EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom

Abstract

To date, research on feedback in second language (L2) writing has primarily focused on feedback per se, with little attention paid to the teachers’ professional development with regard to feedback in writing. This study aims to explore the ways in which two secondary teachers in Hong Kong attempted to implement feedback innovation in their writing classrooms after receiving some professional development input, as well as the factors that influenced their attempts at feedback innovation. The findings indicate that the teachers were unable to fully translate into practice the feedback principles acquired from teacher education and reveal a string of factors that influenced their attempts at feedback innovation. The study has implications for teacher education and teacher professional development, shedding light on how teachers can be supported to bring innovation to conventional feedback approaches in the writing classroom.

Keywords

EFL writing feedback innovation L2 writing professional development

I Introduction

The past few decades have witnessed a surge of research into feedback in second language (L2) writing. A robust amount of research has addressed written corrective feedback (WCF). For instance, significant effort has been made to investigate the efficacy of WCF (e.g. Ashwell, 2000; Chandler, 2003; Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2012), feedback mechanisms and strategies (e.g. Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Ellis, 2009; Ferris, 2006; Lalande, 1982), and in particular focused WCF (e.g. Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Sheen, 2007). Research has also looked into students’ perceptions of teacher feedback (e.g. Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Lee, 2005; Radecki & Swales, 1988), as well as the potential role of formative feedback (e.g. Lee, 2007; F. Hyland, 2010), self-feedback and peer feedback (e.g. Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Min, 2006; Sullivan & Lindgren, 2002).

Although the literature has highlighted the benefits of different feedback strategies, many teachers in the context of English as a foreign language (EFL) do not seem to be practising what has been recommended (Furneaux, Paran & Fairfax, 2007). Take Hong Kong as an example. As opposed to what the literature has suggested about the need to provide feedback at intermediate stages to help students improve their writing (e.g. Ferris, 1995, 2003, 2006), many EFL teachers give feedback to single drafts, playing the role of ‘error hunters’. They place priority on form-based feedback where errors are marked comprehensively (Lee, 2004). As writing is performed in product-oriented classrooms, students are not afforded the opportunity to act on the teacher’s feedback. Conferencing, peer and self-evaluation are not commonly practised (Lee, 2004) and, as a result, students remain passive and are not encouraged to take control of their own writing (e.g. Furneaux et al., 2007; Yang, Badger & Yu, 2006). Overall, there is a disjuncture between teachers’ feedback practices and recommended principles in the literature (Lee, 2008), making feedback in writing an urgent area for teachers’ continuing professional development and an important agenda for writing teacher education.

However, neither the literature on teacher education in L2 writing nor feedback research itself has addressed teachers’ professional development with regard to feedback in writing. The present study was conducted against such a backdrop and designed to investigate how two secondary teachers in Hong Kong attempted to implement feedback innovation in their writing classrooms after receiving some professional development input, filling a void in existing feedback research. Specifically, the study explores the extent to which teachers are able to translate into practice the feedback principles acquired from professional development input, as well as the factors that influence their attempts at feedback innovation. Research that examines how teachers undertake feedback innovation after receiving training can contribute new knowledge to the writing teacher education and feedback literature. Such knowledge can throw light on the theory–practice divide, if any, and the problems that teachers face in undertaking feedback innovation, with direct implications for teacher education and teachers’ continuing professional development with regard to feedback in writing.

Relying on qualitative data collected from interviews with and classroom observations of two secondary teachers, the study aimed to respond to the following research questions:

How did the teachers approach feedback innovation in their writing classrooms, and to what extent were they able to translate into practice the feedback principles acquired from professional development input?

What factors might have influenced their attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classrooms?

II Literature review

This study focuses on teachers’ implementation of feedback innovation, which refers to the feedback strategies that the participating teachers had either not used or not regularly used before the study commenced. This definition is based on Rogers’ (2003) notion of ‘innovation’ as ‘an idea, practice or object perceived as new by an individual or other units of adoption’ (p. 12). The innovative feedback strategies selected by the two participating teachers in the study include focused, coded WCF and peer feedback. The former was chosen in response to conventional WCF practices that adopted a comprehensive approach to WCF, where direct WCF was commonly practised (Lee, 2004). The latter was selected as an attempt, on the part of the teachers, to engage students actively during the feedback process and to share responsibility with them. This section is in two parts. Part one reviews the literature on the selected innovative feedback strategies, namely focused and coded WCF and peer feedback, while Part two focuses on professional development in respect to feedback in L2 writing.

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

Research on teacher feedback has yielded valuable insights on the different types and forms of written corrective feedback (WCF) teachers can use in the writing classroom. Recent empirical investigations have focused a great deal on the effectiveness of unfocused versus focused WCF. Unfocused WCF describes a common practice among teachers, where all errors are corrected (i.e. comprehensive or extensive WCF) (Ellis, Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, 2008). Those who argue for focused WCF, i.e. focusing on a limited number of pre-selected linguistic features, contend that such an approach is less overwhelming for the students as unfocused WCF can lead to ‘information overload’ (Bitchener, 2008, p. 109) and can be discouraging and hence unhelpful (K. Hyland & F. Hyland, 2006). Instead, focused WCF feedback is proposed as a viable option in that learners can develop a better understanding of the errors (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). According to Ellis et al. (2008), learners are more prone to notice and understand the feedback when a limited number of error types is targeted. In order to examine the value of focused WCF, Bitchener (2008), Bitchener and Knoch (2008, 2009, 2010) and Sheen (2007) examined feedback given on one linguistic domain. The results of their studies yielded evidence for the effectiveness of focused WCF in improving written accuracy in the short and long run. However, it is also argued that selecting only one error type for feedback is not practical because, in writing, students need to focus on different error types at the same time (Van Beuningen, 2010). Thus, a middle ground is proposed, where teachers select several error categories, instead of one, for feedback (Storch, 2010). Though there is research that points to the efficacy of unfocused WCF, studies that indicate its benefits are as yet few and far between (Truscott & Hsu, 2008; Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2008). Current WCF research has demonstrated that focused WCF, involving rule-based error categories in particular, appears to be beneficial to students of lower language proficiency, whereas unfocused WCF may be useful to advanced learners with a high level of proficiency (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). Overall, the selection of focused WCF as an innovative feedback tool in the study is in line with the advice provided in the feedback literature, especially because the students receiving focused WCF in the study are EFL school learners, and hence of relatively lower language proficiency.

