English Language Teaching Educational Journal ISSN 2621-6485

Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107 95

Written corrective feedback in English compositions: Teachers’

practices and students’ expectations
Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus a,1,*
a
Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
1
wmizayunus@gmail.com *
* corresponding author

A RT ICLE IN FO ABSTRACT

Written corrective feedback (WCF) has been the subject of many studies
Article history in the field of second language (L2) writing. This study sought to
Received 06 June, 2020
investigate: (1) teacher’s practices in marking students’ English language
Revised 18 August, 2020
Accepted 31 August, 2020
compositions, (2) students’ expectations of teacher’s WCF, and (3)
compare whether students’ expectations correspond to teachers’ practices
of WCF. Sixty-four students and three teachers of an upper secondary
Keywords
written corrective feedback
school in Malacca, Malaysia participated in this study. Teachers’ WCF
second language writing practices and students’ preferences were elicited from two different sets
ESL students of questionnaires. Findings revealed that both students and teachers
language learning generally believe that WCF is beneficial in improving students’ writing
error correction skills. It was also discovered that students prefer direct, specific, and
comprehensive feedback over indirect feedback. However, the study
showed some discrepancies between students’ preferences and teachers’
practices in composition classrooms in terms of the amount, type, and
necessity of the feedback where most students were found to require
more WCF than the amount their teacher was capable of giving. This
misalignment calls for teachers’ and students’ adjustments to ensure the
effectiveness of WCF strategies employed by teachers. Findings from this
research also imply that the study of contextual factors and beliefs
influencing preferences with regard to WCF may also be necessary.

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license.

1. Introduction
Writing is one of the important skills English language learners learn, apart from speaking,
listening, and reading. Although there have been changing perceptions on effective and
meaningful ways to give students feedback, the general agreement is that corrective feedback is
undeniably essential to facilitate L2 knowledge, as mistakes and errors are expected in all stages
of learning (Lee, 2017). Feedback in writing may encompass many aspects of writing, including
composition skills, style, organization, content, and others, although there have been changing
perceptions on effective and meaningful ways to give students feedback. In this particular study,
WCF is defined as “a feedback which specifically indicates errors of language, such as in
grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics” (Al Shahrani, 2013, p. 4).
Many researchers agree that written corrective feedback (WCF) is important because the lack of
such feedback may lead to anxiety or resentment, which could decrease students’ motivation to learn
(Ferris, 2004). However, the amount of WCF that should be given to students is debatable. Studies
have shown that attending too many errors and providing effective feedback to help learners in their

10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2255 http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id

