Profiling EFL writing teachers’ feedback provision practices and activity uses in Saudi universities

The study addresses how EFL writing teachers in Saudi universities provide feedback and use learner-centered feedback activities, an area crucial for effective L2 writing instruction yet underexplored in this context. Grounded in sociocultural theory, feedback is seen as scaffolding that supports learner development and self-correction. The paper distinguishes teacher feedback provision practices (modes and error correction strategies) from learner-centered feedback activities (self-evaluation, peer feedback, automated writing evaluation). Prior research often involved small samples, limited feedback dimensions, and focused on non-Arab contexts, leaving gaps regarding teachers’ preferred modes and practices in Saudi settings and their views on learner-centered activities. The study aims to provide a comprehensive profile of Saudi university English writing teachers’ feedback modes, error correction explicitness, scope, and focus, as well as their use of self-evaluation, peer feedback, and automated writing evaluation. Research questions: (RQ1) Which feedback delivery modes are used more frequently and why? (RQ2) Which error correction explicitness, scope, and focus strategies are used more frequently and why? (RQ3) To what extent are learner-centered feedback activities used and why?

The review covers three strands. (1) L2 writing teacher feedback: Studies across contexts (e.g., Lebanon, Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Southeast Asia) report varied emphases (direct vs. indirect correction; focus on grammar, organization, or content) and highlight contextual constraints (time, workload, resources) and mismatches between beliefs and practices. Gaps include small teacher samples and limited coverage of feedback modes beyond experimental comparisons. (2) Learner-centered feedback: Research on self-evaluation, peer feedback, and automated writing evaluation (AWE) has grown, with mixed findings on preferences and effectiveness; teacher vs. non-teacher feedback comparisons suggest teacher feedback often preferred, while training influences peer feedback outcomes. Teacher evaluations of AWE are scarce and mostly in non-Arab contexts, showing cautious optimism with concerns about functionality and ecological fit. (3) Saudi context: Few studies on teacher feedback show mixes of direct and indirect approaches influenced by constraints and student levels; student-focused studies note preferences for teacher feedback and positive yet qualified views on AWE. Overall, comprehensive, teacher-focused profiles in Saudi settings remain limited, particularly regarding feedback modes and teachers’ evaluations of learner-centered activities.

Design: Qualitative approach using an open-ended questionnaire to elicit detailed, unrestricted accounts of practices and rationales. Participants: 74 English writing teachers (48 female, 26 male) from eight Saudi universities; predominantly Saudi nationals with others (Egyptian, Indian, Jordanian, Sudanese, Yemeni). Ranks: 45 assistant professors; others include lecturers (16), associate professors (8), professors (5). Teaching experience mostly 5–20 years; most had taught more than five writing courses. Typical program context: English teacher/translator education, 4–6 writing courses, 2–3 hours/week, class sizes ~15–25. Instrument: Eight open-ended questions (part of a larger questionnaire) targeting feedback delivery modes, error correction explicitness/scope/focus, use of learner-centered activities, and reasons for choices. Items developed from literature and refined collaboratively. Data collection: Google Forms link distributed via email/WhatsApp over eight weeks; 82 responses received, with 74 complete and reliable open-ended responses retained. Analysis: Independent and collaborative thematic analysis following Lodico et al. (2006): sorting by question, initial reading/comparison, theme identification, evidence confirmation. An applied linguist reviewed the coding framework; inter-coder agreement = 92%. Final themes refined and counts calculated where appropriate.

Feedback delivery modes (RQ1):

• Handwritten feedback was most common: 47 teachers used it exclusively or with another mode, citing effectiveness, clarity, memorability, and convenience.
• Oral feedback was second most common: 37 teachers, valued for immediacy, personalization, and efficiency; typically combined with written feedback. Forms: individual in-class comments (n=24), whole-class discussion of sample texts (n=12), one-to-one conferencing (n=5).
• Electronic feedback: 17 teachers used email/platform comments, citing readability, editability, and comfort.
• Audio-recorded feedback: least used (n=5), for elaboration or during online teaching.
• Combinations: teachers reported mixing modes, including handwritten+oral, electronic+oral, and triads (e.g., handwritten+electronic+oral; oral+handwritten+audio).

