Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Rajab, Hussam; Khan, Khalid; Elyas, Tariq (2016)
Publisher: Australian International Academic Centre, Australia
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: X342
Based on a mixed-method approach, this interpretive exploratory case study aimed to identify English as Foreign\ud Language (EFL) teachers’ perceptions and practices in Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in the Saudi context. The\ud study analysed quantitative data gathered from an anonymous custom designed 15-question online survey and\ud qualitative data from an open-ended question (at the end of the online survey) and semi-structured interviews.\ud Participants were one hundred and eighty-four English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers (n =184) who responded\ud to the online survey (113 females and 71 males) and 7 participants who responded to the semi-structured interview (5\ud males and 2 females). The study findings indicated no significant differences between male and female teachers in\ud considering “time” as the main factor in following a particular strategy for written corrective feedback (93%). The\ud results from the semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for further research in written corrective feedback in\ud the Saudi context to address serious issues related to the teachers’ work-load. Some recommendations were identified\ud for further research in written corrective feedback.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95-127.
    • Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, (2): 102-118.
    • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, (3): 409-431.
    • Bitchener, J., Young, S., Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, (3): 191-205.
    • Chandler, J. (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, (3): 267-296.
    • Coffin, C. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
    • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London, Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
    • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
    • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, (1): 1-11.
    • Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, USA.
    • Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing; Implications for second language students. Squires, D. & Bliss, T. (2004). Teacher visions: Navigating beliefs about literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 57, (8): 756-763.
    • Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is “success”? Assessing Writing, 8, (2): 110-134.
    • Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, (2): 327-369.
    • Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, (2): 111-122.
    • Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, UK.
    • Vyatkina, N. (2010). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 43, (4): 671-689.
    • Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    • Wayne, E.A. (2013). Written corrective feedback: the parameters and the opinions.
    • Humanising Language Teaching Online Magazine, Year http://www.hltmag.co.uk/feb13/mart03.htm , accessed 10th April, 2013.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok