INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
In recent decades, English has gained immense popularity and significance in global communication, especially as international businesses expand into the Vietnamese market Its role in facilitating international trade and diplomacy allows for the seamless exchange of science, technology, goods, and labor Proficiency in English equips employees to collaborate effectively with foreign partners, enhancing their career growth opportunities Therefore, it is essential for individuals to improve their English skills to meet the demands of modern society and enhance their quality of life.
English has become a mandatory subject in Vietnamese schools, emphasizing the importance of mastering four key skills: speaking, reading, listening, and writing Among these, students often find academic writing to be particularly challenging and crucial for second-language proficiency.
The Banking Academy, one of Vietnam's leading universities, emphasizes the importance of English proficiency for its students, leading to the establishment of the Faculty of Foreign Languages to focus on finance-specific English Recognizing the significance of teachers' written corrective feedback in improving students' writing skills, a research study titled “An Investigation into English-Major Students’ Perception of Teacher Corrective Feedback on Academic Writing” was conducted This study aims to explore students' perceptions of the feedback they receive from their teachers, with the intention of providing recommendations based on the findings to enhance the academic writing experience.
Objective of the thesis
This research investigates English-major students' perceptions of written corrective feedback provided by teachers in academic writing classes at the Faculty of Foreign Languages at Banking Academy It aims to propose recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of such feedback By surveying current ATC students across different years, the study seeks to evaluate various aspects of their teachers' feedback Ultimately, the findings are intended to aid both instructors and students in identifying the most effective feedback strategies to improve academic writing skills.
Research questions
This study aims to address the question how English-major students perceive teacher corrective feedback in academic writing.
Significance of this study
This study aims to provide valuable insights for both students and teachers regarding corrective feedback in academic writing classes It identifies the frequency of various feedback types received by students and highlights their preferences, which can influence the effectiveness of feedback on writing skills By recognizing these aspects, teachers can develop relevant feedback techniques that enhance students' writing abilities Additionally, the study offers recommendations to help both students and teachers mitigate the negative impacts of written feedback.
Scope and Limitations of the Thesis
A study conducted at the Banking Academy focused on English major students in the Faculty of Foreign Languages, examining their perceptions of corrective feedback from teachers in academic writing courses Through a survey, the research gathered insights into learners' views on teacher remedial feedback.
The study presents notable limitations, primarily due to its small sample size of only 187 students from the Banking Academy, which may weaken the findings Additionally, the ongoing complications from Covid-19 prevented the use of valuable research tools, such as interviews and writing tests, hindering a more comprehensive analysis of the results.
Structure of the Thesis
The study is divided into five sections, as follows:
Chapter 1 (Introduction) provides a critique of the study's background material, including the reason for the topic decision, the study's aims, its importance, and scope and limitations
Chapter 2 (Literature review) explained the compatible theories related to teacher written corrective feedback, issues faced by students when getting corrective feedback, and previous studies by other researchers
Chapter 3 (Research methodology) outlines the research's background, participants, as well as the main data collection technique
Chapter 4 (Finding and Discussion) presents statistical analysis and discusses a comprehensive explanation of the findings
Chapter 5 (Summary and Recommendation) summarizes the study findings, which will serve as the framework for making suggestions In addition, the chapter identifies shortcomings and potential to further research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the existing literature on teacher written corrective feedback (WCF), outlining its definitions and various types It highlights the significance of WCF for learners, addresses common challenges associated with its implementation, and explores students' perceptions of this feedback method.
Definitions
Writing is a crucial invention in human evolution, serving as a key tool for developing ideas and enhancing language skills (Robert, 1990) It provides a means for self-expression, yet for second language learners, acquiring this complex skill can be particularly challenging.
Academic English, as defined by Gersten et al (2007), refers to the formal language used in educational settings that emphasizes extended, reasoned discourse It prioritizes the presentation of topics over personal expression, employing a third-person perspective and a formal tone Writers in this style select precise vocabulary, steering clear of jargon, slang, and abbreviations to maintain scholarly integrity.
Academic writing is characterized by its linear structure, featuring a clear thesis supported by relevant arguments that reinforce the main idea This type of text avoids off-topic or redundant content, focusing primarily on the dissemination of knowledge rather than entertainment.
Academic writing serves as a vital assessment tool for students, demonstrating their understanding and proficiency in analysis and presentation (Irvin, 2010) According to Turner (2011), clarity and conciseness are essential elements of effective academic writing, as they enhance logical exposition and contribute to a seamless reading experience.