Apart from the extent of WCF (i.e. focused versus unfocused), teachers are faced with the choice of giving direct or indirect WCF – that is providing correct answers (direct) or simply highlighting errors (indirect). Coded WCF is a kind of indirect WCF (Ferris, 2011) where the teacher makes use of error codes to provide students with hints for self-correction (without codes such indirect WCF is referred to as uncoded). Although there are conflicting findings about the merits of direct and indirect WCF, the benefits of indirect WCF have been pointed out by a number of researchers (e.g. Ferris, 2006; Lalande, 1982). For example, indirect WCF engages students in ‘guided learning and problem solving’ (Lalande, 1982, p. 143), thereby fostering reflection upon their existing knowledge or partially internalized knowledge (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012), which is more likely to lead to improved accuracy in the long run. Such feedback is most effective when delivered to treatable/rule-governed items (Ferris, 2001). A handful of studies (e.g. Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Robb, Ross & Shortreed, 1986) have compared the differences between coded and uncoded feedback but yielded no significant difference between the two types of indirect feedback. Despite this, codes are considered useful as they are conducive to reflection and cognitive engagement on the part of students (Ferris, 2011). In contexts where teachers are used to giving direct WCF (i.e. providing correct answers to written errors), as in the study, coded WCF can be considered an innovation and has potential to foster students’ cognitive engagement.

A growing body of literature has highlighted the importance of engaging students in the learning process and providing appropriate feedback that informs learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998), such as engaging students in peer feedback. Peer feedback is associated with an array of benefits, such as affording students the opportunity to critically analyse their peers’ writing (and hence gain a better understanding of their own writing) (Crusan, 2010) and to hone their own proofreading and editing skills (Ferris, 2011). It was also found that students could improve their writing through providing feedback to their peers (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009), i.e. playing the role of givers, apart from that of recipients. As compared to teacher feedback, peer comments could provide equal or even greater benefits to students (Tsui & Ng, 2000), such as enhanced audience awareness. Specifically, through demystifying the assessment criteria and outlining them in a peer feedback form, students become cognizant of the assessment criteria and the requirements of the writing, and teachers can enable students to progress towards the required standards (Carless, 2006). In the EFL writing classroom, however, students still tend to believe that it is mainly the teacher’s job to respond to students’ writing (Sengupta, 1998; Tsui & Ng, 2000). Despite the potential of peer feedback, research has found that it is hard to alter students’ entrenched beliefs about the teacher and student roles in the EFL writing classroom. Hence, peer feedback is not regularly practised in the EFL context. In order to implement peer feedback effectively, it is proposed that peer feedback training be provided (Hansen & Liu, 2005; Min, 2006; Rollinson, 2005), where teachers give demonstrations, model the peer feedback procedure, and create a positive and supportive environment for effective peer feedback to take place (Min, 2005). To enable students to reap maximum benefits from peer feedback, the focus should not only be confined to language use, but it should also address content and organizational issues (Hansen & Liu, 2005).

2 Teachers’ professional development with regard to feedback in writing

The research findings and pedagogical principles about feedback in writing delineated in the above, however, seem to have failed to filter to the classroom level. In EFL contexts like Hong Kong, teachers’ feedback practices have remained predominantly product-based and form-focused, with error identification ingrained in their habitual practices. The ineffectiveness of their feedback practices is well acknowledged by EFL teachers, such as those in Lee’s (2011) study, who perceive the need to bring innovation to conventional feedback approaches. While feedback innovation is imperative, training and professional development are much needed to equip teachers with the knowledge and skills to go about innovation.

Educating teachers to effect change in their feedback practice, however, can be an arduous task since professional development does not entail the transmission of knowledge alone but much professional learning takes place as a result of teachers’ interaction with the context at both the micro (e.g. school culture) and macro (e.g. examination culture) level, as well as the apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975). Indeed, human learning takes place ‘in the context of our lived experience of participation in the world’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 3), and there is not a linear relationship between learning and the appropriation of knowledge. Rather, knowledge is constructed in contexts, and both participation and context are crucial to human cognition and learning (Johnson, 2006). Thus, the way EFL teachers respond to writing is influenced by the contexts in which teachers are situated (Vygotsky, 1978). Such contexts can include teachers’ prior learning experiences as students themselves, as members of the teaching community within their own context and the broader educational context, and as participants in professional development activities (e.g. teacher education programmes and professional development seminars and workshops). The low impact of teacher education, in particular, has been pointed out in the teacher socialization literature, pointing to the discrepancy between the knowledge about best professional practice acquired from teacher education, on the one hand, and the entrenched beliefs and practices that permeate the teaching context, on the other (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Such entrenched beliefs and practices emanate largely from the apprenticeship of observation; that is, teachers’ feedback practices are heavily influenced by the way in which their own teachers responded to their writing when they were students themselves. Thus, teacher education on feedback in writing can be met with obstacles; even if teachers receive training and attempt to undertake feedback innovation, it is unclear how the contextual factors may influence their innovation attempts. With this purpose in mind, the present study sets out to explore the possible impact of professional development input on teachers’ innovative feedback attempts, the challenges they may face, and how they navigate change in their specific teaching contexts.

