Towards the end of the study, one complex issue that still plagued Jane and Steve was how to select errors that would suit the needs of both classes of students. In the final task, failing to locate target error types that could serve this purpose, the teachers selected target language items in a relatively random manner again, in spite of the principles acquired through their WCF practice from Tasks 1 to 3. For Jane and Steve, it was probably the perceived need to select target error types that suited the large majority of students in class which posed an obstacle to ES in Task 4. This, however, is an unrealistic goal because there are always diverse needs in a class of students. It is important that teachers re-think the value of standardized practice and embrace focused WCF that is tailored for individual students.
Since teachers’ views about the most desirable WCF pedagogy may diverge from students’ own preferences (Amrhein and Nassaji, 2010), involving students in WCF decisions can enable teachers to gear WCF towards individual student needs. For instance, teachers could ask students to make WCF requests before submitting their writing (e.g., requesting that the teacher respond to certain language items, in addition to the teacher-selected target items), and/or annotate their own texts with questions about language use, so that teachers could give WCF in response to requests that suit individual needs. To help students better understand their own needs in written accuracy, pre-course diagnostic writing test results, if applicable, could be shared with individual students to help them understand their own strengths and weaknesses in written accuracy, which could facilitate them to formulate their WCF requests. For students with explicit grammar knowledge, teachers can even consider pre-selecting target language items together with students, involving them in WCF decision-making even at the pre-feedback stage.
To conclude, the focused WCF approach adopted by Jane and Steve was characterized by a combination of WCF based on pre-selected error types and selective response to errors according to student needs, especially those that were considered frequent and serious. Previous WCF research tends to characterize focused WCF as feedback on a very narrow range of pre-selected structures only (e.g., Frear and Chiu, 2015), which is impractical for authentic classroom contexts. The study suggests that in WCF, feedback scope that suits the needs of real-world contexts is likely to be a combination of specific pre-selected error categories based on genre-specific language features and student needs, plus selective feedback on errors tailored for individual student needs. ES in the study, however, was dominated by the teachers. To ensure that focused WCF can truly meet student needs, teachers and students should share responsibility and co-participate in ES—for example, with the teacher pre-selecting target language items, where possible, through negotiation with students, and students making requests for specific error categories they want to receive feedback on. More importantly, the findings of the study suggest that teachers in similar contexts may have little idea about how to go about selecting errors for focused WCF. They may similarly be guided by taken-for-granted assumptions that are not necessarily correct—that is, that target language items should be selected from the error types provided in error coding sheets. Through undertaking WCF innovation, engaging in reflection, and exercising teacher agency, Jane and Steve showed evidence of development in their feedback literacy. Teachers should be encouraged and provided with opportunities to conduct classroom-based inquiry to improve their WCF practices, with the support of school leaders who are willing to allow teachers to exercise flexibility and autonomy in their WCF practices. It is also necessary for teacher education programs to include feedback literacy as a component of teaching training—for example, having pre-service and in-service teachers analyze and identify language features in different genres, and providing diagnostic exercises to help them identify major and high-frequency errors in student writing.
Conclusion
Despite the small sample size of the study, the findings as well as implications explored in the preceding section have pedagogical relevance for teachers in similar contexts. The study adds new knowledge to previous research on feedback scope in WCF dominated by the experimental design by providing an in-depth description of two teachers’ real-life attempts at focused WCF in naturalistic writing classrooms, thereby disclosing the range of issues and challenges teachers are likely to face if they are to shift from a comprehensive approach to a focused approach to WCF. Future research could examine teachers’ WCF innovations with students of differing proficiency levels and in other educational contexts. In particular, research could explore the nature of errors selected for focused WCF—for example, whether applying focused WCF to more complex errors such as meaning-related sentence structure errors could lead to improvement in student writing, as well as how students can be empowered to play an active role in ES and in monitoring their own written accuracy development.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
When data was collected for the article Na Luo was working at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. When the paper was drafted she was with Wuhan University of Science and Technology. Currently, she is working at Northeast Normal University.
Icy Lee is now affiliated to the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University and can be reached at <icy.lee@nie.edu.sg>.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work described in this paper was fully supported by the General Research Fund from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project Number: CUHK 14606317).