Feedback is crucial for students, providing insights into how they can enhance their skills As noted by Race (2001), it plays a vital role in all learning contexts, facilitating language acquisition while boosting student motivation and ensuring linguistic precision.
Corrective feedback (CF) is essential for improving students' understanding of their errors, allowing them to independently correct mistakes and complete tasks effectively (God, 2017) It serves as a supportive scaffold for L2 writers, enabling them to accomplish tasks they might struggle with on their own (God, 2017; Sintani & Audrey, 2016).
Corrective feedback (CF) is beneficial for language learners, as it enables instructors to assist students in gaining knowledge and improving their skills by identifying their errors Research by Maleki and Eslami (2013) indicates that L2 learners who receive CF exhibit fewer tense errors compared to those who do not Additionally, Sheen (2007) found that providing CF significantly reduces mistakes related to article usage among L2 learners.
The effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF) in enhancing second language (L2) writing remains a contentious issue due to limited research While some scholars, including Ashwell (2000), Fathman & Whalley (1990), and Ferris (1995), advocate for the benefits of written corrective feedback (WCF), others, such as Robb (1986) and Truscott (1999), express skepticism regarding its impact Truscott (1996) notably cautions that WCF focused on form may be detrimental and suggests it should be discontinued This ongoing debate highlights the need for further longitudinal studies to monitor students' progress over time after receiving CF from educators, ultimately aiming to determine the true effectiveness of CF in L2 writing.
Teacher written corrective feedback (TWCF) encompasses comments, queries, and corrections provided by educators on students' assignments, as noted by Mark (2009) This feedback can manifest in various forms, including corrections, queries, and compliments According to Kumar and Stracke (2007) and Stracke and Kumar (2010), written corrective feedback (WCF) plays a crucial role in enhancing students' self-regulated learning Students benefit from the insights, revisions, and suggestions offered by lecturers on their writing tasks, which ultimately aids their academic growth, as highlighted by Hyland and Hyland.
In 2006, it was noted that teacher-written corrective feedback (TWCF) serves as an essential tool for guiding students in enhancing their writing skills When TWCF is specific and focused on ideas and meaning across multiple drafts, it not only encourages revisions in the students' first language (L1) but also in their second language (L2) (Paulus, 1999) Additionally, written feedback from teachers plays a crucial role in providing a reader's response to students' work, helping them improve as writers and justifying their assigned grades (Hyland, 2003; Hyland & Hyland, 2006).
Glenn & Goldthwaite (2014) highlight that Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is designed to enhance students' writing by identifying errors and prompting them to articulate their viewpoints This feedback not only improves writing skills but also boosts student morale, as it demonstrates that instructors have engaged with their work WCF encourages students to address errors and respond to instructors' comments, fostering critical thinking, analytical skills, and self-discovery essential for academic success in higher education By carefully considering the WCF provided, students can make necessary improvements, while the interaction between WCF and student responses promotes self-regulated learning (Stracke and Kumar, 2010).
Stracke and Kumar (2010) highlighted that Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) fosters self-regulated learning (SRL) and promotes student independence Additionally, they noted that lecturers benefit from WCF as it facilitates an interactive journey of academic discovery.
Lecturers and supervisors engage in reflective practice to improve their supervision methods, ultimately enhancing the training of students to integrate into the academic scholarly community.
WCF (Written Corrective Feedback) is a widely used approach to enhance Second Language (L2) writing skills (Boggs, 2019; Cheng & Zhang, 2021; Lee, 2019) Ongoing research emphasizes the importance and impact of WCF in language learning (Atmaca, 2016), with a comprehensive review of its nature, effectiveness, and findings presented in the literature section.
Types of teacher written corrective feedback
Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of corrective feedback for learners, yet scholars have debated whether direct or indirect remedial feedback is more effective The ongoing discussion among theorists emphasizes the need for effective feedback strategies to enhance student learning outcomes (Ferris, 1995; Ellis, 2009).
2.3.1 Direct (explicit) corrective feedback (DCF)
According to Ferris (2003), Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF) involves teachers providing the appropriate linguistic forms or structures in response to students' language errors, addressing issues such as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word choice DCF is characterized by explicit corrections that occur in proximity to the verbal error, which may include removing unnecessary elements, adding missing components, or forming the correct linguistic structure Recently, DCF has evolved to include textual meta-linguistic explanations that cover grammatical rules and proper usage examples, as well as oral instruction focused on form to enhance understanding of the written explanations.
