Omani EFL writing instructors’ attitudes and reported and actual practices towards written corrective feedback in first year foundation programmes

Abstract

There is a large body of theoretical research and empirical studies that investigated written corrective feedback. However, this area has been limited to only three empirical studies in higher education institutions in the Omani context (e.g. Al- Bakri, 2015; Al Ajmi, 2015 ; AlBadwawi, 2011) and one at Omani public schools (Al-Harrasi, 2019). The current study is a mixed method study which explores English as a Foreign Language foundation year writing instructors’ practice and attitudes on written corrective feedback at tertiary institutions in the Omani context. The study also examines writing instructors’ actual written response to learners’ essays. Further, it examines whether instructors’ written response is determined by learners’ level of language proficiency in English. In doing so, it aims to provide a deeper understanding of the current views and practices of WCF in the Omani context. For its framework for analysis, the study draws on statistical analysis of an online survey distributed among 174 EFL writing instructors at six higher education institutions in Oman. It also draws on content analysis and quantitative findings of a sample of 96 students’ essays from four different English language proficiency level classes at one higher education institution. The study reveals that the instructors applied unfocused direct written corrective feedback in addition to other types of written corrective feedback. However, content analysis of teacher written response on the sample of 96 written assignments showed that instructors implemented unfocused but indirect written corrective feedback. Further, instructors’ written response to students’ essays was determined by learners’ level of language proficiency in English; beginner students received more direct written corrective feedback while intermediate, upper intermediate and advanced students received metalinguistic written corrective feedback in the form of error codes and grammatical explanation of rules and how to use them in writing. Moreover, instructors’ written commentary on students’ essays focused on grammar and mechanism rather than the content of the essays. In addition, the majority of teacher commentary whether end comments or text-based comments was in the form of evaluative expressions. The study came up with a number of recommendations for policy makers, writing instructors and future researchers. Moreover, I propose a model to maximise teacher written corrective feedback and achieve sustainable feedback.