Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on
L2 English Writing Assignments
Simon AldrichCenter for Global Education and Exchange
Toyo University

Katsuichiro ʻKenʼ Ohashi

Center for Global Education and Exchange
Toyo University

Abstract
This paper describes the first step in an effort to make the delivery of feedback on students’
written work more meaningful and effective. Students at a private Japanese university
answered survey questions on their preferences for written corrective feedback (WCF) withregard to clarity, detail, focus, balance, frequency, and connection to assessment. The survey
results suggest that students would like clear, detailed feedback on a wide selection of
language in their writing. Furthermore, they seem to favor written feedback that addresses
individual areas of weakness, as opposed to criteria related to their grades.

Introduction
The fact that studies regarding what constitutes effective feedback on students’ written L2
assignments have produced contradictory results (Jamalinesari et al., 2015) is probably not
surprising. Amongst both teacher and student bodies, individual attitudes, agencies, andcompetencies likely influence the degree to which feedback can have a positive effect. For
example, on the teachers’ side, personal beliefs in the value of feedback, commitment to theprofession and/or the goals or success of the institution, and ability to communicate with students
will vary internally and from individual to individual. This, of course, will have a big impact upon
the quality and consistency of feedback within a writing program. Similarly, for students, belief inthe quality and value of the education they are receiving, the level of commitment to their studies,and how they are able to respond to feedback are all variables that could affect its meaningfulness.
In addition, there is no guarantee that students’ feedback needs match those perceived by teachers(Ping et al., 2003). Hyland (2013) provides an interesting summary of the situation when he notesthat feedback in higher education is ‘an area of tension between staff and students as universities− 43 −

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

grapple to provide effective teaching practices in resource-constrained environments’ (p.180). With
the above in mind, it seems that insights into what feedback should consist of, and how it should bedelivered, are probably best gathered at an institutional, or better still, a departmental level. In thecontext of this study, teachers belonging to the LEAP department (Learning English for Academic
Purposes) at Toyo University in Japan, struggled to reach consensus on delivery of WCF for their
IELTS preparation classes. As a result, it was decided that the first step towards clarifying the issue
would be to implement a survey in order to ascertain student preferences for WCF.

Background
In order to create a survey that would be manageable, both in terms of data collection, as wellas analysis and implementation of results, it was necessary to consider how WCF might be deemed
below-par from the students’ perspective. A review of the available literature raised a number ofareas for investigation including:･ clarity and degree of detail given in written feedback･ breadth of feedback coverage within a single piece of student writing･ balance of negative and positive feedback･ frequency and timing of written feedback･ strength of connection between feedback and assessment(Adapted from, Leong & Lee, 2018; Lee, 2009)
Starting with clarity and detail, effective WCF should be legible, easy to comprehend, andactionable. The first point is easily ensured through the use of a learning management system(LMS), or any software that enables corrections or comments to be typed. As for comprehension,
studies have highlighted the difficulties inherent in adopting a codified system of error correction(Lee, 2009), likewise, single or double word hints meant to convey areas for correction/
improvement have proven to be confusing for even L1 student writers (Weaver, 2006). Clearly, a
degree of detail is required for feedback to be actionable; to help students understand what they
have done well/poorly, and to facilitate continued development of good practice or the ability to
self-correct. With L2 writers, especially those of a lower level of ability, this presents a significant
challenge. There is the issue of giving feedback in language that is detailed, but not beyond thelevel of students’ comprehension, and furthermore, with uncertainty regarding students’ lexical
range and grammatical knowledge, there is the selection dilemma of when to provide direct orindirect feedback. In other words, to correct errors directly (direct feedback), or to provide
guidance that results in student self-correction (indirect feedback). This is an area of ongoing
discussion in the field. Ferris (2006) suggests that indirect feedback is more successful in the longterm by helping L2 students reduce errors in later writing tasks, and furthermore, that students− 44 −