Proponents of direct feedback argue that it significantly aids writers by minimizing confusion related to misunderstood feedback, such as error codes from teachers It offers essential information to address complex errors, like syntactic structure and idiomatic usage, and delivers detailed comments on proposed improvements Additionally, direct corrective feedback is more immediate, allowing learners to effectively recognize the gap between their current abilities and desired outcomes This approach also eliminates challenges in interpreting codes to revise their drafts, enhancing the overall writing process.
A study by Bitchener and Knoch (2010) found that direct feedback is more effective for learners than graded writing activities, as it provides clearer guidance This clarity helps students better understand the material and improves their accuracy Direct corrective feedback (DCF) enables students to recognize and focus on their recurring errors, reducing the likelihood of educators repeatedly addressing the same mistakes Additionally, even students who struggle with self-revision and may not notice their errors can benefit from this approach (Ellis, 2009).
Researchers like Clements (2002) argue that DCF limits students' autonomy in evaluating their mistakes, complicating the grading process for instructors Similarly, Elashri (2013) supports this viewpoint, highlighting the challenges posed by DCF in student assessment.
In 2002, it was argued that providing students with rapid feedback does not significantly enhance their productivity, as they tend to work independently and depend on instructor critiques However, research by Bitchener and Knoch (2010) and Van Beuningen et al (2016) indicates that for lower-proficiency L2 learners, direct corrective feedback (CF) is more effective in addressing grammatical errors.
2.3.2 Indirect (implicit) corrective feedback (ICF)
ICF, or Indirect Corrective Feedback, encourages students to reflect on their errors independently rather than receiving direct corrections or comments (Ferris & Roberts, 2001) Instead of explicit guidance, errors are subtly indicated through underlining, circling, or crossing in the margins, prompting students to recognize and address their mistakes through contemplation (Lee & Schallert, 2008) This method fosters critical thinking and self-correction in the learning process.
Ferris (2003) defines indirect feedback as a method where teachers highlight students' mistakes without providing the correct form In this approach, educators use symbols or cues to indicate errors in students' writing For instance, teachers may employ various codes like VT for verb tense, Sp for spelling, and WW for erroneous word (Ellis, 2008).
There are different subcategories of indirect feedback (IF) based on how clearly the type and location of the mistake are indicated Elashri (2013) identifies two types of IF: coded and uncoded Coded IF provides students with a structure or visual representation linked to the circled error, enabling them to reflect on and decode the mistake, which can lead to improved drafts In contrast, uncoded IF consists solely of a circular mark, underline, or strike-through on the error without additional explanation, leaving students to interpret the reason for the mark on their own (Grami, 2005).
Indirect feedback encourages students to identify and self-correct their errors, while direct feedback involves merely transcribing the teacher's comments (Ferris, 2003) Research indicates that indirect error feedback is more advantageous for students' long-term writing development compared to direct feedback (Ferris, 2003; Fratzen, 1995) Indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) is particularly effective for rule-governed errors, allowing students to self-correct, whereas direct feedback is more suitable for addressing untreatable issues like sentence structure and word choice (Ferris, 2003).
Figure 2.1 TEACHER WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Importance of teacher written corrective feedback
2.4.1 Teacher WCF raised students’ linguistic accuracy level
There is already a significant corpus of research on the effectiveness of written
Research indicates that corrective feedback (CF) plays a significant role in enhancing the writing accuracy of second language (L2) authors (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Sheen, 2010) Specifically, when writers are encouraged to revise their work, written CF has been shown to improve their overall written correctness (Ferris, 1999, 2006) Furthermore, studies demonstrate that written CF has a lasting impact on the accuracy of new texts produced by these authors (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007; Ellis, 2008) One study specifically examined the effectiveness of written CF on three types of linguistic errors—English article usage, past simple tense, and prepositions—and found it particularly beneficial for enhancing L2 writers' accuracy in the first two rule-based categories (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005).
Teacher-written comments play a crucial role in enhancing students' writing by pinpointing key areas for improvement (Vardi, 2009) Research by Silver and Lee (2007) emphasizes that effective feedback from educators is essential for student success Additionally, Chandler (2003) found that students who correct their mistakes after receiving feedback show significant improvements in writing accuracy over a semester compared to those who do not address their errors.
Revising work after receiving teacher feedback is crucial for ESL students, as it helps them recognize their strengths and weaknesses Research indicates that this process not only leads to immediate improvements in drafts but also enhances students' linguistic accuracy over time (Polio et al 1998; Hyland).
