SALA/
Articles/
2608004937
  • Open Access
  • Article

Exploring Pre-Service English Teachers’ Feedback Literacy in Continuation Writing: A Qualitative Study

  • Jiaying Zhong 1,   
  • Yueting Xu 2,3,*

Received: 02 Aug 2026 | Revised: 16 Aug 2026 | Accepted: 17 Aug 2026 | Published: 18 Sep 2026

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed increasing interest in teacher feedback literacy, yet little research has investigated the feedback literacy of pre-service teachers (PSTs). Given that pre-service training can serve as the foundation for their future feedback practice in educational settings, this paper fills this research gap based on a qualitative study of the characteristics of pre-service English teachers’ feedback on student writing and their feedback literacy changes. Drawing upon data from ten PSTs’ written feedback on 96 continuation writing drafts and three focal participants’ responses from three rounds of open-ended surveys and retrospective interviews, findings show that the PSTs tended to provide language-error-focused feedback and supplement it with positive and suggestive comments. Data analysis of the three focal participants revealed that individual PSTs’ feedback literacy was manifested in three dimensions (i.e., design, relational, and pragmatic), and it could progress, fluctuate, or decline in practice. Findings are discussed regarding PSTs’ feedback characteristics in continuation writing, and how their feedback literacy would change on a multi-dimensional continuum. This study concludes with implications for initial teacher education and research on teacher feedback literacy.

References 

  • 1.

    Bader, M., Burner, T., Hoem Iversen, S., & Varga, Z. (2019). Student perspectives on formative feedback as part of writing portfolios. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1564811.

  • 2.

    Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004.

  • 3.

    Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2023). What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928.

  • 4.

    Brookhart, S. M. (2013). The use of teacher judgement for summative assessment in the USA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.703170.

  • 5.

    Buck, G., Trauth, A., & Kaftan, J. (2010). Making formative assessment discernable to pre-service teachers of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 402–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20344.

  • 6.

    Burić, I., & Macuka, I. (2018). Self-Efficacy, emotions and work engagement among teachers: A two wave cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(7), 1917–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9903-9.

  • 7.

    Busse, V. (2013). How do students of German perceive feedback practices at university? A motivational exploration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 406–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.09.005.

  • 8.

    Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132.

  • 9.

    Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory (pp. 1–6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_389-1.

  • 10.

    Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372.

  • 11.

    Carless, D., Joughin, G., & Liu, N. (2006). How Assessment Supports Learning: Learning-oriented Assessment in Action (p. 178). Hong Kong University Press. https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789622098237.001.0001.

  • 12.

    Chan, C. K. Y., & Luo, J. (2022). Exploring teacher perceptions of different types of ‘feedback practices’ in higher education: Implications for teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888074.

  • 13.

    Chen, K. (2019). A verification study on the effect of the continuation tasks in National Matriculation English Test. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools, 42(11), 1–6. (In Chinese)

  • 14.

    Chen, K. (2022). Exploring the assessment criteria of the continuation tasks from the perspective of teachers. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools, 45(3), 61–65. (In Chinese)

  • 15.

    Chen, M., & Cui, Y. (2022). The effects of AWE and peer feedback on cohesion and coherence in continuation writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 57, 100915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100915.

  • 16.

    Cheng, L., & Sun, Y. (2015). Teachers’ grading decision making: Multiple influencing factors and methods. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2015.1010726.

  • 17.

    Cheng, X., Zhang, L. J., & Yan, Q. (2021). Exploring teacher written feedback in EFL writing classrooms: Beliefs and practices in interaction. Language Teaching Research, 29(1), 385–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211057665.

  • 18.

    Cheung, C. C.-H. (2016). Sentence-final particles. In C. C.-H. Cheung (Ed.), Parts of Speech in Mandarin: The State of the Art (pp. 133–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0398-1_10.

  • 19.

    Cho, Y., Rijmen, F., & Novák, J. (2013). Investigating the effects of prompt characteristics on the comparability of TOEFL iBTTM integrated writing tasks. Language Testing, 30(4), 513–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213478796.

  • 20.

    Chong, I. (2018). Interplay among technical, socio-emotional and personal factors in written feedback research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1317712.

  • 21.

    Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539.

  • 22.

    Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2005.02.001.

  • 23.

    Dong, Z., & Gao, Y. (2022). Feedback literacy studies in China and abroad: Retrospect and prospect. Foreign Language Education in China, 5(4), 10–17+90. (In Chinese)

  • 24.

    Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001.

  • 25.

    Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107.

  • 26.

    Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004.

  • 27.

    Gotwals, A., & Birmingham, D. (2016). Eliciting, identifying, interpreting, and responding to students’ ideas: Teacher candidates’ growth in formative assessment practices. Research in Science Education, 46, 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9461-2.

  • 28.

    Grieve, R., Moffitt, R. L., & Padgett, C. R. (2019). Student perceptions of marker personality and intelligence: The effect of emoticons in online assignment feedback. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.008.

  • 29.

    Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1346.

  • 30.

    Hamp-Lyons, L., & Chen, J. (1999). An investigation into the effectiveness of teacher feedback on student writing. English Language Teaching and Learning, 3, 207–219.

  • 31.

    Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

  • 32.

    Heron, M., Medland, E., Winstone, N., & Pitt, E. (2023). Developing the relational in teacher feedback literacy: Exploring feedback talk. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1932735.

  • 33.

    Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 91(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818909100107.

  • 34.

    Huot, B. (2002). Reading like a teacher: Toward a Theory of Response. In Rearticulating writing assessment for teaching and learning (pp. 109–136). University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nx5z.8.

  • 35.

    Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8.

  • 36.

    Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Interpersonality and teacher-written feedback. In Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 165–183). Cambridge University Press.

  • 37.

    Istencioglu, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Yang, L. (2026). Teacher feedback literacy as an emerging field: A scoping review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2026.2631533.

  • 38.

    Jiang, F., & Lu, Z. (2023). Problems, causes and countermeasures in senior secondary school English teaching of reading and writing. Teaching & Administration, 19, 40–43. (In Chinese)

  • 39.

    Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). “I just want to do it right, but it’s so hard”: A novice teacher’s written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.11.001.

  • 40.

    Kim, A.-Y., & Kim, H. J. (2017). The effectiveness of instructor feedback for learning-oriented language assessment: Using an integrated reading-to-write task for English for academic purposes. Assessing Writing, 32, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.12.001.

  • 41.

    Kong, Y., Molnár, E. K., & Xu, N. (2022). Pre- and in-service teachers’ assessment and feedback in EFL writing: Changes and challenges. SAGE Open, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221126672.

  • 42.

    Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214554321.

  • 43.

    Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001.

  • 44.

    Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn010.

  • 45.

    Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.05.001.

  • 46.

    Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247.

  • 47.

    Lee, I. (2021). The development of feedback literacy for writing teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 1048–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3012.

  • 48.

    Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2015). Bringing innovation to conventional feedback approaches in EFL secondary writing classrooms: A Hong Kong case study. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(2), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-02-2015-0004.

  • 49.

    Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(2), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815581007.

  • 50.

    Li, F., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2020). Teacher feedback in UK higher education: Affective and cognitive perceptions of Chinese postgraduate students. International Journal of Educational Research, 104, 101674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101674.

  • 51.

    Máñez, I., Lipnevich, A. A., Lopera-Oquendo, C., & Cerdán, R. (2024). Examining pre-service teachers’ feedback on low- and high-quality written assignments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 36(2), 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-024-09432-x.

  • 52.

    Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from “Case Study Research in Education”. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

  • 53.

    Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

  • 54.

    National Education Examinations Authority. (2021). Implementing moral education to promote all-round development and assessing comprehensive language abilities to positively guide English teaching and learning: Analysis of the 2021 National Matriculation English Test. Journal of China Examinations, 7, 77–81. https://doi.org/10.19360/j.cnki.11-3303/g4.2021.07.011. (In Chinese)

  • 55.

    Padgett, C., Moffitt, R. L., & Grieve, R. (2021). More than words: Using digital cues to enhance student perceptions of online assignment feedback. The Internet and Higher Education, 49, 100789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100789.

  • 56.

    Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

  • 57.

    Peck, L., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2024). Learning to give feedback to student writers: A systematic review of research on field-based experiences for pre-service writing teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 144, 104602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104602.

  • 58.

    Plakans, L. (2010). Independent vs. integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.215251.

  • 59.

    Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007.

  • 60.

    Ropohl, M., & Rönnebeck, S. (2019). Making learning effective—Quantity and quality of pre-service teachers’ feedback. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2156–2176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1663452.

  • 61.

    Schelling, N., & Rubenstein, L. D. (2023). Pre-service and in-service assessment training: Impacts on elementary teachers’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and data-driven decision making practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 30(2), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2202836.

  • 62.