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)show a preference for indirect feedback, “sensing that this would be more beneficial to them in thelong run” (Ferris, 2011 p. 94). However, she recognises that in cases where students are at a lower
level of ability, when errors are untreatable, or specific patterns of error are being addressed, then acombination of feedback forms might be more suitable (2011). The first case, which is important in
the context of the present study, is also highlighted by Ellis (2009), who claims that lower level
students may benefit more from direct feedback due to their lack of linguistic resources. He
provides a little more detail in respect to addressing feedback in this scenario, suggesting a twopronged approach of leading with indirect feedback, then following up with direct if the former
fails. Finally, one meta-analysis of studies on the efficacy of WCF found slight, but not significant
support for direct feedback, and that low to low-intermediate L2 students benefited the most from
WCF in general (Lim and Renandya, 2020).
Again, efficacy of WCF surely depends on the clarity and frequency of the feedback being
such that the error is noticed and understood by the student, whether direct or indirect approaches
are applied. Moreover, as was mentioned earlier, there are numerous variables specific to a given
learning environment, so these too might cloud the issue of which kind of feedback is always thebest choice. Consequently, some items in the survey would be required to ascertain students’preferences, thereby providing a more solid basis on which to make decisions on future
pedagogical practice.
Setting the breadth of feedback coverage is a task closely connected to the aforementioned
direct-indirect dichotomy, wherein the teacher has to select the range of student language to correct
or comment on and the frequency with which to do so. For instance, should the teacher draw thestudent’s attention to every kind of error in the text, just those seen as important to the current
learning goals, or those errors which the teacher deems are within the student’s capacity tocomprehend and correct at that particular time. In addition, once this has been decided, should
single or multiple instances of the same error be highlighted. With regard to the first point, studies
suggest that students desire a more personalized approach from their teachers, with feedback giventhat is tailored to the needs of individual learners (Leong & Lee, 2018). This is probably not whatmost teachers want to hear, firstly because it takes the focus away from carefully consideredlearning goals, and secondly because it requires much more work on their part; work whichteachers may feel is ignored by some students (Weaver, 2006). Moving on to the frequency ofcorrection, making a decision on this issue depends on the teacher’s appraisal of the students’ability to notice a specific category of error; for as Schmidt (1994) notes on the importance of input
in language education, “more noticing leads to more learning” (p.18). Analysis of students’ writing
and teacher to student discussion of errors can facilitate a better understanding in this regard.
However, anecdotally, it does appear that many students’ errors are recurring, so it seems
reasonable to assume that if a student were already able to notice an error, and therefore subsequent− 45 −

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

instances of it, the mistake would not have occurred in the first place. A further concern with not
being consistent in flagging errors is that in Brown’s (2014) words, “ignoring erroneous language
may be interpreted by the student as a green light: therefore, teachers must be careful to discern thepossible reinforcing consequences of withholding error treatment” (p.268). Thus, teachers may
have to do the work of noticing for them, repeatedly, in order for them to reach the point where
they can do it for themselves. The question then is how to balance this need for a long period of
consciousness raising, with a desire to not be seen as nagging or nitpicking by bringing multiple
instances of the same issue to a student’s attention. Clearly, more input from the student side isneeded here to alleviate or justify such concerns.
The next area for consideration is also concerned with balance, but this time in respect totreatment of positive and negative aspects of student work. Perhaps it is natural for teachers tofocus on errors, to single out what needs to be ‘fixed’ in students’ work. However, an approach thatis too heavily weighted towards pointing out what is wrong, and therefore failing to mention what
students are doing well in their writing may have a negative impact on motivation. In addition,
when providing positive feedback, are more general, but honest and well-intentioned comments
such as, ‘Good Job!’ valued by students, or as Weaver (2006) suggests, are they interpreted asvague and unhelpful? Once again, this is an issue that requires further investigation within specificlearning environments.
The next area for analysis is the timing and frequency of feedback. In this instance, frequency
refers to the number of times that feedback is provided during the drafting process, and hence, thedegree to which it can be considered formative or summative, where formative is ongoingevaluation and summative is terminal (Scriven, 1966). Perhaps most teachers would agree thatformative feedback is more meaningful, as it is timely and results in immediate corrective action.
For this reason, and if done well, it may also be more memorable, making repetition of mistakes
less likely in the future. An additional benefit is that it also functions as a useful diagnostic tool forthe teacher, in that it informs decisions on the required speed and direction of content delivery insubsequent classes (Bachman, 1990). In contrast, solely providing summative feedback is maybe
viewed as more closely connected to final evaluation and grading. This may or may not be the case,and it could also be argued that summative feedback, by its very nature, carries more weight in thestudents’ minds. No doubt we can all recall an instance of positive or negative feedback on a highstakes assignment from our school days. Moreover, we can reflect on how this influenced ourapproach to our future studies. This is especially important when we consider that the end of one
language learning course is rarely the end of a student’s study of the language.
With an understanding that both these forms of evaluation have their merits, the discussion
moves to consideration of their demerits. With regard to formative feedback, from the teacher’s
perspective, perhaps the key argument against is the difficulty of scheduling and delivering− 46 −

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)