96 English Language Teaching Educational Journal ISSN 2621-6485
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

writing development is too demanding for teachers and learners. It is even more complicated when
students make too many errors that teachers do not know which particular aspect to focus on to help
the learner improve. According to Ellis et al. (2008), “learners are more likely to attend to
corrections directed at a single (or a limited number of) error type(s) and more likely to develop a
clearer understanding of the error and the correction needed” (p.356). However, most teachers
sometimes result in correcting all students’ errors and spending ample time to mark the students’
writing tasks paying attention to how students might respond to the WCF. A recent study conducted
by Lee (2019) produced a surprising finding as it highlights that giving students less CF is better
than giving more.
The argument also lies in the type of feedback that should be corrected. Ellis (2008) listed six
major corrective feedback strategies: direct, indirect, metalinguistic, focused/unfocused, electronic,
and reformulation. Sanavi and Nemati (2014) specifically studied the effects of these different types
of feedback trough an experimental study of five groups of Iranian English language learners. It was
found that reformulation strategy, which focuses on teachers’ reconstruction of inaccuracies to make
it more accurate, had the most obvious effect on students’ performance in International English
Language Testing System (IELTS) writing Task 2. A recent study conducted by Rashtchi and Abu
Bakar (2019) on 103 ESL students in Malaysia discovered that students mostly favour direct and
explicit feedback and want teachers to correct as many errors as possible. These researches suggest
the importance of studying the type and amount of corrective feedback since there are multitudes of
factors that may contribute to different attitudes towards corrective feedback.
Nunan (1987) argued that one of the most severe problems to learning is the mismatch between
teacher and learner expectations about what should happen in the classroom, which can result in
learners being disengaged in class (Park, 2010). Bitchener and Knoch (2008) further assert that
“motivation is more likely to be gained if teachers negotiate with students about how frequent the
feedback will be given, about the type of feedback that will be given, and about what the students
will be expected to do in response to feedback” (p. 210). It is, therefore, essential to investigate
students’ preferences towards teachers’ error correction as different learning styles may result in
varying levels of cognition and engagement (Katayama, 2007). Several studies have shown that
there are discrepancies in what students and teachers define as good feedback. Some students prefer
error correction given by the teacher compared to self-correction and peer correction, as they believe
that they are not competent enough to correct their errors. However, studies have found that teachers
often use peer and self-correction. To avoid the mismatch between students’ preferences and
teachers’ practices, researching students’ preferences in different contexts and groups of students is
essential, as students might have different learning needs and preferences since teacher feedback is
sensitive to students’ needs and instructional context (Ferris, 2004).
Although there has been a gradual move towards a more communicative classroom in Malaysia’s
education system, the way students are tested in the national exam still focuses on form. Without
accurate grammar, students cannot get high marks. One of the learning outcomes stated in the
curriculum is that “students have to present information to different audiences by composing,
revising and editing drafts; and checking the accuracy of spelling, punctuation, and grammar;” and
“using appropriate format, conventions, and grammar when presenting the information” (Ministry of
Education, 2003, p.15). To promote these goals, conducting more studies relating to WCF in local
secondary school contexts is necessary to gain insights into teachers’ practices and students’
expectations of WCF. The availability of research examining the same objectives are only found in
tertiary education settings (Rashtchi & Abu Bakar, 2019). Findings from this study can further
inform teachers how to best help the students achieve the curriculum’s stated outcomes. The
objectives of this study are to:
a) Investigate the teacher’s WCF practices in marking students’ compositions.
b) Examine the students’ expectations of WCF given by their teachers.
c) Compare whether students’ expectations correspond to teachers’ practices of WCF.

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 97
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

2.1. Written CF
Written CF is defined as “a written response to a linguistic error that has been made in
the writing of a text by an L2 learner,” which can either be direct or indirect (Bitchener &
Storch, 2016). Earlier studies on corrective feedback have looked into whether or not error
correction in writing is important (Ashwell, 2000; Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Then, many
researchers believe that the issue was no longer whether corrective should be done, but rather
how it should be done to best facilitate students in learning from their errors or mistakes as
extensive research has proven that feedback is necessary for students’ learning over the years.
Therefore, more research in the 80s was carried out, investigating which type of feedback can
maximize students’ potential in writing the most.
Teachers and researchers generally do have a strong belief that WCF is critical in
improving their writing. Not only that, error correction is also the key that contributes to
student success in second language learning (Ellis, 2009). Correcting students’ errors and
providing feedback to the students has become one of the routines and norms in exploring
students’ potential in acquiring the language.

2.2. Type of feedback

Feedback may differ according to types. One variety is the difference between focused
and unfocused WCF. Focused WCF means feedback focusing on only a few linguistic errors
while unfocused refer to feedback focusing on a wide range of errors. Studies on the impact of
different types of feedback also reported varied findings where those with focused feedback
showing a higher level of accuracy in writing compared to the others (Bitchener & Knoch,
2008; Shintani, Ellis, & Suzuki, 2014; Pratolo, 2019). Research conducted in other contexts
such as different age groups and type of linguistic error produce unique findings. Gorman and
Ellis (2019) conducted an experimental study on the effects of different types of instruction,
namely instruction with metalinguistic explanation, direct written correction, and no form-
focused instruction on young children aged 9 to 12 years old. Results suggest that there is no
difference in the level of accuracy the children displayed in the written tasks given. Diab
(2015) conducted an experimental study on Arabic native speakers with English as their
second and third language. The study focuses mainly on the effect of WCF, particularly on
pronoun errors and wrong words, and the study found that students in the experimental group
with direct metalinguistic feedback managed to reduce the number of pronoun errors made.
For lexical errors, no significant difference was identified among all the groups. From this
review of literature, it is clear that more research is needed to study other variables that may
influence the effectiveness of WCF.