Research by Ferris (2006) revealed significant reductions in student errors across five key grammar categories over a semester, particularly in verb and lexical issues This supports Yates and Kenkel's (2002) perspective that the effectiveness of error correction should be understood within the framework of a student's growing understanding of text composition.
2.4.2 Corrective feedback enhance students’ motivation
L2 students require adjustments to their writing errors, as highlighted by Soori, Kafipour, and Soury (2011) Their study found that students view corrective feedback (CF) as advantageous, leading to fewer mistakes and increased motivation to write accurately This perspective is echoed by Hamidun and Hizwari, reinforcing the importance of CF in enhancing writing skills for language learners.
Hashim and Othman (2012) discovered that corrective feedback significantly motivates L2 learners, helping them improve their writing skills despite low proficiency levels The study also highlighted that the anticipation of receiving feedback after graded tasks serves as an intrinsic motivator, encouraging learners to enhance their performance.
Research by Cho et al (2006) supports Srichanyachon's (2012) assertion that constructive corrective feedback enhances student motivation and engagement in improving their writing Underwood and Tregidgo (2006) found that while students exhibited positive behavioral responses to this feedback, it did not significantly impact their writing quality Thus, while positive emotional feedback is crucial for empowerment, it alone is not sufficient for advancing L2 writing skills To foster improvement, educators should combine effective, time-efficient remedial feedback, such as ICCF, with encouraging emotional support.
Effective written corrective feedback (WCF) is essential for fostering self-regulated learning (SRL) among students, as noted by Stracke and Kumar (2010) For SRL mechanisms to operate effectively, instructors must provide constructive WCF that encourages students to engage in deeper reflection and verification of their work, as highlighted by Hyland and Hyland (2006) Numerous studies, including those by Butler and Winne (1995), Hyland (1998), and Hyland and Hyland (2001), emphasize the significant link between WCF and SRL Conversely, Ferris (2004) warns that the absence of adequate feedback can lead to anxiety and resentment, ultimately diminishing student motivation and confidence in their educators.
2.4.3 Corrective feedback improves students’ and teachers' relationship
Effective written feedback is essential for enhancing the learning experience, as it must resonate with the writer to be truly beneficial Research indicates that feedback transcends mere commentary on student work; it plays a vital role in fostering a supportive learning environment and strengthening the instructor-student relationship (Hyland, F, 1998; Conrad).
Teachers play a crucial role in motivating students to revise their writing based on feedback, incorporating both final drafts and earlier versions in their portfolios This practice not only allows educators to monitor student progress but also fosters skill development and strengthens the teacher-student relationship By carefully selecting language and style in their feedback, teachers can create supportive environments that promote writing growth It is essential for teachers to balance their comments to serve informational, pedagogic, and interpersonal purposes, while being mindful of potential student reactions Negative feedback can damage a student's confidence, whereas premature or excessive praise may confuse them and hinder their improvement.
Issue in teacher written corrective feedback
While previous studies indicate that instructor-written feedback positively influences students' writing and motivation, it is not enough on its own to drive improvement Issues remain in the effectiveness of teachers' written corrective feedback, highlighting the need for additional support in the learning process.
Research indicates that teacher feedback on student content is often unclear and unhelpful, leading to confusion and misinterpretation (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Fregeau, 1999; Leki, 1990) A study by Keh (1990) found that brief written feedback lacks the detail necessary for effective student corrections Students may overlook or misunderstand feedback when revising their work (Ferris, 1995; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999), and even if they recognize issues, they may struggle to implement appropriate changes (Ferris, 1997; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999) This can result in students deleting problematic content to avoid difficulties (Hyland, 1998), ultimately leading to frustration and discouragement, which diminishes their motivation to improve their writing skills (J G Williams).
Insufficient English proficiency and inadequate explanation methods hinder students' ability to revise effectively, as noted by Silver and Lee (2007) and supported by Hyland's (1998) case study linking writing issues to poor writing strategies Developing writing skills necessitates more than textual feedback, as Zheng and Yu (2018) highlighted that low-proficiency EFL students benefit from focused written corrective feedback (WCF) However, when WCF addresses all types of mistakes, it can overwhelm learners, leading to cognitive overload and ineffective acquisition (Shmidt, 1994; Ellis, 2005, 2008) This is particularly problematic when grammar points exceed students' current abilities, making it challenging for them to manage multiple corrections at once (Pienemann, 1989) To enhance their writing, students must integrate personalized approaches with teacher feedback while also receiving grammar and strategy training (Paulus, 1999; Ferris, 2004).