feedback to often large numbers of students who, naturally, are working at different speeds. As forsummative WCF, there is the concern, similar to the one voiced earlier with respect to breadth of
feedback coverage, that students may not pay attention to it. Indeed, in this case, maybe there ismore strength to this assertion because the work has been completed and the task is already in thestudents’ rearview mirror. For this reason, it might be wise to include inquiries about frequency
with those that aim to provide understanding of students’ preferences in terms of feedback andassessment.
Finally, some thoughts on the connection between WCF and assessment. To begin with, inreference to the link with frequency, it should be understood that feedback on assessed writing tasks
will be received by students who are likely to be more emotional due to the higher stakes involved.
As a result, it is possible that how they process and act upon this feedback will differ from normal.
Their desire for formative feedback may be heightened, as they are keen to attain an optimum
grade. Conversely, the impact of summative feedback might be reduced for some students if theyreceive a grade that they are happy with, and thus deem the accompanying feedback to beirrelevant. For an example of the latter, Pitt and Norton (2017) quote a student reflecting that “IfI‘ve done well then I don’t pay as much attention [to feedback] than if I’ve done really bad on it”(p.511). Their study highlights the need for teachers to recognize students’ levels of emotional
maturity in respect to how feedback is received.
The topic of assessment also brings us back to the earlier point about students’ desire for more
personalized feedback. If this is truly their preference, does it follow that they are less concernedwith receiving feedback that is specific to a particular writing task, even if the task is graded? To
put a positive slant on it, that their personal idea of improvement is more important to them thanshort-term point gains. If this is the case, to reiterate, acquiescing to requests of this kind fromstudents, would necessitate shifting the focus of assessment away from course goals. With teachers’
greater knowledge of specific genres of writing and the language appropriate to them, this seems
ill-advised. Once more, before discussions on modifications on feedback commence, a moredefinitive answer on this issue is required for the particular context of this study.
The above sections include four areas for further analysis that were included in the survey:
Clarity of Written Feedback, Balance of Written Feedback, Focus of Written Feedback, and GradeRelated Written Feedback. They are summarised in the following four questions, with frequency, as
suggested previously, included as one area of inquiry within the fourth question (see Appendix A
for the full survey).
Do students want the feedback they receive to be more clear/detailed?
Do students want feedback that focuses on both positive and negative performance?
What kinds of language use do students want feedback to focus on?

− 47 −

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

Do students want to see a clearer connection between feedback and assessment?

Methodology
Participants
The participants were university students taking elective English courses at a private
university in Tokyo, Japan. 80 students agreed to participate and submitted responses to thequestionnaire. Participants belong to 10 different faculties (Table 1) and the majority of them werefirst and second year students (Table 2). The majority of the participants provided TOEIC scores todisplay English proficiency that ranged from 225-940, with the highest percentage in the range,
550-780 (Table 3). IELTS scores were inquired about, but the majority of participants have nevertaken the test before (Table 4).
Table 1
Distribution of Participants by Faculty
Name of Faculty

Number of Participants

Faculty of Business Administration
Faculty of Economics
Faculty of Global and Regional Studies
Faculty of Information Sciences and Arts
Faculty of International Tourism Management
Faculty of Law
Faculty of Letters
Faculty of Regional Development Studies
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Faculty of Sociology

11
13
16
2
6
4
7
6
1
14

Table 2Distribution of Participants by Faculty
One
Two
Three
Four
More than Five

Years at University

Number of Participants
25
29
12
12
2

Table 3Distribution of Participant TOEIC Scores225-545550-780785-940
No Score

TOEIC Score Range

Number of Participants
15
32
14
19

− 48 −

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)

Table 4
Distribution of Participant IELTS ScoresBand 4

IELTS Score Band

Number of Participants
2Band 5

13

Band 7

2Band 6

4

Band 8

1

No Score

58

Questionnaire
A pool of 46 items was created, and after discussion between the researchers, distilled to a
final list of 33 items to be included in the questionnaire. These were divided into the four categories
introduced in the background section above: Clarity of Written Feedback, Balance of Written
Feedback, Focus of Written Feedback, and Grade-Related Written Feedback. In addition, an initial
section was included to collect data on students’ faculties and level of English proficiency. The
questionnaire was compiled on a Google Form in English. It was then translated into Japanese by
one of the researchers (a bilingual speaker of English and Japanese). The translation was further
proofread by a non- bilingual Japanese elementary school teacher for the naturalness of theJapanese. Multiple discussions were held between the researcher and proofreader to make sure thenuance of the English wording was not lost in the Japanese translation. The Japanese and English
versions were then combined, with the English version following the Japanese (Appendix A). It
was then distributed to the participants in this bilingual format. This was to avoid excluding input
from non-Japanese students that take the courses. Unfortunately, despite the care taken in
preparation, one of the questions was mistranslated, and so will be excluded from the analysis.
Data Collection
The questionnaire was distributed as a link to a Google Form by either an email or a Stream
comment on the Google Classroom for the course the students were taking in the fall semester ofschool year 2022. The researchers and five other teachers in the same department asked thestudents orally in their course for participation, along with providing a written message briefly
describing the purpose of the study.

Results
The questionnaire used for this project was divided into four main categories. For the mostpart, participants were asked to display their thoughts toward prompts on a four-point Likert scaleof strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Out of the 19 prompts, 6 had no responses− 49 −

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignmentsin the ‘strongly disagree’ category and an additional 9 had less than 5 responses. Because of this,the four categories were consolidated into two categories of ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ to understand theparticipants’ perception of the prompts in a broader sense. The findings from prompts that do notfollow the aforementioned Likert scale will be presented in an unconsolidated form. The findings
will be presented according to the structure of the questionnaire. A total of 80 students responded tothe questionnaire.
Clarity of Written Feedback
66 out of 80 participants displayed their interest in receiving an explanation on how teachersplan to provide written feedback to the class (Table 5). 74 participants stated that they prefer toreceive detailed feedback (Table 5). 71 participants answered that they prefer to receive an
explanation for the mistakes they make, with 61 of these indicating that they would also likecorrection (Table 6). 61 participants mentioned that they do not feel that written feedback needs tobe handwritten (Table 5).
Table 5Distribution of Answers to Section ‘Clarity of Written Feedback’
Questions

I want my teachers to explain their style of written feedback to the class.
I want my teachersʼ written feedback to be detailed.

