Psychological dimensions of feedback literacy in EFL writing: A mixed-methods study of teacher-student alignment in Thailand

Abstract

This convergent mixed-methods study examined how teacher and student perceptions of feedback align and diverge in Thai university EFL writing classes and which psychologically informed practices enhance feedback uptake. Conducted at a public university, the study involved 15 lecturers and 169 students (31 English majors and 138 non-English majors). Data were collected through two 25-item Likert-scale questionnaires, six teacher interviews, 69 student reflective journals, and 18 classroom observations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. Findings revealed strong convergence across groups regarding the importance and usefulness of teacher feedback, frequent use of written and face-to-face feedback, and transparent rubric sharing. Nevertheless, inferential analyses indicated statistically significant construct-level differences in overall perceptions and expectations, suggesting that shared values coexisted with divergence in emphasis and interpretation. Teachers described holistic, process-oriented feedback, whereas students, particularly non-English majors, primarily recalled surface-level corrections related to grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. English majors expressed stronger endorsement of dialogic feedback, whereas non-English majors showed greater preference for technology-mediated formats. Thematic findings identified four key levers for effective feedback, including clarity and explicitness, supportive emotional tone, differentiated feedback by learner profile, and strategic use of digital tools. The results correspond to cognitive, affective, and self-regulatory mechanisms of feedback literacy. The study emphasizes the value of psychologically informed feedback design in EFL writing instruction and suggests directions for future longitudinal and multi-institutional research.