Less is NOT more for learners: EFL learners' preferences and perceptions of teachers' written corrective feedback

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Acta Psychologica Pub Date : 2025-03-16 DOI:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104926
Manar Almanea
{"title":"Less is NOT more for learners: EFL learners' preferences and perceptions of teachers' written corrective feedback","authors":"Manar Almanea","doi":"10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scholars have debated whether comprehensive or focused written corrective feedback is more beneficial for EFL learners; however, learner preferences have not been sufficiently explored. Therefore, this study examined adult EFL learners' preferences and perceptions regarding teachers' written corrective feedback, focusing on a number of key aspects: perceived importance, preferred degree of comprehensiveness, preferred focus, preferred timing, preferred type (direct vs. indirect), and method of presenting feedback. A mixed-methods approach was employed, using a questionnaire to obtain quantitative data from 143 Saudi EFL learners enrolled at a Saudi university. Additionally, retrospective semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain qualitative data from a subset of 49 participants. The findings revealed that participants highly valued teacher feedback and recognized its vital role in their writing development. As opposed to the prevalent assumption that “less is more,” participants collectively preferred comprehensive feedback that addresses various aspects of writing, including language, content, organization, and overall quality. They preferred feedback on the multiple drafts, particularly regarding content and organization. Moreover, participants preferred a combination of direct and indirect feedback methods, offering specific guidance, detailed explanations, and opportunities for self-correction. Participants emphasized the importance of clear, specific, and actionable feedback and the motivational impact of positive and encouraging comments. The preferences for comprehensive feedback and explicit guidance are crucial for informing EFL teaching practices and curriculum development. Furthermore, pedagogical implications and practical recommendations are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7141,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychologica","volume":"255 ","pages":"Article 104926"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychologica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825002392","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scholars have debated whether comprehensive or focused written corrective feedback is more beneficial for EFL learners; however, learner preferences have not been sufficiently explored. Therefore, this study examined adult EFL learners' preferences and perceptions regarding teachers' written corrective feedback, focusing on a number of key aspects: perceived importance, preferred degree of comprehensiveness, preferred focus, preferred timing, preferred type (direct vs. indirect), and method of presenting feedback. A mixed-methods approach was employed, using a questionnaire to obtain quantitative data from 143 Saudi EFL learners enrolled at a Saudi university. Additionally, retrospective semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain qualitative data from a subset of 49 participants. The findings revealed that participants highly valued teacher feedback and recognized its vital role in their writing development. As opposed to the prevalent assumption that “less is more,” participants collectively preferred comprehensive feedback that addresses various aspects of writing, including language, content, organization, and overall quality. They preferred feedback on the multiple drafts, particularly regarding content and organization. Moreover, participants preferred a combination of direct and indirect feedback methods, offering specific guidance, detailed explanations, and opportunities for self-correction. Participants emphasized the importance of clear, specific, and actionable feedback and the motivational impact of positive and encouraging comments. The preferences for comprehensive feedback and explicit guidance are crucial for informing EFL teaching practices and curriculum development. Furthermore, pedagogical implications and practical recommendations are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Psychologica
Acta Psychologica PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
274
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Psychologica publishes original articles and extended reviews on selected books in any area of experimental psychology. The focus of the Journal is on empirical studies and evaluative review articles that increase the theoretical understanding of human capabilities.
期刊最新文献
The double-edged sword of corporate social responsibility: How does value orientation affect consumer choice between CSR and corporate ability Exploring the links between childhood emotional abuse and empathy: The mediating roles of alexithymia and sensory processing sensitivity Proactive eco-initiatives in healthcare: Exploring the role of motivation, organizational culture, and leadership Phonological and orthographic processing during second language typing production of Chinese-English bilinguals Sex(ism) doesn't sell: Disentangling the effects of nudity and sexism in advertising
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1