2.3. Students’ preferences on teacher feedback

WCF experienced varied reactions. Sheen (2007) believed that corrective feedback
contributes to language improvement. Nonetheless, several researchers have claimed that error
correction is ineffective. For instance, it is uncertain on how a teacher can ensure that the students
have retained new language elements through WCF since the students are merely recipients rather
than active and proactive agents in the feedback process (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). WCF would
not be as successful if the strategies being used by the teacher tend to be continually counter-
productive. It is beneficial only if the teachers know the students’ expectations and preferences
towards receiving feedback. Research on the students’ perspective on feedback only began to
develop in the 1990s.
To date, there are growing bodies of literature on L2 students’ preferences regarding
teacher feedback (Amrhein, 2010; Hamouda, 2011; Haishan & Qingshun, 2017; Nanni & Black,
2017). However, few attempts have been made to link students’ and teachers’ preferences to see
whether their preferences match, and limited studies have explored the factors that can influence

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
98 English Language Teaching Educational Journal ISSN 2621-6485
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

teacher’s preferred way of giving feedback in students’ compositions. One study conducted by
Hamouda (2011) on 200 native Arabic speakers focused on students’ and teachers’ preferences on
error correction. However, this study examined the difficulties teachers often face in providing
feedback and on students revising their papers after receiving teachers’ feedback. Nanni and Black
(2017) investigated Thai teachers and students’ preferences on five different categories of
feedback, which include content, grammar, organization, vocabulary, and spelling. The research
findings revealed that WCF was most useful for organization and content, while students regarded
WCF useful for grammar and vocabulary. This study, however, did not study factors that
contributed to the participants’ preferences. A research done by Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) aimed
to investigate several research questions which are: 1) What amount of WCF do ESL students and
teachers believe is most useful, and why? 2) What types of WCF do students and teachers think are
most useful, and why? 3)What types of errors do students and teachers think should be corrected,
and why? and 4) Are there differences between students’ and teachers’ preferences and reasons
regarding the usefulness of different amounts of WCF, types of WCF, and types of errors to be
corrected? Results revealed a gap between what the students expect and what the teacher provides
for them. Most of the students thought it would be beneficial if the teacher was able to correct all
errors that the students had made. However, the teacher would like to provide a medium for the
students to self-correct to increase student autonomy in their learning. The article concludes that
teachers need to discuss openly with the students on the rationale of teachers’ actions regarding
WCF.

2. Research Method
2.1. Research context
The study took place at an upper secondary school located in the southern region of
Malaysia. The school consists of only 16 and 17-year-old students who learn English as a
compulsory subject that will be tested in the Malaysian National Examination Certificate. As part of
the writing syllabus, students have to learn to write different forms of writing such as descriptive,
narrative, and argumentative composition creatively and relevantly using accurate spelling,
punctuation, and grammar.
2.2. Research participants
The participants of this study were three teachers and 64 students (27 males and 37 females)
from three different classes, namely 5H, 5P, and 5Q, with a class size ranging from 24 to 26
students. All of the students were 16-year-old second-language speakers of English and speak Malay
as their first language.
The three female teachers taught three different classes (Class 5H, 5P, and 5Q). All of them
ranged in age and teaching experience, but are qualified teachers as they possessed a bachelor’s
degree majoring in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) and have had a minimum of 5
years of experience teaching English.
2.3. Instrument of the study
Since this is a survey research, two sets of questionnaires were used in this research: one for
students and one for teachers. The questionnaires were adapted from two pieces of research
conducted by Lee (2008) and Amrhein and Nassaji (2010), which examined the same research
content. The students’ questionnaire consists of three sections: Section A (Personal Background),
Section B (Students’ Preferences), and Section C (Teacher’s Practices). Teacher’s questionnaire
consists of Section A (Teacher’s Background) and Section B (Teacher’s Practices and Preferences).
Section B is divided into four sub-sections: frequency of feedback, types of feedback, follow-up
action after feedback, and types of errors. These instruments were designed to collect both
quantitative and qualitative data. Close-ended questions such as yes-no questions, ranking scales,
multiple-choice and Likert-scale items were used to collect quantitative data. Open-ended questions
were used to collect qualitative data to ensure the respondents (students and teachers) have the
opportunity to elaborate on their responses.

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 99
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

2.4. Data analysis

To answer research question (1), the teacher’s responses to the Teacher’s Questionnaire were
analysed, and to answer research question (2), students’ responses to the Students Questionnaire
were analysed. Finally, data from both questionnaires were combined and analysed to answer
research question (3). Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 19.0, whereas the qualitative data
from the open-ended questions were categorized according to themes. Coding was used to analyze
the comparison between students’ preferences and teacher practices.

