Exploring Lecturers' Written Corrective Feedback in Academic English Writing Course: A Qualitative Study
Abstract
This study aims to identify the written corrective feedback (WCF) strategies employed by lecturers in an Academic English Writing course and to describe how these strategies are implemented in students’ written work. The research problem arises from the limited understanding of how lecturers select and apply corrective feedback strategies in authentic Indonesian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) academic writing contexts. Although WCF is an important pedagogical practice, its implementation varies according to instructional objectives, students’ abilities, and classroom conditions. This study employed a descriptive qualitative design involving two lecturers and 12 students in the English Language Education Study Program during the second semester of the 2025/2026 academic year. Data were collected through classroom observations, document analysis of students’ corrected writing, and semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed using the interactive model of Miles et al., with feedback strategies categorized according to Ellis’s typology. The findings revealed three WCF strategies: direct, indirect, and metalinguistic feedback. Direct feedback involved rewriting incorrect forms and adding missing linguistic elements, particularly in grammar, word choice, capitalization, and punctuation. Indirect feedback used underlining and highlighting to help students identify errors independently, while metalinguistic feedback provided comments guiding students to revise paragraph-level problems. The lecturers’ choices were influenced by instructional stages, delivery modes, and perceptions of students’ readiness. These findings highlight the importance of applying varied and context-sensitive feedback strategies to support students’ academic writing development.
References
Amroune, L. (2016). The effectiveness of corrective feedback on motivation to improve students’ writing performance: The case study of third-year EFL students at Biskra University [Doctoral dissertation].
Astia, M. (2018). Corrective feedback in English class. IJOTL-TL, 3(3), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.30957/ijotl-tl.v3i3.502
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brookhart, S. M. (2017). How to give effective feedback to your students (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Hidayati, S. (2016). Penggunaan written corrective feedback untuk meningkatkan kemampuan menulis esai. Diksi, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.21831/diksi.v24i1.11500
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742
Karim, K. M. R. (2013). The effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (CF) on English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students’ revision accuracy and writing skills [Doctoral dissertation].
Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, Article 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57(4), 449-477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000393
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Nielsen, K. (2015). Teaching writing in adult literacy: Practices to foster motivation and persistence and improve learning outcomes. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159515594178
Purnomo, W. W., Basthomi, Y., & Prayogo, J. A. (2021). EFL university teachers’ perspectives in written corrective feedback and their actual applications. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(3), 1089–1100. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i3.21641
Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020934886
Copyright (c) 2026 Nurhayati Nurhayati, Syarifuddin Dollah, Nurdin Noni, Maemuna Muhayyang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The BIP is under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, according to which:
1) Authors retain copyright with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution that allows the sharing of articles published with the acknowledgment of authorship and the initial publication in this journal.
2) The authors are authorized to make additional contracts separately for distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, publication in an institutional repository or as a chapter of the book), as long as there is recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are authorized and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (for example, in institutional repositories or on their personal pages) at any time before or during the editorial process, as it increases the impact and reference of the published work.