    To, J., Tan, K., & Lim, M. (2023). From error-focused to learner-centred feedback practices: Unpacking the development of teacher feedback literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 131, 104185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104185.

  • 63.

    Uludag, P., Lindberg, R., McDonough, K., & Payant, C. (2019). Exploring L2 writers’ source-text use in an integrated writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100670.

  • 64.

    Wang, C. (2012). The continuation task—An effective method in enhancing foreign language acquisition. Foreign Language World, 5, 2–7. (In Chinese)

  • 65.

    Wu, P., Yu, S., & Luo, Y. (2023). The development of teacher feedback literacy in situ: EFL writing teachers’ endeavor to human-computer-AWE integral feedback innovation. Assessing Writing, 57, 100739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100739.

  • 66.

    Xie, Q. (2021). Developing preservice English teachers’ assessment literacy through design-based research. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(3), 460–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1906155.

  • 67.

    Xie, Q., & Tan, S. (2019). Preparing primary English teachers in Hong Kong: Focusing on language assessment literacy. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(2), 653–673. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.2.14.653.

  • 68.

    Xu, Y., & Harfitt, G. (2019). Is assessment for learning feasible in large classes? Challenges and coping strategies from three case studies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(5), 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1555790.

  • 69.

    Xu, Y., & He, L. (2019). How pre-service teachers’ conceptions of assessment change over practicum: Implications for teacher assessment literacy. Frontiers in Education, 4, 145. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00145.

  • 70.

    Xu, Y., & Zhang, J. (2026). Measuring pre-service teachers’ feedback literacy: Scale development and validation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2026.2712556.

  • 71.

    Xu, Y., Liu C., & Han, Y. (2023). A multi-dimensional framework of teacher feedback literacy: Evidence from a review of literature. Foreign Language Education, 44(5), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1023/h.2023.05.006. (In Chinese)

  • 72.

    Xu, Y., Zhong, J., & Han, Y. (2026). How teacher feedback literacy changed by using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) feedback as exemplars: Case studies of English as a foreign language school teachers in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 176, 105501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105501.

  • 73.

    Yang, L., & Zhang, L. J. (2023). Self-regulation and student engagement with feedback: The case of Chinese EFL student writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 63, 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101226.

  • 74.

    Yao, Y., Yu, S., Zhu, X., Zhu, S., & Pang, W. (2025). Exploring Chinese university English writing teachers’ emotions in providing feedback on student writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 63(3), 1871–1893. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0233.

  • 75.

    Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study research and applications design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

  • 76.

    Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100798.

  • 77.

    Yu, S., Geng, F., Liu, C., & Zheng, Y. (2021). What works may hurt: The negative side of feedback in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 100850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100850.

  • 78.

    Yu, S., Zheng, Y., Jiang, L., Liu, C., & Xu, Y. (2021). “I even feel annoyed and angry”: Teacher emotional experiences in giving feedback on student writing. Assessing Writing, 48, 100528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100528.

  • 79.

    Zhan, Y. (2022). Teacher educators’ perceptions of schoolteacher feedback literacy: Implications for feedback training in teacher education programmes. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 47(10), 106–124.

  • 80.

    Zhan, Y. (2024). Feedback literacy of teacher candidates: Roles of assessment course learning experience and motivations for becoming a teacher. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(5), 1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00779-1.

  • 81.

    Zhan, Y. (2026). Interplay between student and teacher feedback literacies within pre-service teachers: A mixed-methods study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 51(3), 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2546347.

  • 82.

    Zhang, H., Yuan, R., & He, X. (2020). Investigating university EFL teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking and its teaching: Voices from China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(5), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00500-6.

  • 83.

    Zhang, Q. (2013). On the mood particle “O(哦)” in modern Chinese. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 2, 82–88. (In Chinese)

  • 84.

    Zheng, Y., Zhong, Q., Yu, S., & Li, X. (2020). Examining students’ responses to teacher translation feedback: Insights from the perspective of student engagement. SAGE Open, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020932536.

Share this article:
Download PDF
DOI
10.53941/sala.2026.100014
Issue
Volume 1, Issue 1
How to Cite
Zhong, J., & Xu, Y. (2026). Exploring Pre-Service English Teachers’ Feedback Literacy in Continuation Writing: A Qualitative Study. Studies of Applied Linguistics in Asia, 1(1), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.53941/sala.2026.100014
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
article copyright Image
Copyright (c) 2026 by the authors.
Article Metrics
39
Article Views
0
Citations