3. Findings and Discussion

3.1. Findings
1) Research question 1: What are the teachers’ practices in marking students’ compositions?
Teachers’ practices and preferences on WCF are divided into four sections: frequency on
providing WCF to students, types of feedback given, follow-up action after WCF, and types of
errors. All the teachers frequently gave WCF to their students to help them in writing compositions.
Teacher P and Teacher Q provided WCF frequently, while Teacher H provided WCF less
frequently. The type of feedback the teachers provided differed from one another. Teacher H and
Teacher Q corrected students’ errors through direct unfocused corrective feedback, which was by
underlining, correcting, and also explaining the errors made by the students. Teacher P gave her
feedback without explaining the errors made by students in their compositions.
Follow-up actions are referred to as actions taken by the teachers after WCF has taken place.
These actions are carried out by the teacher to ensure the students do not repeat the same error after
the teacher has given WCF. After returning students’ composition, all the teachers often gave
teacher-group feedback by explaining errors made by the students in front of the class. They also
frequently asked the students to work with a partner and correct their errors. Besides, Teacher H and
Teacher Q reported that they prefer explaining the errors by meeting the students in person. Teacher
P always asked her students to rewrite their essays.
After returning students’ compositions, all the teachers indicated that they expect their students
to meet them individually to discuss the errors made. Furthermore, Teacher H wants her students to
correct some errors made in the compositions. At the same time, she expects her students to rewrite
one paragraph of the essay by making necessary corrections of all kinds of errors made, which may
include grammar, organisation, vocabulary, and punctuation. Teacher P also wants her students to
do some corrections. Exchanging compositions with a partner is one of the actions expected from
Teacher P. Lastly, Teacher Q expects her students to work in groups. She wants her students to work
with a partner to exchange and improve the compositions in terms of errors made. All of the teachers
do not expect students to read aloud the comments given. They also mentioned that asking students
to work in groups to improve their composition is not an option. Furthermore, Teacher H and
Teacher P do not expect the students to rewrite the whole composition. On the other hand, Teacher
Q wants her students to correct all the errors rather than only some of the errors.
For types of error, grammatical and spelling errors were the most corrected by the teachers
compared to others. According to the teachers in this study, correct usage of grammar and accurate
spelling is regarded as the essence of writing compositions, especially for secondary school students.
Therefore, the teachers paid extra attention to errors relating to spelling and grammar. However, the
teacher often overlooked one aspect when giving WCF, which is vocabulary/ word choice. In terms
of wrong usage of punctuation marks and organization, mixed responses were given by the teachers.
Two teachers always corrected students’ organizational errors, while one teacher did not correct her
students’ organizational errors. Teacher P and Teacher Q always corrected punctuation errors, while
Teacher H did not correct her students’ punctuation errors.
2) Research question 2: What are the students’ expectations of WCF given by their teachers?
The second research question sought to explore students’ perspectives and expectations in
receiving WCF from their teachers.

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
100 English Language Teaching Educational Journal ISSN 2621-6485
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

Fig. 1. Expectation of the type of WCF

Figure 1 displays students’ expectations of the type of feedback given by the teachers. It is shown
that students did not favour implicit error correction (i.e., simply underlining the errors). More than
80% of students from all three classes preferred their teachers to underline, correct, and explain the
errors. Various comments were given by the respondents: some of the 5H students’ comments are
“because I could not understand most of the errors” and “My faults are sometimes underlined and
scribbled, but I cannot understand unless the corrections are stated.”
Other than that, students were asked to choose the characteristics of feedback that can assist their
learning. More than three-quarter of the students from all three classes stated that they wanted to be
given mark/ grade, feedback on their errors, and written comments every time after their teacher
returned their compositions. The percentage of students who chose “mark/grade + feedback on my
errors + written comments” are highly significant (5H: 88.2%, 5P: 84%, and 5Q: 63.6%), and this
suggests that the students want the feedback to be as detailed as possible. None of the students
wanted only grades/ marks, only responses to their errors, or only written comments.
In the student questionnaire, students were asked to choose activities they wanted their teacher to
ask them to do “the most” and “the least”. Findings are summarized in Table 1 and 2. Of the choices
given, most students from all three classes wanted their teachers to ask them to correct all errors and
ask them to meet the teacher individually more often. All students from 5Q particularly wanted their
teacher to do more one-to-one sessions with them to obtain explanations on the errors.

