Contextualizing corrective feedback in scientific writing through online learning platforms

Erikson Saragih, T Thyrhaya Zein, Desri Maria Sumbayak


Providing corrective feedback by teachers is one of the most crucial and central activities to improve the quality of student scientific writing. Although there has been much previous research on corrective feedback, few focused on lecturers' viewpoints, techniques, and assessments to guide students to write scientific papers. The objectives of this study are to describe lecturers' perceptions, practices, and self-evaluation when providing written corrective feedback in the context of scientific writing in the field of English research at multiple Indonesian teacher education institutes. The researchers employed a qualitative descriptive research method with a survey design to meet research objectives. A total of 53 lecturers were selected as respondents using purposive sampling criteria. This study used a survey questionnaire with ten questions of three categories (perception, activity, and evaluations) which were distributed to the research participants. The results of this study revealed that teachers prefer written corrective feedback, use various media and applications, emphasize the content of writing in providing feedback, and feel confident in doing this activity, even though sometimes they do not have enough time and continue to try to improve the quality of feedback provision to their students in writing scientific works. The results of this study can contribute as a reflection to improve teacher performance in the implementation of corrective feedback, especially in an online learning platform.


contextualizing; corrective feedback; online learning; scientific writing

Full Text:



Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 863-875.

Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: Written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182.

Banaruee, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Ruegg, R. (2018). Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1455333.

Castelló, M., McAlpine, L., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). Spanish and UK post-PhD researchers: Writing perceptions, well-being, and productivity. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(6), 1108-1122.

Choi, I. C. (2016). Efficacy of an ICALL tutoring system and process-oriented corrective feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 334-364.

Chu, Y. (2017). Twenty years of social studies textbook content analysis: Still “decidedly disappointing”? The Social Studies, 108(6), 229-241.

Clarke, P., Schull, D., Coleman, G., Pitt, R., & Manathunga, C. (2013). Enhancing professional writing skills of veterinary technology students: Linking assessment and clinical practice in a communications course. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 273-287.

DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPattern, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 83-104). Routledge.

Druschke, C. G., Reynolds, N., Morton-Aiken, J., Lofgren, I. E., Karraker, N. E., & McWilliams, S. R. (2018). Better science through rhetoric: A new model and pilot program for training graduate student science writers. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 175-190.

Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257-268.

Ezra, O., Cohen, A., Bronshtein, A., Gabbay, H., & Baruth, O. (2021). Equity factors during the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic: Difficulties in emergency remote teaching (ert) through online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7657-7681.

Faturrochman, R. G., Darmawan, A. A., & Hadi, F. (2021). Teacher talks in scientific approach in EFL classroom: A speech acts perspective. SAGA: Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 35-46.

Ha, X. V. (2022). Effects of a professional development program on teachers’ oral corrective feedback practices. System, 110, 102917.

Ha, X. V., Tan, L., & Phu, B. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7(7), e07550.

Han, Y. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80(2), 288-303.

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44.

Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253.

Ion, G., Barrera-Corominas, A., & Tomàs-Folch, M. (2016). Written peer feedback to enhance students’ current and future learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13, Article 15.

Irawan, E., & Salija, K. (2017). Teachers’ oral feedback in EFL classroom interaction: A descriptive study of senior high school in Indonesia. ELT Worldwide: Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(2), 138-152.

Iswandari, D. C., Prayogo, J. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2017). Effect of environmental problem-based learning on the Indonesian EFL students’ environment-related vocabulary mastery and writing ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(8), 608-616.

Jones, T. A., Vidal, G., & Taylor, C. (2020). Interprofessional education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Finding the good in a bad situation. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(5), 633-646.

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.

Kang, E. Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, 102196.

Khalili, H. (2020). Online interprofessional education during and post the COVID-19 pandemic: A commentary abstract. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(5), 687-690.