Handwritten feedback is better than typed feedback.

Agree

Disagree

74

6

66

14

19

61

Table 6
Distribution of Answers to the prompt ‘When I make mistakes, I would prefer my teachers to...’ From
Section ‘Clarity of Written Feedback’
Answer Choices
Number of Answers
highlight, correct, and explain the mistake61

highlight and correct the mistake, but not explain it

5highlight and explain the mistake, but not correct ithighlight the mistake, but not correct or explain it
not highlight, correct, or explain the mistake10
1
3

Balance of Written Feedback
More than 72 out of the 80 participants agreed that short comments such as ‘Good job!’ and‘Give examples’ are important for them (Table 7). 76 of the participants indicated that written
feedback from teachers motivates them to improve their writing, and 54 think that the feedback
should focus on errors and weak points (Table 7). 74 of the participants indicated that they wantdetailed comments on how to improve their writing. The same number of participants confirmedthat they do not take written feedback as personal criticism (Table 7). At the same time, 52 out of− 50 −

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)the 80 participants also pointed out that they feel teachers need to expend more effort on providing
WCF (Table 7).
Table 7
Distribution of Answers to Section ‘Balance of Written Feedback’
Questions

Agree

DisagreeShort, critical comments like, ʻGive examples.ʼ are helpful.
I want my teachers to give detailed written comments on how to improvemy writing.
Teachersʼ written feedback should focus mostly on errors and weak
points.
Teachersʼ written feedback motivates me to improve my writing.

72

8

Short, positive comments like, ʻGood Job!ʼ are important to me.

74

Teacherʼs written feedback feels like personal criticism.
Based on your past experiences, teachers should put more effort into
giving feedback on written work.

6

74

6

54

26

76

4

6

74

52

28

Focus of Written Feedback
55 out of 80 participants indicated that they want feedback on every kind of mistake made in
their writing, while only four displayed no interest in written feedback from the teacher (Table 8).
70 participants answered that they want the same mistake pointed out multiple times if maderepeatedly in a single paper (Table 9). A large majority of the students said that feedback on
vocabulary choice, grammar, spelling, formatting, and content is important (Table 10).
Table 8Distribution of Answers to Section ‘Focus of Written Feedback’ Part 2
Questions
I want teachers to give written feedback on every kind of mistake in mywriting.
I donʼt want written feedback. I only want to know my score.

Agree

Disagree

55

25

4

76

Table 9Distribution of Answers to Section ‘Focus of Written Feedback’ Part 3

Question
If I make the same mistake many times in a single piece of writing, I
want the teacher to correct it.

− 51 −

Just
once

Answers
More than
once

Every
time

10

32

38

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

Table 10Distribution of Answers to Section ‘Focus of Written Feedback’ Part 1
Questions

How important is it for you to receive written feedback on your vocabulary
choices? Please select from 1 (Very important) to 4 (Not important)
How important is it for you to receive written feedback on your grammar?
Please select from 1 (Very important) to 4 (Not important)
How important is it for you to receive written feedback on your spelling?
Please select from 1 (Very important) to 4 (Not important)

How important is it for you to receive written feedback on your formatting?
Please select from 1 (Very important) to 4 (Not important)
How important is it for you to receive written feedback on your ideas?
Please select from 1 (Very important) to 4 (Not important)1

Answers
2

3

4

35

39

6

0

49

28

3

0

28

32

16

4

53

22

4

1

41

30

8

1

Grade-Related Written Feedback
67 of the 80 participants stated that the assessment criteria should be explained to them before
they commence writing (Table 11). More than 68 participants indicated that the written feedback
from the teacher should not only focus on assessment criteria for the work they produced (Table
11). At the same time, 49 participants showed a preference for written feedback that would help
them improve their grade (Table 11). 53 out of the 80 indicated they want timely feedback in orderto improve their work, and 45 displayed interest in receiving feedback during the writing process.
43 participants expressed a desire to have discussion with the teacher about the written feedback
they receive (Table 11).
Table 11
Distribution of Answers to Section ‘Grade-Related Written Feedback’
Questions

Agree

Disagree

67

13

12

68

75

5

Teachersʼ written feedback should help me know what I have to do to geta good grade.

49

31

I want teachers to return feedback quickly, so I can improve my work.

I want teachers to provide regular feedback during the writing process.

53

I want teachers to discuss written feedback with me.