Table 1. Activities That Should Be Done More Often

5H (%) 5P(%) 5Q(%)
Correct all errors 80 92 89
Rewrite the whole composition 70 80 65
Meet him/ her individually 84 95 100
Work in groups to improve the composition 60 52 75

Table 2. Activities that Should be Done Least

Activities 5H (%) 5P (%) 5Q (%)

Read aloud his/her comments in class 75 89 92
Consult dictionaries/ grammar books on my own 95 80 78
Exchange my composition with a partner and correct each other’s
80 75 83
errors

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 101
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

Table 2 shows activities students less likely favour after teachers return compositions in class.
Students from all three classes disliked their teacher asking them to consult dictionaries or grammar
books independently. A possible reason for not wanting the autonomy could be their incompetency
to understand grammar rules without any explanation from the teacher. Other than that, students also
disliked their teacher asking them to exchange their compositions with a partner and correct each
other’s errors and teacher reading aloud her comments in class.

Fig. 2. Students’ Attitude towards WCF

From Figure 2, it is evident that all 5Q students and a large percentage of 5P students
believed that WCF given by their teacher is beneficial to their learning. They generally could
understand feedback given by their teacher. There were many reasons mentioned by the
students as to why they thought that their teacher’s WCF is beneficial. Among the reasons given
were WCF could help them “notice [their] mistakes and know whether [they are] good or there
are still things to improve”, “it can enhance [his] motivation to learn,” and “know [their]
weaknesses.” Reasons why they could understand their teachers’ feedback were because “[her
teacher] wrote her opinions in simple sentences so [she] can understand it” and “everything is
clearly written, and comments are specific.” More than half of the students from 5H, however,
had problems with WCF given by their teacher. A possible reason would be because 88.2% of
5H students reported that they often had difficulties in revising their compositions after
receiving WCF from their teacher. The table below lists some of the reasons why most 5H
students thought that WCF is unbeneficial.

Table 3. Students’ Difficulties After Receiving Teacher’s WCF

A. Inability to Understand Symbols Used
“ because she always underline here and there, lots of patches she said but there is no corrective feedback to correct the
mistakes I’ve done”
“I want her to state clearly what signs or symbols she uses and what need to be added to my essays”

“because I cant understand what were my mistakes on writing those essays. Usually she only use those symbols like ∧ and
_____ and I cant find out what did she mean”
B. Illegible Handwriting
“sometimes I don’t know what’s wrong with my essay and I sometimes I can’t understand her writing”

C. Unclear Explanation
“teacher always make the correction unclear and difficult for me to understand”

D. Implicit Correction
“because teacher does not give the correct answer”

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
102 English Language Teaching Educational Journal ISSN 2621-6485
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

According to Table 3, five common problems relating to WCF are found. The most common
problem was the students’ inability to understand the symbols used. When marking students’ exam
papers, teachers are given guidelines set by the Ministry of Education. Teachers are required to use
symbols while marking students’ essays such as “ ” to show good/correct sentence, “ ” to
show words used correctly, “∧” for omissions of word, “_________” for structural error, “R” for
repetition, and many others. However, some classes might not be familiar with the symbols and
signs used, which could probably be why many students of 5H had difficulty in revising their
compositions after receiving WCF. Other problems were illegible handwriting, unclear explanation,
and implicit correction.

3) Research Question 3: Are there any differences between students’ expectations on the types and
amount of feedback given and teachers’ current practices? If yes, what are the differences?
Students’ preferences and teacher practices were compared according to their responses from the
questionnaires given. Three themes emerged which are 1) the necessity of WCF 2) amount of WCF
and 3) type of WCF. All three teachers believe that WCF is necessary for their students’ learning.
Students of 5Q, similarly believe that WCF is beneficial. However, less than half of students from
5H thought that WCF given by their teacher is beneficial. Several reasons as to why they responded
differently were due to their inability to interpret codes and symbols used, no written comments and
explicit correction made, and the amount of feedback given was very limited.
Figure 3 demonstrates that the students and teachers had similar opinions except for class 5H.
76% of the students from 5H believed that they could self-correct their errors after teacher’s WCF.
Their teacher, on the other hand, believed that the students were not able to self-correct their errors.
This discrepancy illustrates that what the teacher believed the students could do was incongruent
with what the students thought they could do. Furthermore, teachers from 5P and 5Q thought that
their students could correct their errors. Similarly, their students agreed and strongly agreed that they
could correct their errors (5P: 68%, 5Q: 77.3%). Although these students believed that they could
correct their errors, quite a large number of students from class 5P (40%) reported that they had
difficulty in revising their compositions after receiving teacher feedback due to reasons such as “ my
composition has too many red marks”, “sometimes, I cannot figure out my mistakes”, and “teacher
does not give the correct answer”.

