Empirical studies about teachers’ beliefs and their observed practice in

and EMI contexts

This section reviews some empirical studies on English and subject lecturers’ beliefs and observed practices in written feedback. The majority of the studies reviewed implied that there were more divergences than convergences in the following areas: (1) the purpose of feedback as justification of grades awarded or to promote student learning; (2) the lecturers’ self-reports and their observed practices of providing positive feedback and highlighting errors; (3) the

lecturers’ foci of the written feedback; (4) the process of grading in the assessment; and (5) the practice of encouraging student autonomy. A small number of studies indicated convergences in the teachers’ beliefs and their observed practice in terms of (1) the lecturers’ foci of the written feedback; and (2) the lecturers’ self-reports and their observed practices of providing positive feedback and highlighting errors.

The majority of the studies reviewed revealed both divergences and

convergences in lecturers’ beliefs and in their observed practices regarding the purposes of providing feedback in the L1 context. For example, in an

Australian context, although 16 subject lecturers believed that the aim of feedback was to assist student learning, they were observed trying to improve students’ grades. The lecturers also did not expect the students to improve and resubmit their assignments (Orrell, 2006). In Li’s (2012) study, despite the tutors’ beliefs that the primary role of feedback was to help students improve their writing, the observed practices of the tutors revealed that the main function of feedback was to justify the grades for three audiences: themselves, the lecturers and the students.

Other forms of divergence in the teachers’ beliefs and practices were evident in the provision of positive and/or negative comments in the L1 context. For example, a study by Read, Francis and Robson (2005) focused on 50 history lecturers from 24 UK universities, using two sample history essays. The study revealed that the lecturers’ beliefs diverged from their actual practices when providing comments on the quality of the essay writings. Although grades were awarded on the basis of quality, structure and analysis, several of the comments

59

were contradictory. Thus, the reliability of the lecturers’ assessment was questionable.

Similar findings from other research also revealed that both the EAP and subject lecturers tended to focus their feedback on lower order concerns in the L1 context (Connors & Lunsford, 1988; Orrell, 2006). For example, in Orrell’s (2006) study, instead of concentrating on the students’ ideas, the subject lecturers’ main focus was on lower order concerns. Another study illustrated that the lecturers’ major focus of correction was on micro levels (grammar, vocabulary and spelling), while the focus on the macro or holistic levels (organisation) were limited (Stern & Solomon, 2006).

Another form of divergence could be observed through grading and assessment in the L1 context. Although the grading was standardised and influenced by the external moderators, the examiners used their discretion, based on their beliefs, when they were marking. Examiners were trying to keep as close as possible to the requirements of the curriculum (Read et al., 2005). In Li’s (2012) study, during the stimulated recall session, the tutors admitted that it was difficult to award grades and also maintain consistency in awarding grades.

The beliefs and practices of encouraging ESL students’ independence in correcting their own errors reflect forms of divergence in the L2 context. For example, in Lee’s (2009, 2011) studies, it was found that society’s expectation that English teachers would correct student errors meant that teachers did not encourage students to be responsible for correcting their own. In another study (Min, 2013), it was revealed that one writing instructor’s beliefs and practices changed as she reflected on her practice of providing written comments. Initially, the teacher perceived that she was solely responsible for her students’ feedback and for correcting their errors. However, after she had read previous studies about writing and feedback, she changed her feedback approaches, encouraging student autonomy by facilitating peer feedback. Her strategy of focusing intently on student errors was modified, so that she could concentrate on assisting students in communicating ideas clearly through writing.

60

There were two major convergences between lecturers’ beliefs and their actual practices in the L1 context. The first type of convergence is found in the specific methods used to provide feedback. For example, Ferris’ (2014) study revealed that the writing instructors’ self-reports, providing a mixture of content, language and focused corrective feedback in the survey, matched the observed practices of the teachers. Another self-reported practice by the instructors, which converged with the observed practice, could be seen in the provision of higher order concerns, which focused on content and ideas, where the comments on the content were lengthy. The self-report and the observed practice of lecturers providing suggestions for improvement rather than highlighting errors also converged. In Li’s (2012) study, the lecturers’ beliefs about providing feedback on errors in grammar converged with their observed practices.

The second convergence could be seen in the lecturers’ beliefs and practices about providing either positive or negative comments in the L1 context. For example, Li’s (2012) study indicated that the lecturers were consistent in providing positive comments, which reflected their belief in withholding negative feedback.

A recent mixed method design study investigated English writing instructors’ reported beliefs and their actual practices in terms of oral, written and

facilitated peer feedback among students in the L1 context (Ferris, 2014). Two universities and six colleges in the United States participated in the study, which revealed that the majority of the lecturers’ beliefs about providing feedback were consistent with their practices (Ferris, 2014). The teachers’ beliefs in providing a mixture of content, language and focused corrective feedback matched the observed practices of the teachers. Another self-reported practice by the instructor, which converged with the observed practice, could be seen through the provision of higher order concerns, which focused on content and ideas, where the comments on the content appeared to be lengthy. The beliefs and the observed practice of lecturers providing suggestions for improvement, rather than highlighting errors, also converged.

61