45

27

43

37

I want teachers to explain the assessment criteria to me before I start
writing.

Teachersʼ written feedback should only focus on assessment criteria for
the work.
I want teachersʼ written feedback to focus on my personal weak points,
not only the assessment criteria.

− 52 −

35

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)

Discussion
For ease of understanding, this discussion will be divided into the four categories used in thequestionnaire. Suggestions will be made as to how student expectations for each category could be
met.
Clarity of Written Feedback
The results show that students have quite high expectations regarding the clarity of the
feedback that they would like to receive. Firstly, they would prefer to be given an explanation of
how feedback will be given for the written work they do. This means that teachers will need to beclear and consistent in their approach to explaining how WCF will be delivered. Furthermore, in
programs where multiple instructors are teaching the same courses, such as that in the context of
this study, coordinating this approach could be a way to ensure consistency across classes. This
could become a feature of orientation classes at the beginning of the courses.
Secondly, most students express a preference for detailed feedback, and the majority of these would
likewise prefer to receive direct feedback. Of course, there are a number of problems with meeting
this requirement. As mentioned before, there is the difficulty of providing clear explanations forlower level students. Composing detailed guidance of this kind requires a significant amount ofthought and time. Fortunately, one solution could be to make use of the current technology andcompile a catalogue of exemplars for common errors. This can be done using an archive such as thecomment bank on Google Classroom. An archive shared between teachers containing explanationsof common errors with examples would take time to create, but once it was in place, would
significantly speed up the process of giving detailed WCF.
Finally, we should not forget the aforementioned idea regarding the value of indirect feedback
as a means of facilitating long term improvement (Ferris, 2006), something that appears to bebacked up by constructivist theories of learning, wherein learning occurs through doing; in thiscase, thinking about and correcting one’s own errors. Consideration of this point results in arealization that students’ expectations regarding direct feedback can be met, but only with a degreeof compromise and cooperation. They should understand that exemplars of the kind suggested
before will be provided, but not repeatedly. Perhaps teachers could make this explicit in their
explanations of WCF delivery at the start of the course. It should be stated clearly that detailed
feedback will be given on one, perhaps two occasions for each kind of error, but the onus then is on
students to remember the feedback and apply it to errors of the same nature that have beenhighlighted by the teacher in future texts. To assist in this process, it would be a good idea to havestudents keep a portfolio of their written work.

− 53 −

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

Balance of Written Feedback
The results from this section further confirm that students hope to receive detailed feedback
from their teachers. Regarding the balance, as might be expected, the majority agree that the focus
should mostly be on weak points and errors. However, there is also very strong support for teachers
providing short positive and negative comments, and for the proposition that WCF in generalmotivates them to improve their writing. Connected to this, is the clear assertion that negative
comments are not taken as criticism. This suggests a strong desire for guidance of any kind, andthat feedback has perhaps not been forthcoming in the past. Thus, the final item in this section of
the survey, ‘Based on your past experiences, teachers should put more effort into giving feedback
on written work’ was answered in the affirmative by 52 out of 80 respondents.
Focus of Written Feedback
This section of the survey looked for answers on what kinds of language students would likefeedback to focus on, and once singled out, how many times they would like repetitions of an error
to be highlighted. The results for the latter allay any teacher concerns that multiple flagging of
consistent errors may be conceived as nagging. The majority expressed a desire for this kind of
approach (Table 9). In terms of categories of focus, there is not much space between the number of
responses requesting attention for each, with all categories seen as important for a majority ofstudents. Grammar was deemed very marginally to be the greatest concern, and spelling, while
important, was selected with the lowest majority total of the five categories (Table 10). These
results again confirm the students’ strong desire for a large amount of WCF, and consequently, aneed for further discussion on how to provide this without putting too much strain on teaching staff
who already have multiple tasks and responsibilities.
One solution to alleviate this burden was proposed in the final paragraph on clarity of
feedback, however, effective use of technology alone may not be sufficient for teachers who haveheavy teaching schedules, large class sizes, and expectations to fulfill in terms of research.
Therefore, input from other stakeholders, including faculty members with decision making powerover teachers’ workloads is also required. Fortunately, some institutions, like the one where thisstudy took place, have program coordinators who pay close attention to the working conditions ofeach teacher, and are quick to provide advice, and to balance teaching schedules across theacademic year. This kind of approach should be standard across the profession.
In addition to good management practice, one further suggestion to ensure that students’ needs
can be addressed without teachers burning out, is to put more emphasis on student-student
discovery and discussion of errors. If this is to be done, then it needs to be a feature of the coursethat is introduced and practiced in the early weeks of classes, and then consistently features
throughout the remainder of the semester. Also, the teacher should ensure that there is a clear− 54 −