III The study

1 Participants and context

The study was conducted in two co-educational secondary schools in Hong Kong. Two teachers, Gwen and Amelia (pseudonyms), who are native speakers of Cantonese, took part in the study voluntarily; Gwen taught in a Band 3¹ school and Amelia in a Band 2 school at the time of the study. Gwen has a Bachelor’s degree in English Language Teaching (ELT) and was in the second year of a Master’s in ELT program at the time of the study, whereas Amelia has a Bachelor’s degree in English and a Master’s degree in ELT. While Gwen had three years of teaching experience, Amelia had 10 years.

Both teachers had attended a 20-hour writing teacher education course (on the MA in ELT program) taught by the first researcher, as well as a whole-day (six hours) professional development (PD) workshop held three months before the project commenced. In the writing teacher education course, a total of six hours was devoted to feedback and assessment in writing. The PD workshop not only reinforced the ideas introduced in the writing teacher education course but also engaged teachers actively in challenging their existing feedback practices and discussing alternative feedback approaches in a workshop style that involved discussion and professional sharing. Taken together, the writing teacher education course and the PD workshop provided opportunities for the participants to problematize conventional feedback practices prevalent in EFL classrooms, such as an excessive focus on student errors in writing, lack of student involvement, and the use of classroom writing as a testing rather than learning activity (i.e. involving little instruction) that takes place in a product-based classroom (i.e. requiring single drafts). In particular, alternatives were proposed, e.g. a focused approach to error feedback, the use of peer feedback, and the use of rubric-based feedback to provide diagnostic information to students in a process-oriented classroom. Teachers were invited to think outside the box and to consider the pros and cons of existing and alternative feedback practices. For instance, the two extreme approaches of over-using error codes and avoidance of error codes (i.e. teachers using mainly direct WCF) were discussed, and it was concluded that codes should be used sparingly and judiciously. Also, a student-centred approach to feedback was advocated – i.e. teachers should, where possible, vary their feedback according to student needs. Peer feedback was introduced as a means to involve students more actively in the writing classroom, and it was suggested that teachers provide training and encourage students to comment on not only language but also content and organization. At the end of the one-day PD workshop, the understanding between the research team and the teachers was that they would return to their schools and implement innovative feedback strategies (of their own choice) that suited their own context. Gwen and Amelia (and their schools) gave written consent for data to be collected for the study. In the article, ‘professional development input’ refers to the input the teachers received from the teacher education course and the one-day PD workshop.

The study was conducted in two Secondary 3 (Grade 9) classrooms each taught by Gwen and Amelia, with 34 and 15 students respectively. Secondary 3 was selected as it was the only grade level that the teachers taught. The students, aged 14–15 years old, had been studying English for approximately 11–12 years at the time of the study. The Territory System Assessment (TSA)², a public examination that all school students in Hong Kong take at grades 6 and 9, reflects that the English proficiency level of students in both schools was below the territory’s average.

Before describing the innovative feedback strategies adopted by the participants in the study, it is important to consider the feedback practices they had used before the study. Previously, the feedback Gwen and Amelia gave students predominantly focused on language issues. Their WCF was unfocused; both of them mainly used direct WCF, i.e. giving correct answers for errors. They primarily adopted a product-oriented approach, where terminal drafts were collected. After some deliberation (thanks to the first researcher’s input in the workshop, and the teachers’ careful consideration of the needs of their students and their own teaching context), both participants decided to implement coded WCF (instead of direct WCF) and peer feedback (which they had rarely attempted before) in a process writing classroom. Gwen also aimed to implement focused WCF (instead of unfocused WCF), delivering feedback to selected errors. It is noteworthy that the innovative feedback strategies are not ‘new’ in the L2 literature and may even be considered conventional in certain contexts, but they were selected by the teachers as innovative practices in their own contexts, as well as viable alternatives to their existing feedback practices with potential to help improve teaching and learning in the writing classroom.

2 Data collection and analysis

The objectives of this study are to understand how the teachers attempted to implement innovative feedback strategies as a result of the PD input they had received, and the factors that influenced their feedback innovation. Qualitative research is well suited as it allows the researchers to capture ‘personal perspectives and experiences’ (Patton, 1990, p. 40) and to understand the context under study (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

In the study, qualitative data were collected systematically from the participating teachers, the English department heads and school principals during the entire school year. Data sources include interviews with the principal and English department head of each school, pre- and post-study interviews with the two participating teachers (for interview questions, see Appendix 1), and classroom observations (three for Gwen and four for Amelia, conducted by the first two researchers), during which field notes were taken. Although not part of the analytical focus, written feedback to six students, of high, mid and low language proficiency, taught by each teacher was also collected (on eight pieces of writing from Gwen’s students and six from Amelia’s) in order to triangulate with their self-reported practices. All the teacher interviews were conducted in English and were audio-recorded and later transcribed.

To answer the first research question about the participants’ implementation of feedback innovation, the interview transcripts were read repeatedly to identify the teachers’ self-reports about their feedback practices. Such data were triangulated with the observational data to find out the extent to which the teachers were able to translate feedback principles into practice. Although the teachers’ written feedback was not the focus of our analysis, the selected student texts were read through to identify the main WCF approaches adopted. To answer the second research question about the factors that influenced teachers’ implementation of feedback innovation, the transcript data were systematically gone through line by line until general patterns emerged after several rounds of reading. Using open coding, the data were segmented into categories of information (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), during which codes were assigned. Then, through axial coding, themes pertaining to the research question were generated.

