Libyan EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback Methods: A Qualitative Exploration in Tripoli University

Authors

  • Alhadi Bilban Alliant International University, United States

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v14i1.14416

Keywords:

Written corrective feedback, Focused feedback, Indirect feedback, Teacher cognition, Unfocused feedback

Abstract

Writing in English is an essential skill for ESL learners, and qualified teachers play a key role in providing effective written corrective feedback (WCF). While much research has examined the general effectiveness of WCF, less attention has been given to teachers’ perceptions of WCF methods and expected outcomes. This qualitative study investigated Libyan university English teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, experience, and training related to WCF. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with four participants and were analyzed thematically to identify patterns in their beliefs and practices. Findings revealed that participants held clear views on providing writing corrections but showed inconsistencies in their understanding and use of specific WCF types, often due to limited training. These results underscore the need for targeted professional development programs that help teachers apply various feedback methods effectively. Such initiatives can strengthen EFL pedagogy by aligning teacher feedback practices with students’ learning needs and institutional writing objectives. Future research may explore the long-term effects of WCF on learners’ writing proficiency and feedback retention.

Author Biography

Alhadi Bilban, Alliant International University

Faculty of Education, Alliant International University San Diego U.S.A

References

Alharbi, M. A. (2022). Exploring the impact of teacher feedback modes and features on students’ text revisions in writing. Assessing Writing, 52, Article 100610.

Allwright, J. C. (1975). Optimal output feedback without trace. Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 2(4), 351–372.

Alsuhaibani, Z. (2021). Corrective feedback controversies in language learning: With a focus on direct written corrective feedback. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 8(4), 35–43

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.

Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching. Language Awareness, 7(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658419808667163

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903

Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39(3), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.010

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cao, Y. (2017). Teacher cognition and classroom practices: A case study of EFL writing instruction. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly, 41(3), 233–255.

Cheng, X., Liu, Y., & Wang, C. (2023). Understanding student engagement with teacher and peer feedback in L2 writing. [Journal name], [Volume(Issue)], [pages].

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X

Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000025

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2008). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar: An exploratory study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 301–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080199

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

Hamid, M. O., et al. (2021). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions and justifications for direct vs. indirect feedback with metalinguistic comments. [Journal Name], [Volume(Issue)], [pages].

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Jahbel, A., et al. (2020). Libyan English teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to teaching English. [Journal Name], [Volume(Issue)], [pages].

Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). A meta-analysis of the effects of written corrective feedback. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770969

Kartchava, E. (2018). Planned versus incidental focus on form in oral communication. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0413

Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Still evolving. Language Teaching, 52(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000390

Lee, I. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its impact on student writing development. Language Teaching Research, [volume], [pages].

Liu, Q. (2021). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Advances and prospects. System, 103, 102671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102671

Mahfoodh, O. H. A., & Pandian, A. (2019). EFL university teachers’ feedback practices and perceptions in Arab contexts. System, 80, 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.006

Nassaji, H. (2020). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. Bloomsbury Academic.

Saeli, H., & Cheng, M. (2023). Exploring EFL teachers’ feedback literacy: Beliefs and practices. TESOL Quarterly, [Volume], [pages].

Schmidt, R. (1994). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 1–63). University of Hawai‘i Press.

Shintani, N. (2019). The role of feedback in second language writing: Focusing on noticing and uptake. System, 80, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.011

Storch, N. (2018). Researching written corrective feedback: Theoretical and methodological considerations. System, 78, 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.07.009

Yu, S., & Liu, C. (2021). Developing teachers’ feedback literacy in second language writing: Trends and future directions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 51, Article 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100118

Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2022). Teachers’ beliefs about written feedback and their classroom practices: Insights from EFL contexts. Assessing Writing, 51, Article 100586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586

Downloads

Published

2026-01-22

How to Cite

Bilban, A. (2026). Libyan EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback Methods: A Qualitative Exploration in Tripoli University. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 14(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v14i1.14416

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 1 (2026): January

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Alhadi Bilban

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.