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)understanding of the limitations of what a peer can ask of another. This can be done by providing alist of peer editing questions that enable students to ask each other for help without putting excess
burden on one another. There is a need for time to turn this into a meaningful and productive
activity where collaborative learning can take place, so it may be sensible to consider it as anintegral aspect of the course design that is scheduled to occur on a regular basis.
Taking the above step of encouraging more dialogue between students on feedback andcorrection has another merit. In the introduction section of this paper, brief mention was made of
the possible mismatch between students’ and teachers’ perceptions concerning areas of focus for
feedback. It seems obvious that there will be points of divergence between what students feel theyneed and what teachers believe are currently the key areas for improvement in students’ language
proficiency. By giving learners a degree of agency in selecting language to address in peer feedback
sessions, the teacher has more justification and leeway to choose the focal point of WCF.
Grade-Related Written Feedback
The section on grade-related feedback seems to have confirmed earlier results that show apreference amongst students for personalised rather than criteria-related feedback. Indeed, 75 out of
80 respondents agreed with the statement, ‘I want teachers’ written feedback to focus on mypersonal weak points, not only the assessment criteria.’ Moreover, there was also further support forclarity through pre-writing disclosure of feedback delivery, in this case, explanation of theassessment criteria prior to commencing the task. Overall, although the results show that students
are concerned about getting a good grade, their primary expectation would appear to be that WCF
helps them to improve their general proficiency in written English. To address this, the previous
suggestions for teacher action apply.
Regarding the frequency of feedback during grade-related writing tasks, there is majority
support, albeit slight, for regular, timely feedback, and for discussion with the teacher about it. Of
course, these findings are influenced by what is already happening in the writing classes thatstudents are taking. In some cases, teachers will be actively supporting the students during in-classwriting activities, offering advice, negotiating meaning, and prompting or providing corrections. In
others, teachers will be giving students a more autonomous learning experience, perhaps in theform of providing the initial input on language, setting the task, then allowing students to complete
it without further teacher support. The results from this section of the survey, and the overwhelming
desire for feedback voiced throughout suggest that the former approach may be the one required inthis particular learning environment.

− 55 −

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

Conclusion
This was a preliminary study designed to discover the preferences for WCF of students
enrolled in elective classes offered by a department focusing on English for academic purposes. For
this reason, in addition to the relatively small number of respondents, and the lack of statisticalanalysis, it would be unwise to extrapolate the findings to other educational contexts. The purpose
was essentially to embark upon a pathway to improving the efficacy or WCF within thedepartment. Further steps will be taken in future to analyse the impact of the recommendations
made, and how they are received by students and teachers alike.
To summarise and move towards implementation of the suggestions for feedback delivery
discussed above, the following action plan has been compiled:
Teachers should:
1. explain to students how WCF will be delivered
2. compile a catalogue of exemplars for common errors
3. provide exemplars once or twice, but not repeatedly
4. flag multiple instances of repeat errors
5. schedule regular, structured, student-student discovery and discussion of errors
6. actively supporting the students during in-class writing activities
7. provide short positive and negative comments on students’ writing whenever practical or
possible
By design, this list is not exhaustive, nevertheless it still constitutes a significant amount ofwork for teachers, and thus, once again, it may not be immediately practical in all teachingenvironments. Certain factors must be in place for delivery, primarily, the aforementioned
conditions wherein department coordinators monitor and manage teacher workloads. The 2016
Report of the Independent Teacher Workload Review Group (UK Government, Department for
Education, 2016) states in its conclusion that:
if your current approach [to marking] is unmanageable or disproportionate, stop it and adopt an
approach that considers exactly what the marking needs to achieve for pupils. The impact onteacher workload must be taken into account when reviewing, developing and following marking
practice and school assessment policies. (p.10)
This recommendation was taken into consideration when writing the action plan.
As teachers, we engage in our work with the students’ best interests at heart. However, it canhappen that we stray onto the path of easy negativity with regards to WCF. The demands on ourtime, coupled with the often slow pace of improvement can result in disillusionment and a failure toprovide the support that we should. Furthermore, our motivation to review and develop ourpractices can be dampened by a lack of secure employment and working situations where contract− 56 −

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)

lengths are insufficient for us to ever see the fruition of the hard work that we put into the programs
that we help develop. The plan outlined in this paper is feasible because the working environment
supports its delivery. It should be remembered in all institutions that good practice can only occur
under good conditions.
References
Bachman, L. F. (1999). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University Press.
Brown, D. H. (2014). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Sixth Edition. Pearson Education
Department for Education. (2016). Eliminating unnecessary workload around marking: Report of the
Independent Workload Review Group. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
reducing-teacher-workload-marking-policy-review-group-report
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal 1:3-18. doi: 10.5070/12.
v1i1.9054
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term
effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.) Feedback in second language
writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (Second Edition). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2013b). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies in
Educational Evaluation 39:180-187. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2103.06.003.
Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H. and Azizifar, A. (2015). The Effects of Teacher-Written Direct
vs. Indirect Feedback on Students’ Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192:116-123.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018.
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal 63(1):13-22. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn010 13.
Leong, A. P., & Lee. H. H. (2018). From Both Sides of the Classroom: Perspectives on Teacher Feedback
on Academic Writing and Feedback Practice. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific andAcademic Purposes 6 (1):151-164. doi:10.22190/JTESAP1801151L.
Lim, S. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Writing Instruction: A
Meta-Analysis. TESL-EJ The Electronic Journal for Teaching English as a Second Language 24 (3):126.
Pitt, E. & Norton, L. (2017). ‘Now that’s the feedback I want!’ Students’ reactions to feedback on gradedwork and what they do with it. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42:4, 499-516, DOI:
10.1080/02602938.2016.1142500
Ping, A. L., Pin, V. T. P., Wee, S., & Nah, H. H. (2003). Teacher feedback: A Singaporean perspective. ITLInternational Journal of Applied Linguistics 139 (1):47-75.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics.
AILA Review 11: 11-26.

