GAS vs. PAS in Written Feedback: Discrepancies Between Pedagogical Beliefs and Classroom Practices

Abstract

This study investigates discrepancies between teachers’ beliefs, classroom practices, and student preferences regarding written corrective feedback (WCF) in postgraduate English programs in Lahore. It contrasts the Giving Answer Strategy (GAS), where teachers supply corrections, with the Prompting Answer Strategy (PAS), where teachers provide cues for self-repair. Using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, data were collected from 30 teachers and 100 postgraduate students through marked scripts (N=100), semi- structured interviews (N=30), and questionnaires (N=100). Reliability was established through piloting and Cronbach’s α (α=0.82). Results revealed a belief–practice–preference gap: teachers’ actual practices relied heavily on GAS (67.9% of corrections, with explicit correction dominant), while 83% of teachers expressed a belief in PAS. Students, however, preferred GAS, particularly explicit correction (61%) and recast (55%). These findings highlight tensions between pedagogical ideals, institutional constraints, and learner expectations, suggesting the need for teacher training that integrates PAS while orienting students to its benefits.