IV Results and discussion

In this section, we present and discuss the key themes arising from each of the research questions that point to the overall findings.

Research question 1: How did teachers approach feedback innovation in their writing classrooms, and to what extent were they able to translate into practice the feedback principles acquired from professional development input?

The first research question focused on the teachers’ implementation of focused, coded WCF and peer feedback respectively, and the extent to which teachers were able to translate feedback principles into practice.

a Focused, coded WCF

Gwen and Amelia both hoped to improve their WCF strategies. Gwen wanted to implement focused, coded WCF where she would pre-select a few error types and indicate the errors by means of codes. Rather than practising focused, coded WCF, Amelia was interested in coded WCF only, where she would use codes for a few linguistic items in each piece of writing, and varying the codes according to the different proficiency levels of the students. The rest of the errors would be marked using a direct feedback approach, with the correct answers provided. These ideas are all in line with the input they had gained from the writing teacher education course and the PD workshop.

For Gwen, focused, coded WCF was important because students could be given opportunities to reflect on and self-correct their errors, and focused WCF was ‘more manageable’ (teacher interview) for her students. In the study, she pre-selected three to four items for each text type and responded to those only. She said:

… because the feedback given is focused and not that direct … For example, ‘art’ so they can think about “Did I use the wrong article, why should I use ‘the’ instead of ‘a’?” They can reflect in this way. (Teacher interview)

Gwen’s WCF practice was in line with the best practice advice in the feedback literature (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2014), which she acquired from professional development input. She believed that it is important to respond to a number of, instead of all, grammar items in student writing, and that coded WCF should be used sparingly (Lee, 1997).

The interview data and classroom observations showed that Gwen had a clear conceptual understanding of focused and coded WCF. In the first four months of the study, she did attempt it quite consistently, responding to and coding three to four pre-selected language items (e.g. sp for spelling and vt for verb tense). Gradually, however, she marked more and more errors and used fewer and fewer codes. Eventually, Gwen reverted to marking all errors and providing correct answers (i.e. unfocused, direct WCF). She confessed that she had lost her determination to persevere after the first term, mainly because of her worry about the different practices of other colleagues and her uncertainty about students’ attitudes to her new approach. Since both teachers and students in her school were used to the conventional practice of giving unfocused, direct WCF to student writing (Lee, 2004), Gwen became unsure if she should insist on her new approach, particularly when she felt that she was operating in isolation. Although Gwen understood that students should not be ‘overwhelmed by a large amount of WCF’ (teacher interview), she felt that she was a minority in her attempt at feedback innovation and hence found it hard to persist. Re-adopting her previous approach gave her a sense of comfort and security. She felt that if the innovative feedback strategies she was attempting were mandated by the school, then everyone would follow:

Because it’s like a policy and the students will feel more comfortable in it …, as students compare and colleagues will also compare. (Teacher interview)

While Gwen was convinced by the importance of focused, coded WCF in her context, she was unable to implement the principles fully (as acquired from the teacher education course and PD workshop) due to the constraints of her context. The factors that account for this situation will be further explored in the section related to research question 2.

Amelia also attempted to use codes but her approach to WCF was unfocused as previously practised i.e. she responded to all written errors. Although she was aware of the benefits of a focused approach to WCF, as emphasized in the writing teacher education course and the PD workshop, she said that it was almost impossible to implement focused WCF because of her school policy:

I think according to the school policy, we have to let students know every error in their composition … we have to pinpoint all their errors. (Teacher interview)

Instead, she considered coded feedback a viable option worth experimenting with, as students would need ‘more guidance on how to correct errors’. To begin with, as emphasized in the writing teacher education course and PD workshop, Amelia said she would focus on a few grammar items, varying the codes according to the different proficiency levels of the students (Ferris, 2004). For other grammar items, Amelia said she would mainly give direct feedback:

… maybe the more difficult ones, maybe the expressions, they don’t know the expression, I give them the expression but for my area of concern like past tense, like spelling, I’ll ask them to check their work, give them a code and ask them to search for their own corrections. (Teacher interview)

The quote above showed that Amelia regarded coded WCF as a means to help students reflect on and correct their mistakes (Lalande, 1982), and she used codes for the less difficult grammar items like verb tense and spelling as she believed these two categories were manageable for students. Analysis of her written feedback showed that the codes Amelia used were confined to sp (spelling) and t (tense), though her plan was to vary her error codes according to students’ proficiency level. Lack of time was put forward as a reason to explain why she was not able to fully practise what she believed, as it would require time to take a more student-centred approach to varying codes according to individual student needs and explaining codes to students:

As my class is Form 3, so they’re quite busy. They have to do TSA training. They have to do different kinds of exercises. It involves lots of time in explaining codes … (Teacher interview)

In terms of WCF, overall Amelia was unable to fully practise the feedback principles as recommended in the literature (and acquired from the teacher education course and PD workshop she had attended). The factors that influenced Amelia’s implementation of WCF will be explored in greater depth in the following section that addresses research question 2.

b Peer feedback

In addition to focused and coded WCF, another innovation the two teachers adopted was peer feedback. Gwen conducted peer feedback on a regular basis during the study. She explained the purpose of peer feedback as follows:

Peer feedback provides a chance for students to learn from each other and if their peer can do something good, they can learn from it and if they find that there is something that they have to improve, they can reflect on their own work and, they will not make the same mistakes. (Teacher interview)