− 57 −

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

Scriven, M. (1966). The Methodology of Evaluation. Publication #110 of the Social Science Education
Consortium. Purdue University.
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31 (3):379-394. doi:10.1080/02602930500353061.

− 58 −

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Survey
Appendix A
英文ライティング課題の添削指導に関するアンケート Survey on Student Preferences for
Feedback on Written Work
英文ライティング課題の添削指導で先生が書くコメントについて、学生がどう思っているのかを調査しています。７分程で終わる内容のアンケートです。ご協力お願いします。
アンケートの回答は匿名で扱うので個人情報が漏れることはありません。よろしくお願
いいたします。
We would like to find out about LEAP studentsʼ preferences for written feedback from theirteachers on English language writing assignments. Please take a few minutes to answer thequestions below. Rest assured that all of your responses will remain anonymous. Thank you!
所属学部を教えてください。 Which faculty do you belong to?
Faculty of Letters 文学部
Faculty of Economics 経済学部
Faculty of Business Administration 経営学部
Faculty of Law 法学部
Faculty of Global and Regional Studies 国際学部
Faculty of Sociology 社会学部
Faculty of International Tourism Management 国際観光学部
Faculty of Regional Development Studies 国際地域学部
Faculty of Information Networking for Innovation and Design 情報連携学部
Faculty of Human Life Design ライフデザイン学部
Faculty of Science and Engineering 理工学部
Faculty of Information Sciences and Arts 総合情報学部
Faculty of Life Sciences 生命科学部
Faculty of Food and Nutritional Sciences 食環境科学部
学年を教えてください。 What is your year of study?
1 年生
2 年生
3 年生
4 年生

− 59 −

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

5 年以上
TOEIC 試験のスコアを教えてください（お持ちであれば）What is your TOEIC score?
120-220225-545550-780785-940945-990
未受験
IELTS のバンドスコアを教えてください（お持ちであれば）。＊ Band 5.5 の場合は Band 5と回答ください What is your IELTS score?
Band 1
Band 2
Band 3
Band 4
Band 5
Band 6
Band 7
Band 8Band 9
未受験
添削指導の明瞭さについて

Clarity of Written Feedback

添 削 指 導 の わ か り や す さ に つ い て 教 え て く だ さ い。Making feedback easy for you tounderstand.
全くそう
思わない
Strongly
disagree先生が行う添削指導でどのようにコメン
トを書くのか説明してほしい。
I want my teachers to explain their style ofwritten feedback to the class.

− 60 −

あまりそう思わないDisagree

ややそう
思う
Agree

とてもそ
う思う
Strongly
agree

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

(Research Note)

添削指導のコメントは詳細に書いてほしい。
I want my teachersʼ written feedback to bedetailed.
添削指導のコメントはタイプされたもの
より手書きの方がよい。
Handwritten feedback is better than typed
feedback.
文に間違いがあった場合、先生には・・・
When I make mistakes, I would prefer my teachers to...
• 間違い箇所を指摘、修正、そしてなぜ間違いなのか説明してほしい。
highlight, correct, and explain the mistake• 間違い箇所を指摘し、なぜ間違いなのか説明してほしいが、修正は不要。
highlight and explain the mistake, but not correct it• 間違い箇所を指摘、修正してほしいが、なぜ間違いなのかの説明は不要。
highlight and correct the mistake, but not explain it• 間違い箇所を指摘してほしいが、修正や、なぜ間違いなのかの説明は不要。
highlight the mistake, but not correct or explain it• 間違い箇所の指摘、修正、なぜ間違いなのかの説明は全て不要。
not highlight, correct, or explain the mistake

添削指導のバランスについて

Balance of Written Feedback

ライティングの良い点・改善できる点に対する添削指導のコメントについて教えてください。Feedback on good and bad aspects of your writing.
全くそう あまりそ ややそう思わない う思わな 思うStronglyいAgreedisagreeDisagree「よくできました（Good job!)」といった短いポジティブなコメントが書いてある
ことは個人的に大事だと思う。
Short, positive comments like, ʻGood Job!ʼ are
important to me.
添削指導では、良い点と悪い点の双方に詳細な説明を書いてほしい。
I want my teachers to give detailed writtencomments on the good points of my writing.