Kleinbort, T. A., Duffy, L. N., Powell, G. M., Fogle, E. L., Kakraba, K., Olsen, L., Stephens, L., Kleinbort, T. A., Duffy, L. N., Powell, G. M., Fogle, E. L., Kakraba, K., Olsen, L., & Stephens, L. (2020). Writing in the discipline: A writing mentorship program to enhance student writing skills in the leisure field. SCHOLES: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 35(1), 46-53.

Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124.

Kuswandono, P. (2014). University mentors’ views on reflective practice in microteaching: Building trust and genuine feedback. Reflective Practice, 15(6), 701-717.

Lee, I. (2014). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching Research, 46(1), 108-119.

Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Teachers’ attempts at focused written corrective feedback in situ. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 100809.

Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1-18.

Lim, S. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Efficacy of written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A meta-analysis. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 24(3), 1-26.

Lin, V., Liu, G. Z., & Chen, N. S. (2022). The effects of an augmented-reality ubiquitous writing application: A comparative pilot project for enhancing EFL writing instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5–6), 989-1030.

Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100469.

Novawan, A., & Aisyiyah, S. (2020). The Role of leadership in education for sustainable development curriculum reform in Indonesian higher education. In E. Sengupta, P. Blessinger, & T. S. Yamin (Eds.), Introduction to sustainable development leadership and strategies in higher education (pp. 145-159). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Nurkamto, J. (2018). Oral corrective feedback: Exploring the relationship between teacher’s strategy and students’ willingness to communicate. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(2), 240-252.

Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 572-590.

Ozdemir, E., & Papi, M. (2021). Mindsets as sources of L2 speaking anxiety and self-confidence: The case of international teaching assistants in the U.S. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(3), 234-248.

Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267-278.

Pon-Barry, H., Packard, B. W. L., & St. John, A. (2017). Expanding capacity and promoting inclusion in introductory computer science: A focus on near-peer mentor preparation and code review. Computer Science Education, 27(1), 54-77.

Prihandoko, L. A., Anggawirya, A. M., & Rahman, F. (2021). Students’ perceptions towards autonomous learners concept in academic writing classes: Sequential mixed-method. In J. Fahri, Jumadi, N. Nuswardani, A. H. Sirat, A. W. Hasyim, T. Suyanto, A. L. Lonto, L. Riwu, D. Tandyonomanu, & R. Soleman (Eds.), Proceedings of International Joined Conference on Social Science (ICSS 2021) (pp. 487-491). Atlantis Press.

Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it ? Do students make use of it ? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653-674.

Rosyada, A., & Sundari, H. (2021). Learning from the home environment: Academic writing course for EFL undergraduates through google classroom application. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(2), 710-725.

Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.

Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: Impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(5-6), 707-729.

Saud, M., Mashud, M., & Ida, R. (2020). Usage of social media during the pandemic: Seeking support and awareness about COVID-19 through social media platforms. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(4), e2417.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158

Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’ professional development. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1252177.

Shang, H. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 4-16.

Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: Insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness, 24(3), 233-254.

Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., & Willett, P. (2017). Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 263-283.

Stefanou, C. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263-279.

Syahputra, B. P., & Saragih, E. (2021). EFL teachers’ attitudes toward e-learning platforms during the Covid-19 pandemic. Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu Tarbiyah, 6(2), 335-347.

Tian, L., & Li, L. (2018). Chinese EFL learners’ perception of peer oral and written feedback as providers, receivers, and observers. Language Awareness, 27(4), 1-17.

Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1-12.

Wilkes, J., Godwin, J., & Gurney, L. J. (2015). Developing information literacy and academic writing skills through the collaborative design of an assessment task for first-year engineering students. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 46(3), 164-175.

Wong, J. O. (2020). A pandemic in 2020, Zoom, and the arrival of the online educator. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2, 82-99.

Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2020). Investigating what feedback practices contribute to students’ writing motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context: A large scale study. Assessing Writing, 44(19), 100451.

Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers and Education, 143, 103668.

Zhu, Y., & Wang, B. (2019). Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: a large-scale survey. Language Awareness, 28(2), 139-161.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

View Journal Stats