a.
Ss (n=64) Ts (n=3)

Fig. 3. Students’ Ability To Correct Errors

Students were also asked to comment on whether their teachers’ WCF could improve their
writing skills. All three teachers agreed that their WCF helped their students to improve their writing
skills. 94% of students from 5P and 96% of students from 5Q agreed and strongly agreed. However,

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 103
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

there was another mismatch between Teacher 5H’s practices and her students’ opinions. More
students (58.9%) from 5H thought that their teacher’s WCF did not help them improve their writing
skills. Teacher 5H, in contrast, thought that her feedback could help her students in writing.

Table 4. Teacher vs. Students’ Responses

Class How Teachers Correct Students’ Errors Students’ Expectations Percentage
(I prefer my English Teacher to..)
5H Underline, correct, and explain errors Underline, correct, and explain my errors 82.4
Underline and correct my errors 11.8
Underline my errors 5.9
5P Underline and correct errors Underline, correct, and explain my errors 88
Underline and correct my errors 12
Underline my errors 0
5Q Underline, correct, and explain errors Underline, correct, and explain my errors 90.1
Underline and correct my errors 9.1
Underline my errors 0

The responses coded in yellow in Table 4 demonstrate that teacher’s practices and students’
expectations on the amount of any type of feedback match. From the table, it is clear that 82.4 % of
students from class 5H and 90.1 % from 5Q responded that they preferred their teachers to
underline, correct, and explain their errors. This expectation matches what their teachers have been
practising in giving WCF in class. Interestingly, most students from 5P (88%) preferred their teacher
to underline, correct, and explain their errors but their teacher did not often explain their errors. This
indicates a mismatch between what the teacher practised and what the students needed.

Table 5. Teacher vs. Students’ Responses

Class Teacher’s Type of Feedback Practices Students’ Expectations Percentage
5H Mark/ Grade, feedback on errors, and • Only grades/ marks 0
general written comments • Only responses to my errors 0
• Only written comment 0
• Mark/ grade and feedback on my errors 5.9
• Mark/ grade and general written
comments 5.9
• Mark/grade, feedback on my errors, and
general written comments 88.2
5P Only written comment • Only grades/ marks 0
• Only responses to my errors 0
• Only written comment 0
• Mark/ grade and feedback on my errors 0
• Mark/ grade and general written
comments 12
• Mark/grade, feedback on my errors, and
general written comments 84
5Q Only responses to my students’ errors • Only grades/ marks 9.1
• Only responses to my errors 0
• Only written comment 0
• Mark/ grade and feedback on my errors 4.5
• Mark/ grade and general written
comments 22.7
• Mark/grade, feedback on my errors, and
general written comments 63.6

As shown in Table 5, only teacher 5H’s practices match her students’ expectations while Teacher
5P and 5Q’s practices in giving WCF do not match the students’ expectations. For instance, 84 % of
students from 5P wanted their teachers to provide mark/grade, written comments, and feedback on

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
104 English Language Teaching Educational Journal ISSN 2621-6485
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

their errors, but their teacher only provided written comments without the grade and feedback on
errors. Similarly, many students from 5Q (63.6%) preferred their teacher to give mark/grade,
written comments, and feedback on their errors while 22.7% preferred their teacher to give
mark/grade and written comments. The teacher’s practice, however, did not align with the students’
expectations, as she only gave responses to her students’ errors without any grade or feedback.
Again, this illustrates a considerably significant mismatch between teacher and students’
preferences.

