Native and Non-native Teachers’ Perceptions of Error Gravity: The Effects of Cultural and Educational Factors

Rao, Zhenhui; Li, Xin

doi:10.1007/s40299-017-0326-5

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With such a teaching style, they probably regard students’ writing as a whole, evaluate it from a global perspective, and emphasize its communicative purpose, instead of mainly focusing on linguistic issues in writing. In comparison, NNES teachers’ teaching style is concrete-sequential, closure-oriented, and rule-based ( Melton, 1990 ; Rao and Li, 2017 ; Su, 2019 ). This type of teaching style values accuracy and linguistic details, leading to NNES teachers’ emphasis on students’ language use ( Rao, 2002 ), which may account for their meticulous correction of students’ linguistic errors in feedback provision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the NNES teachers in our study had high level of English proficiency, they are naturally inferior to their NES peers with regard to the mastery of English and the proficient use of English ( Rao and Yuan, 2016 ). As an important variable, English proficiency influences teachers’ tolerance of English language errors ( Hughes and Lascaratou, 1982 ; Rao and Li, 2017 ). Thus, NES teachers are of higher tolerance of language errors, which may enable them to shift their attention from linguistic level to high-order dimensions of writing when providing their Chinese EFL students with written feedback on writing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, researchers have investigated NES and NNES teachers’ assessment of errors in L2 writing (e.g., Porte, 1999 ; Hyland and Anan, 2006 ; Rao and Li, 2017 ). For example, Porte (1999) undertook a study to address the differences between the two groups of teachers in terms of evaluating errors.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also found that NNES teachers were more severe than their NES peers in identifying errors in L2 writing. More recently, Rao and Li’s (2017) study, in the Chinese EFL context, examined NES and NNES teachers’ assessment of errors in writing samples by a cohort of Chinese EFL learners. Consistent with previous studies, they found that compared with NES teachers, NNES teachers showed less tolerance of students’ linguistic errors in writing.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The available studies have shown that although NES and NNES teachers adopt different pedagogical practices in their instruction, the two groups of teachers complement each other as well as contribute their own advantages to language teaching ( Shi, 2001 ; Zhang and Elder, 2011 ; Kung, 2015 ; Su, 2019 ; Zhang and Zhang, 2020 ). Unfortunately, while a growing number of NES teachers are recruited to teach EFL writing in China and other similar EFL countries due to their higher English proficiency and better understanding of English writing conventions and genres ( Rao and Yuan, 2016 ; Zhang, 2016 ; Rao and Li, 2017 ), few studies have examined the similarities and differences between NES and NNES EFL writing teachers’ written feedback practices. Considering that teachers’ written feedback practices are conditioned and influenced by their sociocultural and language backgrounds ( Lee, 2014 , 2017 ; Hyland and Hyland, 2019 ), such an examination is warranted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Teacher Written Feedback on English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Writing: Examining Native and Nonnative English-Speaking Teachers’ Practices in Feedback Provision

Cheng

Zhang

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While previous studies have examined front-line teachers’ written feedback practices in second language (L2) writing classrooms, such studies tend to not take teachers’ language and sociocultural backgrounds into consideration, which may mediate their performance in written feedback provision. Therefore, much remains to be known about how L2 writing teachers with different first languages (L1) enact written feedback. To fill this gap, we designed an exploratory study to examine native English-speaking (NES) and non-native English-speaking (NNES) (i.e., Chinese L1) teachers’ written feedback practices in the Chinese tertiary context. Our study collected 80 English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ writing samples with teacher written feedback and analyzed them from three aspects: Feedback scope, feedback focus, and feedback strategy. The findings of our study revealed that the two groups of teachers shared similar practices regarding feedback scope and feedback strategies. Both NES and NNES EFL teachers used a comprehensive approach to feedback provision, although NNES teachers provided significantly more feedback points than their NES peers and they delivered their feedback directly and indirectly. However, their practices differed greatly with regard to feedback focus. Specifically, when responding to EFL students’ writing, NES teachers showed more concern with global issues (i.e., content and organization), whereas NNES teachers paid more attention to linguistic errors. With a surge in the recruitment of expatriate NES and local NNES English teachers in China and other EFL countries, our study is expected to make a contribution to a better understanding of the two groups of EFL teachers’ pedagogical practices in written feedback provision and generate important implications for their feedback provision.

show abstract