The excessive use of red ink on student papers can be overwhelming and discouraging for L2 writers, creating a perplexing experience that hinders their growth (Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa, 2009).
Teachers must be aware that their feedback significantly influences students' emotional responses, which can sometimes hinder their motivation to enhance writing skills Overly marked drafts may increase anxiety rather than promote improvement (Ravichandran, 2002) While praise can ignite a passion for writing, it often fails to encourage revisions in subsequent drafts (Silver & Lee, 2007) Additionally, excessively positive feedback does not lead to meaningful changes in students' work (Vardi, 2009) Critiques can evoke negative emotions in students (Silver & Lee, 2007) Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to communicate their critiques effectively, guiding students on areas for improvement Vardi (2009) emphasizes that combining global feedback with specific local feedback can facilitate meaningful revisions by clearly illustrating how to apply suggested changes in the text.
Effective feedback must meet specific criteria, including manageability, meaningfulness, timeliness, and consistency (Hartshorn, 2008) Manageability is crucial, as overworked teachers may neglect this practice, making the time spent on writing feedback essential McGarrell and Verbeem (2007) emphasize that feedback should prioritize content over form to help students focus on the communicative purpose of their writing Timeliness is also important; providing prompt feedback enhances the learning process, as indicated by the idea that quicker comments lead to better revisions Consistency serves as a foundational element in education, as Leki (1990) notes that without regular practice, writing skills may deteriorate Additionally, feedback should be focused to avoid overwhelming students with excessive information (Alghazo, 2009) A combination of direct and indirect feedback is recommended, starting with explicit corrections and transitioning to indirect methods as students become familiar with their errors (Hedgcock & Leowitz, 1996).
Students' attitudes towards and preferences of teachers’ giving CF
Surveys indicate that ESL students prioritize written feedback from teachers, often rating it more highly than peer or oral feedback (Radecki & Swales, 1998) This highlights the significance of written evaluations in the learning process for these students.
A study conducted in 2006 examined the feedback provided by faculty to L2 graduate students at a US university, focusing on written comments on assignments and student interviews regarding the significance of this feedback for developing disciplinary literacy While most students found the feedback highly beneficial, many expressed a desire for more comprehensive input that highlighted challenges and clarified academic requirements Additionally, they sought guidance on how native speakers would convey similar ideas, indicating a need for feedback that addressed both content and language Riazi's 1997 research on Iranian graduate students also emphasized the importance of feedback for enhancing professional understanding However, further research is necessary to explore how L2 educators and disciplinary professors can collaborate more effectively to meet student needs.
Research indicates that while most students prefer professors to highlight linguistic errors, they also value feedback on the topics and concepts in their writing (Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996) Additionally, students favor a combination of written feedback and personal meetings (Arndt, 1993; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994) They are particularly receptive to indirect feedback, such as prompts that guide them to recognize their mistakes, as this approach encourages greater engagement with the feedback process (Arndt, 1993; Saito, 1994; Hyland, F.).
Previous studies
Many researchers have looked at the topic of writing Some past research on the subject was studied to complete the study
Razlina Razali and Rohaiza Jupri (2014) conducted a mixed-method study to explore the impact of instructor written comments and student revisions among ESL students Their research aimed to identify effective types of teacher feedback that encourage successful revisions and align with student preferences Findings revealed that unclear and vague feedback hindered student revisions, while excessive criticism discouraged improvement Additionally, students often struggled to personalize the integration of instructor input into their work Although teacher written feedback positively influenced student performance, the study's limited scope at the University Malaysia Perlis highlights the need for further research on teaching WCF across a broader range of English major students.
In their 2018 study, Chiachieh Tang and Yeu-Ting Liu examined the effectiveness of Indirect Coded Corrective Feedback (ICCF) combined with short emotional remarks on enhancing L2 learners' writing performance, uptake, and motivation compared to ICCF alone Participants were divided into two groups and completed a questionnaire along with three writing tasks aligned with the General English Proficiency Test's composition section These tasks were evaluated by two experts using specific rubrics from Brown (2007) The findings indicate that ICCF is essential for improving students' writing abilities, and that incorporating brief expressive feedback from instructors can significantly enhance writing outcomes.
