Exploring Students’ Preferences on a Teacher’s Written Feedback in a High School Context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56127/jukim.v4i6.2313Keywords:
content-focused feedback, direct feedback, form-focused feedback, high and low achievers, indirect feedback, students’ preferencesAbstract
Since writing involves complex rules, teachers’ written feedback plays a crucial role. However, students are sometimes dissatisfied because they do not fully understand teachers’ expectations. This study investigates high school students’ preferences regarding the focus and strategy of teachers’ written feedback, emphasizing differences between high and low achievers. Using a qualitative case study design, data were collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with one English teacher and nine third-grade students at a senior high school in Bandung, West Java. The findings indicate that students’ language proficiency did not affect their preferences. Both high and low achievers favored form-focused feedback—particularly grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics—over content-focused feedback, influenced by their grammatical difficulties and the teacher’s feedback style. They also preferred indirect feedback strategies, such as underlining, symbols, and codes, because these methods promote self-correction, reflective learning, and long-term retention. However, some students struggled to interpret codes and occasionally appreciated direct feedback. The study highlights the need to balance form- and content-focused feedback and to combine direct and indirect strategies to address diverse learning needs. These findings enhance understanding of students’ feedback preferences in the high school EFL context, offering insights for teachers to design more effective and meaningful feedback.
References
Pertiwi, O. P. P., & Ashadi, A. (2024). Exploring EFL students’ preferences on teachers’ written corrective feedback in encouraging students’ writing skills. Enrichment: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 2(8), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.55324/enrichment.v2i8.188
Widyasari, Y., Perdani, Y. D., & Rahmi, G. (2021). Contemporary practices of indirect written feedback in high school context. Journal of Language and Literature, 9(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.35760/jll.2021.v9i1.3996
Nakata, Y., Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q., & Tsuda, A. (2025). Student perceptions of feedback and self-regulated language learning: A mixed-methods investigation. System, 131, 103654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103654
Maniam, T., & Shah, P. M. (2020). Students’ perception and preferences of written feedback in academic writing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(12). https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p72
Putri, N. V. W., Munir, A., & Anam, S. (2021). Students’ perceptions of teacher feedback in EFL English class and their self-regulated learning after receiving feedback. Journal of English as a Foreign Language, 11(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v11i1.2237
Çiçek, M., & Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2024). Exploring the impact of form and content feedback on EFL writing proficiency: A quasi-experimental study. Studies in Linguistics and Culture in Foreign Language Teaching, 12(3), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.46687/PLYN8876
Alhumaid, A. (2023). Exploring EFL female teachers’ and undergraduate students’ perceptions regarding written corrective feedback. Saudi Journal of Language Studies, 3(3), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/sjls-11-2022-0079
Yunita, W., & Kusuma, L. B. D. (2023). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Science and Teacher Profession (ICETeP 2021). Atlantis Press SARL.
Aridah, A., Atmowardoyo, H., & Salija, K. (2017). Teacher practices and students’ preferences for written corrective feedback and their implications on writing instruction. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n1p112
Ramadhani, G. S. R., Muth’im, A., & Febriyanti, E. R. (2021). Students’ preferences towards lecturer’s written corrective feedback in writing class. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education, Language, Literature, and Arts (ICELLA 2021), 587. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211021.010
Susilawati, Halim, N., Dwigustini, R., & Alakhali, S. R. A. (2024). Enhancing ESP learning: Investigating students’ perspectives on real-time written corrective feedback delivery via Google Docs. Indonesian Journal of Learning and Advanced Education, 6(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v6i2.23155
Adrefiza, A., & Habizar, H. (2023). Students’ preferences on the lecturers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) on their writing tasks: A study at the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP), Faculty of Education, Universitas Jambi. Scope: Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 124. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14764
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02
Jinowat, N., & Wiboolyasarin, W. (2022). Investigating learner preferences for written corrective feedback in a Thai higher education context. TEFLIN Journal, 33(2), 386–402. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i2/386-402
Mamad, A., & Vígh, T. (2024). Student perspectives on preferences and reported instructor practices of written feedback in the Moroccan EFL university context. Heliyon, 10(11), e31694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31694
Almanea, M. (2025). Less is NOT more for learners: EFL learners’ preferences and perceptions of teachers’ written corrective feedback. Acta Psychologica, 255, 104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104926
Farangi, M. R., Rashidi, N., & Jokar, M. (2025). Preferences for written corrective feedback among field-dependent and field-independent EFL learners: A mixed-methods investigation. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101700
Kamilia, A., Rahmani, B., & Siswana, S. (2020). Effectiveness of teachers’ indirect feedback for students’ writing performance on descriptive text. ELLTER Journal, 1(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.22236/ellter-j.v1i1.4915
Creswell, J., & Creswell, D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. The Guilford Press.
Garaika, & Darmanah. (2019). Metodologi penelitian. CV Hira Tech.
Alamri, W. A. (2019). Effectiveness of qualitative research methods: Interviews and diaries. International Journal of English and Culture Studies, 2(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijecs.v2i1.4302
Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2017). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Tom, A. A., Morni, A., Metom, L., & Joe, S. (2013). Students’ perception and preferences of written feedback in academic writing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(11), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p72
Deng, C., Wang, X., Lin, S., Xuan, W., & Xie, Q. (2022). The effects of coded focused and unfocused corrective feedback on ESL student writing accuracy. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.16039
Rasool, U., Mahmood, R., Aslam, M. Z., Barzani, S. H. H., & Qian, J. (2023). Perceptions and preferences of senior high school students about written corrective feedback in Pakistan. SAGE Open, 13(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231187612
Adzhar, N. B., & Sazalli, N. A. H. (2024). Written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom: A systematic analysis of teachers’ beliefs, students’ perceptions, and preferences. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(1), 1263–1289. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v13-i1/20719
Cahyani, N., & Murtafi’ah, B. (2023). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of teachers’ written feedback in academic writing class: A survey study. Communication in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.21924/chss.2.2.2022.35
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.
Almohawes, M. (2025). Undergraduate EFL learners’ preferences for three different types of written corrective feedback. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1532729. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1532729
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classroom: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.
Ngai, S. (2007). Understanding written feedback practices as well as teachers’ and students’ perceptions and attitudes towards written feedback in an ESP context in Hong Kong [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong]. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/56741
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second-language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85.