2.5. Discussion
The current study found that students from all three classes mainly agreed that WCF from their
teachers contributed most to their improvement in writing skills (76%) and is beneficial to their
learning (84%). This high percentage suggests that WCF is necessary despite the challenges faced
by the students and the inconsistencies between teacher’s practices and students’ expectations.
Although some students argued that they often could not understand their teacher’s feedback and
could not correct them, teachers’ use of symbols and markers helped them notice that there were
errors in their compositions. As emphasised by Ellis et al. (2008), bringing the student’s attention to
errors will help their language development as errors allow them to notice the correct form, and later
internalize the rule. However, this does not mean that teachers can mark students’ compositions on
the surface level without giving attention to specific linguistic features. Students still should be
given continuous guidance on areas they can improve in writing.
Findings indicate that most students and teachers agreed that WCF is beneficial (96 %: 5P,
100%: 5Q), except for students of class 5H (47.1%). Here, it should be pointed out that some
students may benefit more than others due to a variety of reasons such as motivation, learning styles,
and metalinguistic background knowledge (Ferris, 2010). From the students’ written responses, the
reasons why they did not benefit from their teacher’s WCF could be because of their low interest
towards the subject where 58.9 % 5H students 5H have “very low”, “low” and “somewhat low”
interest towards English language and limited proficiency in the language. This finding can
somehow highlight that interest in the subject may also influence how much students can benefit
from teacher’s feedback, as highlighted by Ferris (2010).
It is demonstrated that 5P and 5Q students’ preferences did not align with their teachers’ as they
needed more feedback than what their teachers were capable of giving and they wanted their teacher
to correct all errors made. The teacher, however, would like to provide a medium for the students to
self-correct as it is one way to increase student autonomy in their learning. This finding is similar to
findings obtained by other researchers where language learners wanted more correction than they
were receiving from their teachers (Rashtchi & Abu Bakar, 2019; Black & Nanni, 2016 and
Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010).
It is interesting to note that most students in this present study highly valued explicit feedback
over implicit feedback as they believed that they could not correct their own errors due to limited
grammar knowledge. Therefore, students did not only want their teachers to underline errors, but
also correct and explain the errors. This type of feedback is identified as metalinguistic information,
which entails teachers giving explanations, rules, and correct grammar usage. They may also include
using codes like PT for Past Tense in which the intention is to kelp L2 learners to understand the
errors made (Bitchener & Storch, 2016).
Most students from 5H viewed WCF as beneficial, but they believed that teachers could not just
use symbols and underline errors as they did not know how to correct their errors. The inability to
self-correct makes it difficult for students to acquire language and improve language skills. As
opposed to students from 5Q, they agreed that WCF is beneficial because “[her teacher] wrote her
opinions in simple sentences so [she] can understand it” and “everything is clearly written, and
comments are specific.” From this finding, we can say that there are certain best practices or quality
that can make the feedback beneficial to the students (it can result in acquisition). As Ferris (1999)
suggests, clear and consistent correction can promote language acquisition. In this study, most
students believe that feedback should be specific, detailed, and precise to improve students’
learning.

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
 ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 105
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

Although self-correction has been found to promote acquisition (Lyster, 2004; Ferris, 2006),
most of the students in this study were not willing to self-correct. This finding is consistent with
what Lee (2005) has found in which students preferred direct feedback as opposed to indirect or
implicit feedback because they mostly did not understand grammar rules. Ellis (2009) states that, it
is impossible to allow learners to self-correct their errors if they do not have the necessary linguistic
knowledge to do so. Ferris (1999), in contrast, indicates that the effectiveness of implicit or indirect
feedback yields different results when employed with varying contexts and participants. For
instance, one of the findings from her study suggests that students with higher levels of proficiency
should be given more opportunities to correct their errors while students with lower proficiency
should be given a lot of guidance and support on how to correct their errors (Ferris & Roberts,
2001).
Several researchers pointed out that direct feedback paired with rule reminders or explanations,
either written or oral, is necessary to improve students’ writing skills (Bitchener & Knoch, 2001;
Sheen, 2007). However, these researches were done in experimental settings, and to expect teachers
to write explicit feedback with explanations every time after assigning a composition task per the
students’ preference may seem unrealistic. On the other hand, there are other aspects for teachers to
pay attention to other than correcting specific linguistic features such as organization, content, and
ideas. These demands explain why teachers may sometimes result in just giving written comments at
the end of the students’ compositions rather than correcting every single error done by the students
(Ferris, 2010). As mentioned by Teacher P, for example, she could only give written comments to
her students’ compositions due to time constraints since there were many other activities to be done
in class. Hyland & Hyland (2006) also support this finding. They believe that students should be
active and proactive agents in the feedback process by learning to correct their errors after receiving
teacher feedback.