− 61 −

とてもそう 思 うStrongly
agreeUnderstanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

添削指導では、「例を示せ (Give examples)」のように必要な修正を簡潔な言葉で書いたコメントは役にたつと思う。
Short, critical comments like, ʻGive examples.ʼ
are helpful.
添削指導のコメントでは、どうすればライティングを改善できるのか詳細に書いてほしい。
I want my teachers to give detailed writtencomments on how to improve my writing.
添削指導のコメントは、ライティングの誤りや弱点に焦点を絞って書いてほしい。
Teachersʼ written feedback should focus
mostly on errors and weak points.
添削指導のコメントは、ライティングを
もっと上手に書けるようになりたいというモチベーションを上げてくれる。
Teachersʼ written feedback motivates me toimprove my writing.
添削指導のコメントは、書いた内容ではなく先生が私の人格を称賛もしくは否定しているように感じる。
Teacherʼs written feedback feels like personal
criticism.
これまで経験した英語教育を思い返すと、先生はライティングの添削指導でコメン
トを書くことにもっと力を入れた方がいいと思う。
Based on your past experiences, teachers
should put more effort into giving feedback on
written work.

− 62 −

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

添削指導の焦点について(Research Note)

Focus of Written Feedback

言語要素（文法や単語）に関する添削指導に対して思うことを教えてください。Feedback
on different kinds of language use.
全く重要
ではない
N o t
important

とても重要 Veryimportant
ライティングで使用した単語に関する添
削指導（単語の適切さや類義語）は、どの程度重要だと思いますか。当てはまる
ものを「１とても重要」から「４全く重要ではない」の中から選んでください。
How important is it for you to receive written
feedback on your vocabulary choices? Please
select from 1 (Very important) to 4 (Not
important)
ライティングで使用した文法に関する添削指導は、どの程度重要だと思いますか。
当てはまるものを「１とても重要」から「４全く重要ではない」の中から選んでください。
How important is it for you to receive written
feedback on your grammar? Please select from
1 (Very important) to 4 (Not important)
ライティングで使用した単語のスペリングに関する添削指導は、どの程度重要だと思いますか。当てはまるものを「１とても重要」から「４全く重要ではない」の中から選んでください。
How important is it for you to receive written
feedback on your spelling? Please select from
1 (Very important) to 4 (Not important)
ライティングで使用した文章構成に関する添削指導は、どの程度重要だと思いますか。当てはまるものを「１とても重要」
から「４全く重要ではない」の中から選んでください。
How important is it for you to receive written
feedback on your formatting? Please selectfrom 1 (Very important) to 4 (Not important)− 63 −

12

3

4

Understanding Student Preferences for Written Feedback on L2 English Writing Assignments

ライティングで書いた文章の内容に関する添削指導は、どの程度重要だと思いますか。当てはまるものを「１とても重要」
から「４全く重要ではない」の中から選んでください。
How important is it for you to receive written
feedback on your ideas? Please select from 1(Very important) to 4 (Not important)
ライティングの添削指導では、全ての誤りをコメント付きで指摘してほしい。
I want teachers to give written feedback on
every kind of mistake in my writing.
ライティング課題で同じ誤りを繰り返し行なっていた場合、先生にどの程度指摘してほしいですか。
If I make the same mistake many times in asingle piece of writing, I want the teacher tocorrect it.
課題に対する点数がわかればいいので添削指導は必要ない。
I donʼt want written feedback. I only want toknow my score.

添削指導と成績について

Grade-related Written Feedback

総合成績に占める割合が高い課題に関する添削指導について教えてください。Feedback
on written work that has a big impact on your final grade.
全くそう あまりそ ややそうう
思わない う思わな 思
AgreeいStrongly
Disagreedisagree
ライティング課題を書き始める前に採点基準を説明してほしい。
I want teachers to explain the assessment
criteria to me before I start writing.

− 64 −

とてもそう 思 うStrongly
agree

Bulletin of the Toyo University Center for Global Education and Exchange, the Inaugural Issue, March 2023

添削指導のコメントは採点基準に関係する点に限定されるべきだ。
Teachersʼ written feedback should only focus
on assessment criteria for the work.
添削指導のコメントは採点基準に関係する点だけでなく、ライティングの弱点についても書いてほしい。
I want teachersʼ written feedback to focus on
my personal weak points, not only theassessment criteria.
添削指導のコメントはどうすれば良い成績が取れるのかに焦点を当てて書かれるべきだ。
Teachersʼ written feedback should help meknow what I have to do to get a good grade.
ライティング課題を改善できるように添削指導は早く返却してほしい。
I want teachers to return feedback quickly, so I
can improve my work.
ライティングの途中経過を定期的に添削指導してほしい。
I want teachers to provide regular feedback
during the writing process.
ライティングの添削指導はディスカッション形式で行ってほしい。
I want teachers to discuss written feedback
with me.

− 65 −(Research Note)