Gwen thought that peer feedback gave students an opportunity to analyse the writing of their peers and to hone their writing skills. To implement peer feedback, Gwen designed a peer feedback form for different writing tasks. There were six areas of focus in the peer feedback form, which were targeted at mostly global aspects (e.g. structure and development of ideas), and the form was based on a four-point scale, ranging from Excellent, Pretty Good to Average and Needs Improvement. The criteria included in the form reflected her instructional focuses, which were borne out in the classroom observational data, enabling her to integrate assessment and teaching. For instance, in one observed lesson where Gwen taught students how to carry out peer feedback on a film review with a detailed feedback form, she first highlighted the major features such as background information about the film, the plot, and relevant comments on the film. She then asked students to evaluate whether their peers had fulfilled the criteria specified in the feedback form. The observational data show that Gwen provided some peer feedback training for her students, drawing attention to not only micro but also macro issues in writing (Hansen & Liu, 2005; Min, 2005, 2006). The feedback form used was able to help students stay focused on the peer feedback activity, as well as the criteria for judging the quality of the peers’ writing. Overall, the findings show that Gwen was able to translate into practice the general peer feedback principles, which she had learnt from the writing teacher education course and the PD workshop.

In another peer feedback lesson, Gwen first refreshed the students’ memories about the necessary elements of the piece of writing they had completed and then went over the criteria in the feedback form with the students. Then she gave students a piece of writing, as part of peer feedback training, and asked them to rate it by placing stickers on the feedback form. In the observed lesson, she spent approximately 35 minutes on training and then the students were left to perform peer feedback in pairs, during which they were also required to put stickers on the feedback form to evaluate their peer’s writing (as in the peer feedback training). The observational data show that students tended to rush through the task by putting stickers next to the scale on the peer feedback form, which might draw their attention away from the student text and the peer feedback task itself. Gwen could have asked students to focus on the text first, identify areas of strengths and weaknesses with reference to the criteria, use these to justify their evaluation, and then place stickers next to the scale. Through doing these, students could have engaged with the text and the peer feedback activity at a deeper level. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that Gwen understood the value of peer feedback in the writing classroom, attempted to implement it in a systematic manner, but that further professional development in peer feedback is probably needed to help her develop expertise in the implementation of peer feedback. In fact, Gwen herself admitted that she was doubtful about the effectiveness of the approach she took in conducting peer feedback, especially the way in which peer feedback training was provided. Her uncertainty is reflected in the quote below:

For the peer assessment, just like the lesson you observed last time I tried to provide some training. I asked them to focus on one special aspect first and give the work some stickers and something like that, right! And I’m not sure if it’s effective or not I’m not sure this can be regarded as training. (Teacher interview)

For Amelia, peer feedback was attempted a few times within a process approach that was practised in a limited manner. In the writing lessons, Amelia instructed students to write a first draft and then, after peer feedback, to use white-out to make changes only at the word/phrase level on their original draft. Students were not required to write a fresh draft. As a result, the changes students made remained at the word, phrase or sentence level. The observational data show that in one peer feedback lesson, Amelia focused on the past tense and spelling in a narrative writing task. She first reviewed the past tense and returned students’ writing, with all the verbs in the past tense underlined by herself (instead of by the students). She then asked them to swap their writing with their peers and check whether the verbs underlined were correct or not. After checking their peers’ writing, the students then wrote down the total number of mistakes their peers had made. Amelia’s students were asked to engage in relatively low-level work as compared to the students of Gwen, though her students were generally more proficient than those of Gwen. In another peer feedback lesson, Amelia drew students’ attention to vocabulary use. First, she reviewed 20 items about outdoor activities in the vocabulary book. Then she asked the class to read their partner’s text and underline 10 vocabulary items they had learnt from the vocabulary book, circling those about outdoor activities. Finally, she asked students to correct the spelling of the underlined/circled vocabulary. Again, the focus of peer review was rather limited, and the approach adopted by Amelia was highly controlled. Overall, in peer feedback sessions, Amelia mainly focused on micro features such as the past tense and spelling, implementing peer feedback in a pretty limiting and decontextualized way. For vocabulary, she directed students’ attention to whether or not the taught items had been used and whether they were correctly spelt, rather than whether they were appropriately used in context. Although Amelia attempted to experiment with peer feedback as an innovative attempt, what occurred in the classroom appeared to depart from recommended principles (as presented in the writing teacher education course and PD workshop), which suggest that teachers draw student attention to both macro and micro features of student text (Hansen & Liu, 2005) and allow them to take greater responsibility for learning.

To answer the first research question about the teachers’ approach to feedback innovation and the extent to which they were able to translate into practice the feedback principles acquired from teacher education, the findings show that while Gwen and Amelia made efforts in their attempts, in different ways there was a gap between the ideal as recommended in the PD input and the reality experienced by the teachers. In the next section we move on to discuss the factors that influenced their attempts at feedback innovation, shedding light on the possible causes of the limited impact of the PD input.

Research question 2: What factors might have influenced their attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classrooms?

The data analysis shows that a number of factors exerted influence on teachers’ feedback innovation, also providing reasons to explain the limited impact of the PD input.

a School rules and limited power of teachers

A significant factor that impinged on the teachers’ implementation of feedback innovation was the set of rules governing their work, and their lack of power and autonomy in their school contexts. Because of the fixed curriculum and syllabus, and hence the time constraint, Gwen reverted from focused, coded WCF to unfocused, direct WCF in the second school term. She had the following to say about coded WCF:

In the beginning, I think it (coded feedback) worked because at the start of the academic year, we still had time I mean for both teachers and the students but after a while, maybe one or two months later, we all got busy and then many students just do not bother about what the codes mean. I have to remind them every time for the meaning of the code ‘t’ means tense, so I kind of go back to my original practice. (Teacher interview)

As Gwen had a packed syllabus to teach, it left her with insufficient time in the lesson to constantly remind students what the codes stood for. As a result, she gave up the use of coded WCF after one semester.