4. Conclusion
This study found that there were gaps between students’ expectations and teachers’ practices.
While it is crucial for teachers to know and understand what exactly students prefer when dealing
with WCF, the truth is fulfilling individual differences, needs, and attitudes is indeed demanding and
challenging. Based on the findings, there are suggestions for teachers and students to help them
utilize WCF to benefit both parties. What can be suggested for teachers would be to:
a. ensure that the usage of symbols and markers used to indicate WCF are clearly understood
by students.
b. note down and group all errors that are found and made by the students and discuss it as a
whole in class by the end of the week. In this way, information-sharing can be cultivated.
c. implement cooperative/collaborative writing activity to monitor large groups of students.
d. cultivate independent learning among the students to instil learner autonomy
e. explain every rationale of teachers’ action so that it does not create confusion among the
students.
This study can be consolidated with further research to obtain a clearer picture of WCF. In this
study, WCF was viewed in a very specific context, which was through secondary school students’
compositions. Findings were also self-reported. For future studies, researchers could possibly pay
more attention to broader contextual factors and collect data from various variables such as
classroom observations and interviews to obtain more in-depth findings.

References
Al Shahrani, A. A. (2013). Investigation of written corrective feedback in an EFL context: beliefs of
teachers, their real practices and students' preferences. Retrieved from
https://minervaaccess.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/38637/307913_the%20thesis.pdf?seq
uence=1

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
106 English Language Teaching Educational Journal ISSN 2621-6485
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

Amrhein, H.R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: what do students prefer and why?
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127. Retrieved from
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19886
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom:
Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9, 227–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international
students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431. doi: 10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Black, D.A. & Nanni, A. (2016). Written corrective feedback: preferences and justifications of teachers and
students in a Thai context. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 16 (3), 99-114.
http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-07
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction
matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written
corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.
doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, (1), 3-18.
https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Ferris, D. (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.) (pp. 81-104).
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996).
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "Grammar Correction" debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go
from here? (And what do we do in the meantime...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (1),
49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections
and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
Gorman, M. & Ellis, R. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written
corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in writing. Language Teaching for Young
Learners, 1(1), 57-81. doi: 10.1075/ltyl.00005.gor
Haishan, L. & Qingshun, H. (2017). Chinese secondary EFL learners’ and teachers’ preferences for types on
written corrective feedback. English Language Teaching, 10 (3), 63-73. doi:10.5539/elt.v10n3p63
Hamouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teachers' preferences and attitudes towards correction of
classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4 (3), 128-141.
doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n3p128
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. The
Asian EFL Journal, 9 (4), 289-305. Retrieved from http://asian-efl-
journal.com/December_2007_EBook.pdf
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classroom: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)
ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 107
Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020, pp. 95-107

Lee, I (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Springer
Singapore.
Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: less is more. Language Teaching, 52 (4), 524-536.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432. doi: 10.1017/S0272263104263021
Ministry of Education (2003). Curriculum specifications for English Form 5. Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum
Development Centre.
Nanni, A. & Black, D.A. (2017). Student and teacher preferences in written corrective feedback. The Journal
of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 540-547. doi: 10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.3.11.540
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: The learner’s view. In K. D. Bikram (Ed.),
Communication and learning in the classroom community, (pp. 176-190). Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre.
Park, H.S. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction (Master Thesis). Retrieved from
http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.9/302/ thesis_pdf.pdf?sequence=1
Pratolo, B. W. (2019). How would our students like to be corrected?: A study on learners’ beliefs about
language learning strategy. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(3), 274-281.
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7342
Rashtchi, M. & Bakar, Z.A. (2019). Written corrective feedback: what do Malaysian learners prefer and
why? International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8 (5), 1221-1225. doi:
10.35940/ijeat.E1173.0585C19
Sanavi, R.V. & Nemati,M. (2014).The effect of six different corrective feedback strategies on Iranian English
language learners’ IELTS writing task 2. Sage Open, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014538271

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’
acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-
7249.2007.tb00059.x
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in
using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64, 103-131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029

Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus (Written Corrective Feedback in English Compositions)