Exploring Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Written Corrective Feedback in Indonesian EFL Writing
Keywords:
written corrective feedback, student perception, writing skills, learning motivation, direct feedback, indirect feedbackAbstract
This study aims to explore the perceptions of sixth-semester students in the English Language Education Program at UIN Palopo regarding direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF), as well as its relation to their motivation in developing English writing skills. The research employed a qualitative approach with a phenomenological design. Data were collected using an online questionnaire via Google Forms, consisting of both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Thematic analysis was applied to identify key patterns in the students’ responses. The findings reveal that students generally prefer a combination of direct and indirect feedback. Direct feedback was perceived as helpful in clarifying grammatical errors, while indirect feedback encouraged critical thinking and independent revision. WCF was reported to support grammatical accuracy, enhance revision practices, and foster an understanding of writing as a recursive process. Furthermore, the emotional tone of feedback significantly influenced students' motivation. Constructive and empathetic feedback boosted confidence and engagement, whereas overly critical or vague feedback contributed to confusion and decreased motivation. These results highlight the importance of feedback strategies that are not only pedagogically appropriate but also emotionally responsive, to support students’ writing development and sustain motivation in the context of foreign language learning.
Downloads
References
Almohawes, M. (2025). Undergraduate EFL learners’ preferences for three different types of written corrective feedback. Frontiers in Education, 10(February). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1532729
Behrooz Ghoorchaei,Fatemeh Mamashloo,Mohammad Ali Ayatollahi, A. M. (2022). Effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL writers’ short and long term retention of subject-verb agreement. Cogent Education.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners (Vol. 1, Issue 21). Sage. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsqmip.2016.1.21.48
Carless, D. Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Chandler, J. (2003). The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing. Second Language Writing, 293.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 31(3), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20258
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. 992.
Ellis, R. (2009a). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, Second Edition. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, Second Edition, 183–190. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290
Ferris, D. R. (2011). Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA. In Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The impact of direct written corrective feedback on tense and preposition errors in foundational EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 456–472.
Liu, Z., Litman, D., Wang, E., Li, T., Gobat, M., Matsumura, L. C., & Correnti, R. (2021). A writing evaluation system for assessing student essay revisions and providing formative feedback.
Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001
Manen, V., & Max. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. State University of New York Press.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. In The Charleston Advisor (Vol. 19, Issue 4). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.19.4.38
Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (2015). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. In Sustainability (Switzerland) (Vol. 11, Issue 1). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Park, H. and Kim, S. (2022). Hybrid written corrective feedback in Korean EFL writing classes: Balancing direct and indirect strategies. System, 105, 102752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102752
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Siyi Cao, Linping Zhong, C. W. (2025). The Impact of Student Writing Assessment Literacy on Psychological Factors: AnOrdinal Logistic Regression Analysis. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2502.00004.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford University Press.
Van Beuningen, C. G. (2011). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback in second language writing. Accelerating the World’s Research, January 2011.
Zhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P. (2021). EFL Students’ Preferences for Written Corrective Feedback: Do Error Types, Language Proficiency, and Foreign Language Enjoyment Matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12(April), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564
Zhang, Z. (Victor), & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing Abstract. Brexit and Tourism, xxi–xxii.
Zoltán Dörnyei. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667343
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (IJSSH) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant IJSSH right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in this journal, and to use them for any other lawful purpose.
Articles published in IJSSH can be copied, communicated and shared in their published form for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given to the author and the journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
This copyright notice applies to articles published in IJSSH volumes 4 onwards. Please read about the copyright notices for previous volumes under Journal History.