Moreover, Gwen was aware that though the principal and English department head were generally supportive of her innovation (which was approved by them), they were primarily concerned with the need for teachers to cover the syllabus and finish the tight teaching schedule. She knew that she had to be compliant, and somehow knowing the school leaders’ priority discouraged her from persisting in her feedback innovation. In the interviews with Gwen’s English department head and principal, a recurring theme was the importance for teachers to navigate change within the packed syllabus and time constraint:

Our heavy workload … and very tight teaching schedule, so I think it’s these two factors inhibiting change. (Interview with the English department head)

Time, time, because, you know, in the coming year, the NSS,³ so I think teachers could be very busy, preparing students for this public examination … So while they’re coaching students for learning, at the same time, getting involved in this project, I think the teachers themselves have to learn how to manage their time appropriately. (Interview with the Principal)

The rule imposed by the tight curriculum, coupled with the teachers’ limited power, explains why Gwen was unable to fully implement the feedback innovation as planned. As pointed out in the teacher professional development literature (Johnson, 2006), Gwen’s attempts at feedback innovation were stymied by the dominant, formidable school culture that mandated compliance with established school rules and regulations governing different aspects of teachers’ work.

Amelia was faced with a similar problem. The prescribed curriculum and syllabus imposed constraints, as she explained below:

I think it’s the time problem. It takes up lots of time and if we put more time here, maybe you have to sacrifice the time for doing other things. You have to strike a balance between these two. (Teacher interview)

Amelia explained that she had to set aside time for preparing students for public examinations (mainly TSA for Secondary 3 students). She found it hard to juggle the time constraint required for the feedback innovation, namely peer feedback and coded WCF, which she attempted to implement.

As my class is Form 3, so they’re quite busy. They have to do TSA training. They have to do different kinds of exercises. It involves lots of time in peer feedback and explaining codes … (Teacher interview)

For coded WCF, she did not fully implement what she had planned for, focusing mainly on verb tense and spelling in the study. This, according to Amelia, was a time-saving practice as using more error codes would take her more time to explain to students.

Amelia’s principal and English department head shared the same concern about the time constraint. The English department head said:

… but in terms of time, very limited to try, like process writing and peer feedback, it’s very difficult, hard to find the time. (Interview with the English department head)

This concern with time could also partly explain why students were not required to produce another draft but instead they only needed to make changes to the first draft with white-out. This was definitely more time-saving than a ‘real’ process approach that involves multiple drafting.

Amelia’s attempt at feedback innovation was further impacted upon by the limited power of teachers. She said that she was allowed to practise innovative feedback strategies to the extent that the approaches did not affect the usual operation of the school:

According to the school’s policy, we have to let students know every error in compositions. (Teacher interview)

Comments from Amelia’s English department head affirmed the position taken by the school on what was approved practice. It was clear that focused WCF was not seen positively:

I think there are some standards like you should mark all the mistakes. The students should know what they have done wrong but we did not say the mistakes should be told in the way of a comment, having the whole line corrected or using symbols. They can use these methods as long as the message is clear that the students understand. (Interview with the English department head)

Because of the strong view of the English department head about the need to mark errors comprehensively, Amelia had reservations about focused WCF and adhered to comprehensive WCF. The findings suggest that entrenched school rules and limited power of teachers made it difficult for the teachers to fully translate recommended feedback principles into practice.

b Lack of support from colleagues

Another factor that influenced the teachers’ feedback innovation was the lack of involvement of colleagues in the English team, and an ensuing sense of insecurity. In Gwen’s case, she experienced a sense of discomfort and feared being excluded by members of the team because of her nonconformity to the usual feedback approaches.

Students compare and colleagues also compare. We have composition inspection and they (the colleagues) will question why Gwen is marking in a different way, like using focused marking but why they have to spot out every mistake … (Teacher interview)

As Gwen innovated in isolation without the involvement of key members of the community, she had a strong sense of insecurity and anxiety. For Amelia, the colleagues in her school gave limited support to feedback innovation in general. According to Amelia, if more colleagues had been involved, there would have been more ideas and she would have been less tight with time. She explained as follows:

If there are different people or different teachers doing the same thing, we have more minds. We can generate more ideas and also do the preparation work like the design of assessment forms, so it’s easier, maybe this time you do it, next time I do it, so it will involve less time preparing all this. (Teacher interview)

The emphasis on the need to respond to all written errors and to use teaching time in conventional ways (to cover the syllabus and to prepare students for public examinations), among her colleagues, made it very difficult for Amelia to achieve breakthrough in her feedback innovation. Effective change in schools requires a strong teaching mission and vision based on a collective wisdom among teachers (Fullan, 2009). In order that teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation can come to fruition, support from colleagues is crucial. As Gwen said, a whole-school approach is deemed necessary.