Error correction strategies (RQ2):

• Direct vs. indirect: 33 used mainly direct correction (to ensure understanding/modeling); 29 preferred indirect (to promote active thinking; time constraints); 12 reported it depends (level, draft type, course stage, assignment).
• Comprehensive vs. selective: 43 used comprehensive correction (students need to see all errors); 23 selective (prioritize major issues, maintain motivation, manage dense error texts); 8 said it depends (error type, level, time, stage in course/draft cycle).
• Focus areas: Teachers split across focus types—ideational/organizational only (n=35), language-only (n=28), both (n=11). Frequent targets: ideas, organization, coherence, punctuation, grammar; vocabulary was seldom mentioned. Several teachers varied focus across drafts (e.g., content/organization on first draft, language on later draft; or vice versa).

Learner-centered activities (RQ3):

• Self-evaluation: Not used by 53 teachers (reasons: student unfamiliarity, limited ability to detect own errors, time constraints). Used by 21, who saw benefits for discovery, reflection, motivation, and autonomy; limited detail on implementation (some used rubrics or model texts).
• Peer feedback: Used by 57 teachers (some "sometimes"), to diversify methods, motivate, foster peer learning, and build evaluative/communication skills; limited procedural details (sharing/exchanging essays, groupings by mixed ability, occasional model texts). Not used by 17 due to perceived unreliability, student apprehension, low proficiency, and off-task behavior.
• Automated writing evaluation (AWE): 60 reported not using it (concerns about trust, superficiality of suggestions, limited learning gains, time costs; assumption students use it independently). 14 reported positive use/attitudes (guidance, time-saving, alignment with tech use, support for out-of-class learning; some recommend tools or teach effective use).

Findings answer the RQs by showing clear preferences for traditional modes (handwritten and oral), a tendency toward direct and comprehensive correction, and selective uptake of learner-centered activities—especially peer feedback—while self-evaluation and AWE are underutilized. These patterns reflect contextual constraints (time, class size, student proficiency), perceived pedagogical efficacy (clarity of direct/comprehensive feedback; immediacy of oral feedback), and beliefs about student readiness and tool reliability. The emphasis on ideational/organizational features by many teachers contrasts with several prior studies prioritizing language accuracy, suggesting contextual priorities in Saudi EFL writing classes. The observed blending of modes and strategy types (e.g., direct-indirect, comprehensive-selective, mixed delivery modes) underscores adaptive, context-sensitive practices rather than rigid adherence to single approaches. These insights highlight areas to enhance feedback literacy: harnessing electronic modes effectively, deepening language-related feedback beyond grammar/mechanics, and structuring peer/self-evaluation and AWE to maximize learning while addressing concerns about reliability and student engagement.

The study provides a comprehensive profile of Saudi university EFL writing teachers’ feedback provision and activity use: dominance of handwritten and oral modes; greater use of direct and comprehensive correction; mixed focus across ideational/organizational and language aspects; widespread but variably implemented peer feedback; limited self-evaluation and AWE use. Implications include the need for in-service training to optimize electronic feedback, expand language-focused feedback, and design/mediate peer and self-evaluation and AWE effectively. Institutional recommendations include reducing class sizes (target ~15 students) to improve feedback quality. Future research should triangulate open-ended teacher reports with large samples of actual feedback artifacts, and compare teacher and learner perspectives using mixed methods across multiple contexts to refine feedback literacy development and align practices with learner needs.

While offering detailed qualitative insights from a relatively large teacher sample, the study relies on self-reported open-ended questionnaire data from one national context and does not analyze actual feedback artifacts or classroom observations. The authors note that further research should complement these self-reports with large samples of real feedback comments and compare teacher and learner perspectives to complete the profile and strengthen generalizability.