This section focuses on answering two research questions: 1. To what extent do
instructors’ academic background and age inform their strategies of providing feedback? and 2. Do instructors’ perceptions about teaching writing vary from or conform to their practice of teaching writing? As can be seen from the two figures, the background training
of instructors does not predict how they would approach teaching, but the younger
instructors have been leaning more toward language-based areas than the older ones. This could imply that in the years to come, the L2 writing pedagogy would undergo significant change. Table 49 demonstrated that the responses of the language-background instructors did not differ significantly from those of the more literature-background instructors. Regardless of background, every instructor had been teaching L2 writing almost alike. However, the data at once demonstrated that there existed a significant gap in their
perceptions and practice of teaching L2 writing. They did not believe in what they did and vice-versa.
Results from the analyses of the data from Figure 3 revealed that the younger participants specialized more in language than their predecessors, who specialized more in literature. Of the four age groups, the first group (aged 20-29 years) showed a clear
dominance of specialization in language-based areas; however, there was a steady shift from a language-based background toward a literature-based background over the next two age groups (i.e., 30-39, 40-49). In the last age group (i.e., 50+), all the participants were from a literature-based background. The second part of the first research question that intended to discover the relationship between age and the area of specialization led to the conclusion for influences between age and instructors’ area of specialization.
Figure 3: Number of Participants by Age and Background in Areas of Specialization.
Table 49 demonstrated that differences of background of instructors did not seem to influence their views about or strategies to provide feedback on students’ writings. The majority of the participants believed that it was mandatory for writing instructors to
provide feedback (about 70% of both groups). Likewise, majorities from both groups (90% literature - based; 80 % language-based) also maintained that the context of the students (such as ESL or EFL) should determine the type of feedback provided. Also, the majority of participants from both groups indicated similar views about and strategies of feedback in terms of feeling overwhelmed by the amount of feedback needed (around 65%), the need to identify all errors (95%), providing different types of feedback (e.g.,
syntax/punctuation and organization, 85%), and use of codes to provide feedback (80%). Similar percentages from both groups also disagreed about feedback being potentially harmful (around 68%), but were less sure whether it improved writing (around 40%). The only difference between the two groups came from the requirements of institutions to use a rubric to provide feedback. About 40% participants from a literature-based background contended that they had to adhere to rubrics mandated by the institutions, and 60% argued that they did not have to adhere to rubrics. 15% from a language-based background contended that they had to follow rubrics mandated by the institutions, but 73% from the same group claimed that they did not have to follow rubrics. A rubric was one of the many components to facilitate the teaching of writing. It alone does not significantly influence the way writing is taught.
Table 49 : Literature versus Language: Views/Strategies for Feedback Practices
Feedback Views and Strategies Literature Language
Yes No Yes No
1. Feedback is mandatory? 70% 30% 69% 31%
2. Use of institution rubric? 40% 60% 15% 73%
3. Does context determine feedback? 90% 5% 80% 8%
4. Feedback harmful? 20% 65% 12% 69%
5. Feedback improves writing? 58% 42% 54% 39%
6. Amount of feedback needed overwhelms? 95% 5% 88% 12%
7. Do you identifying all errors? 95% 5% 85% 15%
8. Provide feedback on Syntax/Punctuation? 85% 15% 92% 8%
9. Provide feedback on Organization? 90% 10% 89% 11%
10. Use of cryptic code to provide feedback? 80% 20% 81% 19%
Note: when percentages do not add to 100%, this is due to non-responses or “no comment” responses.
Despite differences in background training, these two groups seemed remarkably similar in attitudes and practices. The answer to the first part of the research question was likely that instructors’ background training did not influence teaching practices.
Figure 4: Number of Participants by Type of Feedback Provided.
The participants of this study provided different types of feedback on the writing sample with which they were provided. Some refrained from providing any feedback at all (none); some provided feedback only on form (lower level feedback); some provided feedback only on content (higher level feedback); and some provided feedback both on form and content (both lower and higher level). Figure 4 demonstrated that of the 46 participants (literature-based 20; language-based 26), 14 instructors (6 from literature-based
qualifications, 30%; 8 language- based qualifications, 30.8%) did not provide any
feedback whatsoever. 55% from a literature- based background provided feedback only on form, while 53.8% from a language-based background provided feedback only on form. Only 5% from a literature background provided feedback only on content; while none from a language-based background provided feedback only on content. 10% from a literature-based background provided feedback on both form and content; while 15% from a language-based background provided feedback both on form and content. The data from Figure 4 proposed the same conclusion that the difference in the background of the
instructor did not have any significant impact on their practice and attitudes toward teaching L2 writing.