We concern a lot about our students’ performance. If everyone has the same practice, it won’t seem like you are alienated. The students would also think that it is the whole-school policy. It’s not Teacher A’s practice, so I think at the end we can help the development of the school.

c Teachers’ professional learning

In the study, the teachers received some PD input and returned to their schools to implement feedback innovation. Since the research was designed as a naturalistic study without further intervention from the research team, formal university-school partnership was not forged between the team and the participating schools. The absence of ongoing PD input, however, had made it hard for teachers to get continuing support to enhance their professional learning, which was found to be crucial to the feedback innovation. As Gwen reflected on her involvement in the project at the end of the study, she said:

Maybe the research team could have given us some feedback when observing our lessons or you could have looked at some sample work … (Teacher interview)

Amelia expressed a similar view:

We thought we could be given more advice on how to improve what we were doing in learning, in teaching writing in terms of the approach or also giving grades or feedback to students and also how to do it systemically in the junior curriculum. (Teacher interview)

The absence of ongoing external support for teachers’ professional learning, together with a lack of school-based collaborative professional learning as revealed in the preceding sub-section, could explain the limited impact of the PD input on teachers’ feedback practices.

d Teacher appraisal

Unfocused WCF was practised in the large majority of schools in Hong Kong, including those of Gwen and Amelia, and it was directly related to teacher appraisal (Lee, 2008), where school leaders would examine the amount and types of teacher feedback. Not responding to every single error in student writing was conventionally evaluated unfavourably, and this was probably one reason why Amelia adhered to unfocused WCF in the study. As can be seen from the quote below, adopting focused WCF made Gwen feel that she was very different: and different in a risky way, as she might be perceived as irresponsible and appraised negatively as a result. This situation could explain why she was unable to adhere to focused WCF in the study:

Because we have book inspection. The colleagues will ponder why I am marking student writing using focused marking while they spot out every mistake …

The findings of the study suggest that teachers’ feedback innovation in schools is inextricably linked with the teacher appraisal system; unless school leaders are made aware of the need to re-visit the conventional teacher appraisal system with regard to teacher written feedback, implementing and sustaining focused WCF is likely to be an impossible mission.

e Students’ attitudes

Finally, the findings suggest that teachers’ feedback innovation could also be influenced by student attitudes, including their expectations and preferences. In Amelia’s case, she ascribed her peer feedback practice to her students’ unsupportive attitude; her students did not feel comfortable about having peers read their writing lest their weaknesses would be exposed. Knowing her students’ unfavourable attitude to peer feedback and the fact that they did not like the idea of revising their composition on the same topic, Amelia did not require students to write another draft. She said:

My students do not like multiple drafting as they think they’re copying out their drafts again and again and that’s why I just asked them to make changes in their initial draft using white-out. (Teacher interview)

After receiving peer feedback, students did not have to write a second draft based on the feedback. Changes to the first draft, if any, were minimal and could be made with white-out; revision to content and organization was not applied in any real sense. Thus, students’ preferences could partly explain why Amelia did not fully translate what was learned from the PD input into her own practice.

V Implications and conclusions

In the study, PD input comprising sound feedback principles derived from the research literature was provided to Gwen and Amelia, who were encouraged to challenge conventional practices and undertake possible feedback innovation based on their understanding of their specific contexts. While the teachers both made efforts to implement what was learnt, the findings of the study indicate some discrepancy between what was recommended and what was implemented by the teachers, pointing to the limited impact of the PD input and uncovering the challenges the teachers faced.

Despite the teachers’ relevant subject knowledge educational background, their attempts were impeded by the unsupportive environment of their school. For instance, the teachers were faced with limited time within a prescribed curriculum, which impinged on their capacity to implement the alternative approaches. The value systems of the community members also had a powerful impact in shaping the teachers’ feedback practices and their willingness to persist in the face of deviation from the norm. In some way, the reactions of the students also led the teachers away from their original intentions to introduce and/or sustain new feedback practices, such as using focused and coded WCF.

Although the feedback innovation attempted by the two teachers in the study may not be relevant to all teachers in EFL or similar contexts, and despite the small sample size, the teachers’ innovation and the influencing factors could provide useful insights into how innovation in writing feedback can be facilitated. First of all, teachers must be given opportunities to engage in continuing professional development to sharpen their pedagogical knowledge of innovative feedback strategies. While one-off or short-lived PD courses can provide preliminary input to help teachers with critical reflection on conventional feedback practices (as in the study), opportunities for ongoing professional learning are important. In the study, while the teachers had exercised their discretion to implement what they believed was feasible in their own contexts after receiving PD input, the findings suggest that their feedback practices could be further developed and enhanced to maximize student learning. To achieve this, teachers should be assisted over time to enrich their understanding about how innovative feedback strategies could be integrated into the writing curriculum in their own teaching contexts. As noted by K. Hyland and Wong (2013), innovations cannot be sustained unless teachers have a firm grasp of the new concepts. More importantly, to carry out change successfully, it is crucial to involve the collaboration of other community members rather than for teachers to work in isolation. Insofar as innovative feedback approaches are concerned, a whole-school approach to change is crucial. Small innovations of the type initiated by the teachers in this study need not be restricted to only one or two classrooms; they could be introduced in all classes within the same year or school. This approach would also minimize comparisons that students might make about different practices across similar classroom contexts, as occurred in this study. Thus, school-based collaborative professional learning has a pivotal role to play to help teachers implement and sustain innovative feedback practices. University–school collaboration could be exploited so that external assistance can be provided to teachers to support their ongoing collaborative professional learning. Instead of providing professional development input in university-based programs, it is desirable if professional development can also take place in the teachers’ own schools so that feedback strategies that suit their specific contexts could be discussed, negotiated, and developed to cater for students’ needs.

