Psychologically complicated by nature, anxiety refers to feelings of worry, fear, or apprehension. Several research studies have been devoted to exploring anxiety's effects on language skills, including writing. Since foreign language anxiety directly influences a learner's motivation and determination to learn that language, it is imperative to study the findings and reasons behind these anxious feelings. One-third of foreign language learners have been experiencing at least a moderate level of anxiety. Researchers have attempted to investigate the causes of anxiety among foreign language pre-service teachers. The present study objectifies two goals to determine the extent of writing anxiety, followed by reasons and references to the role of gender. Seventy-two pre-service teachers of the English language training department from the University of Education, Multan, Pakistan, were selected for the study using convenience sampling. Second language writing anxiety inventory (SLWAI) and second language writing anxiety reasons inventory (SLWARI) were used to collect data, and semi-structured interviews were taken with students. The findings presented no difference in anxiety levels between genders, whereas cognitive anxiety type was distinctive in results. Most of the participants experienced high and medium levels of anxiety.

<p style="text-align: justify;">This study focuses on online supervisory written feedback on PhD supervisees’ performance, given explicitly through online communication, particularly during the first wave of COVID-19. This unusual situation has brought many different effects on students’ academic lives. This scenario has influenced both students’ and teachers’ mutual communication. A directed qualitative content analysis (DQCA) approach was adapted from previous research and modified for the present context. The current study planned to bring forth the supervisee and supervisors’ perception of the communication and feedback process, considering that online feedback and communication has been a new experience for most students. According to the findings, teachers/supervisors give feedback on students’ production, whereas teacher-student communication also seemed crucial for the performance improvising of learners. The result brought forth a wide range of social, educational, and surprisingly psychological issues both supervisees and supervisors faced during online communication during COVID-19.</p>

In the last few decades, written corrective feedback (WCF) in Second language acquisition(SLA) has held great importance for L2 researchers. Technically, WCF consists of different forms, scopes, and tones compared to oral feedback and types and strategies. Truscott’s claim (1996) about the practicality of grammatical corrections became the reason for many researchers to investigate the matter more in detail. As WCF is directly related to teachers and students, it is equally significant to consider the psychology of learners who adopt feedback that when, where, and how much feedback they can process according to their capability. All these aspects assisted researchers in broadening their range of research to plan vibrant research designs to cover all mechanisms involved in the feedback process. Not only the question of debate is teachers’ and students’ perception about WCF but also the effects of different WCF strategies. The present paper aims to bring forth the rational, systematic review of the recent studies from 2018 till 2022 conducted on written corrective feedback strategies, specifically direct and indirect feedback type followed by a metalinguistic explanation as to the most frequent way of providing feedback by teachers. The data displayed the learners’ inclination towards direct written corrective feedback as the preferred type over indirect WCF. This paper will assist new researchers planning to explore this varied domain to understand what learners perceive, prefer, and how any WCF type influences them.

Data Collection Instruments and Data AnalysisData were collected qualitatively using interviews via two sets (teachers and students) of open-ended questions. During the interviews and the main questions, prompt questions were also asked as to better address the issue under investigation. The collected data were analyzed following specific steps: First, the data were transcribed. Next, the transcribed data were read several times, and they were categorized under themes. Then, they were re-read, and final categorizations under each theme were decided. Finally, the data saturation was estimated, achieving thematic saturation (Lowe et al., 2018).

No abstract