Second, the findings show that, within the school context, existing rules (e.g. the packed syllabus and fixed curriculum) and unequal power relationships can pose considerable impediments to feedback innovation, and therefore need to be more open if change is to take place. Flexibility on the part of school administrators and other key community members is crucial in granting teachers greater autonomy to adjust the curriculum for enhanced student learning. Teachers need to be empowered and supported by school leaders to initiate professional dialogue regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different innovative feedback tools. School leaders need to be sufficiently open-minded to allow for the bending of the rules of the system, where appropriate and necessary. Overall, the findings suggest that for feedback innovation to succeed, school administrators and leaders have a crucial role to play. Teacher education on feedback in writing has to take this into consideration and involve, as much as possible, the participation of school administrators and leaders, aside from frontline teachers, to help them develop a common vision so as to improve the effectiveness of feedback in writing. As Fullan (2007) notes, change does not occur at the individual level, and supportive or stimulating conditions are necessary to foster real change in practice.

Finally, when undertaking innovation teachers need to take into consideration students’ needs, values and assumptions. Unfavourable responses from students towards new feedback practices could be attributed to inadequate instruction, as well as students’ lack of understanding of the philosophy and rationale of new practices. As Hu (2005) points out, raising students’ awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of innovative pedagogies is extremely important. In the case of peer feedback, for example, awareness-raising is important for students from Asian countries where cultural norms ‘may be antithetical to the pedagogical principles’ (Hu, 2005, p. 332) of peer feedback. Discussion about the role of peer feedback, its benefits, its problematic aspects, etc. (Rollinson, 2005) can help raise students’ awareness of the usefulness of peer feedback in the writing classroom. By the same token, teachers can discuss with students the pros and cons of focused versus unfocused WCF, and coded versus uncoded WCF so as to raise their awareness of the purposes of teacher/WCF feedback and students’ own role in the feedback process.

In conclusion, the study has shed light on how teachers attempt to bring innovation to their feedback practices, as well as the factors that influence feedback innovation in their specific contexts. It has also uncovered the limited impact of short-term professional development input, with clear implications for how teachers can be better supported to implement and sustain feedback innovation. Future research could explore how a whole-school approach can be implemented to help teachers undertake feedback innovation, and how teacher learning can be promoted through collaboration among key community members within the school and through ongoing collaborative professional learning. Teacher education on feedback in writing, in particular, is an area worthy of further exploration, both in terms of practice and research.

Footnotes

Appendix 1. Interview questions

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a research project supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (CUHK 448610).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Ashwell

(2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257.

Bitchener

(2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.

Bitchener

Ferris

D.R.

(2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.

Bitchener

Knoch

(2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.

Bitchener

Knoch

(2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204–211.

Bitchener

Knoch

(2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.

Black

Wiliam

(1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7–74.

Carless

(2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219–233.

Chandler

(2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.

10.

Crusan

(2010). Assessment in the second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

11.

Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.

12.

Ellis

(2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.

13.

Ellis

Sheen

Murakami

Takashima

(2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.

14.

Ferris

D.R.

(1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.

15.

Ferris

D.R.

(2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In Flowerdew

Peacock

(Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 298–314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Ferris

D.R.

(2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

17.

Ferris

D.R.

(2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.

18.

Ferris

D.R.

(2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In Hyland

Hyland

(Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). New York: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Ferris

D.R.

(2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

20.

Ferris

D.R.

(2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.

21.

Ferris

D.R.

Roberts

(2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.

22.

Fullan

(2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

23.

Fullan

(2009). The challenge of change: Start school improvement now! (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Furneaux

Paran

Fairfax

(2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 69–94.

25.

Hansen

J.G.

Liu

(2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 31–38.

26.

Hedgcock

Lefkowitz

(1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.

27.

(2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321–342.

28.

Hyland

(2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 171–182.

29.

Hyland

(2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In Hyland

Hyland

(Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1–22). New York: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Hyland

Wong

L.L.C.

(2013). Innovation and change in English language education. Abingdon: Routledge.

31.

Johnson

K.E.

(2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257.

32.

Lalande

J.F.

(1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.

33.

Lee

(1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25, 465–477.

34.

Lee

(2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.

35.

Lee

(2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22, 1–16.

36.

Lee

(2007). Assessment for learning: Integrating assessment, teaching, and learning in the ESL/EFL writing classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 199–214.

37.

Lee

(2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85.

38.

Lee

(2011). Feedback revolution: What gets in the way? ELT Journal, 65, 1–12.

39.

Lortie

D.C.

(1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

40.

Lundstrom

Baker

(2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.

41.

Miles

M.B.

Huberman

A.M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Min

H.T.

(2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.

43.

Min

H.T.

(2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.

44.

Patton

M.Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

45.

Radecki

Swales

(1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355–365.

46.

Robb

Ross

Shortreed

(1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–96.

47.

Rogers

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

48.

Rollinson

(2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30.

49.

Sengupta

(1998). From text revision to text improvement: A story of secondary school composition. RELC Journal, 29, 110–137.

50.

Sheen

(2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.

51.

Storch

(2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 29–46.

52.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

53.

Sullivan

Lindgren

(2002). Self-assessment in autonomous computer-aided second language writing. ELT Journal, 56, 258–266.

54.

Truscott

Hsu

A.Y.-P.

(2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.

55.

Tsui

A.B.M.

(2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.

56.

Van Beuningen

C.G

. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–27.

57.

Van Beuningen

C.G.

De Jong

N.H.

Kuiken

. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.

58.

Van Beuningen

C.G.

De Jong

N.H.

Kuiken

. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.

59.

Vygotsky

L.S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

60.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

61.

Yang

Badger

(2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.

62.

Zeichner

K.M.

Gore

(1990). Teacher socialization. In Houston

W.K.

Haberan

Sikula

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York: Macmillan.