In a study by Mohd Azim Saido (2018), the feedback received by Malaysian students on their English writing and their perceptions of it were analyzed using a cross-sectional questionnaire divided into four constructs The findings revealed inconsistent feedback frequency from professors, with a greater focus on writing content rather than form While participants recognized that the critiques improved their writing, they also experienced negative emotional impacts The study concludes by stressing the need for a national standard guideline from local education authorities to ensure fair and equitable essay marking throughout the country.
In the study "Direct Teacher Corrective Feedback (DTCF) in EFL Writing Class at Higher Education: What Students Perceive" by Sabarun (2020), students expressed positive perceptions of instructor feedback in EFL classes They consented to receive DTCF on language form, content, and organization, finding it beneficial for their writing The research utilized a descriptive quantitative method, incorporating questionnaires with five open-ended questions and sections on students' perceptions and feelings regarding direct feedback The findings indicated a favorable attitude toward written remedial remarks, with students preferring teacher-directed written corrections over other feedback methods for addressing their errors.
In a study by S M Mujtaba (2019), the effectiveness of indirect coded corrective feedback and short affective comments from teachers on writing performance was investigated with 90 students divided into treatment and control groups Participants completed three writing tasks, which were evaluated by two subject matter experts who compared their scores Additionally, questionnaires were administered to gather further insights The findings indicated that both indirect coded corrective feedback and short affective comments significantly enhance learners' writing performance.
In summary, numerous authors have explored the fascinating subject of written corrective feedback from teachers, highlighting its relevance to the authors' perspectives and offering important insights for educational practices.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research setting
In the second semester of the 2021-2022 academic year, a study was conducted at the Faculty of Foreign Languages at Banking Academy, focusing on the development of English writing skills among students Over the first two years, students engage in three compulsory writing courses: Writing 1, which enhances sentence construction; Writing 2, which emphasizes paragraph writing; and Writing 3, which equips learners with the skills to compose academic essays Each course consists of 16 sessions, totaling 32 hours, during which students complete various writing assignments and read diverse materials to reinforce their learning.
Procedure of data collection
The study utilized a modified version of the questionnaire from Sabarun (2020), Mod Azim Saidon (2018), and Adrefiza & Fortunasari (2020) to fit the specific research context A pilot test was conducted with six students to gather feedback, resulting in mostly positive comments regarding the questionnaire's clarity, though one participant recommended a Vietnamese translation Minor adjustments were made for better formatting, but no translation was included in the official version, as the questions were deemed straightforward Due to the pandemic, the official questionnaire was distributed online via Google Forms, yielding 200 responses within seven days Thirteen responses were excluded because the participants had not completed the Writing 3 course, leaving 187 valid responses for analysis The refined data was analyzed using SPSS version 20 for reliability and descriptive statistics.
Participants and sample description
This study targets students who completed the Writing 3 course at the Faculty of Foreign Languages, Banking Academy, by the second semester of the 2021-2022 academic year The participant population is detailed as follows.
Table 3.1 Number of students in each academic year
Academic year The number of participants
Second-year students 26 Third-year students 90 Final-year students 84
Research instrument
In his research, Nunan (1992) defines a questionnaire as a data collection tool featuring both open and closed questions that require responses from participants Similarly, Richards et al (1994) highlight questionnaires as an effective means to gather information on the affective aspects of teaching and learning, such as beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and preferences, allowing teachers to quickly collect substantial data Consequently, the author has chosen to utilize questionnaires as the primary research method due to their efficiency, versatility, and ease of use To streamline the process during the Covid pandemic, the survey questionnaire was distributed to participants online, aiming to explore students' perceptions of teacher corrective feedback in academic writing The questionnaire is structured into four main sections to achieve this objective.
The first section is to gather background information about participants, containing three questions about their gender, academic year, and whether they have finished writing class or not
The second section includes seven questions focused on the frequency of direct teacher corrective feedback (CF) that students receive regarding their academic writing These questions are primarily adapted from Sabarun's 2020 study, with modifications to better align with the current content Direct corrective feedback is categorized into different types, including feedback on content.
CF on form, CF on structure The question items in this section are designed in a 5 Likert scale: 1- Never, 2- Rarely, 3- Sometimes, 4- Often, and 5- Always
In section 3, there are nine questions adapted from Adrefiza, A & Fortunasari,
A study by F (2020) investigated the frequency of indirect corrective feedback provided by instructors on students' academic writing The research utilized a five-point Likert scale to assess responses, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).
The final section features 12 questions assessing students' perceptions of teacher corrective feedback, adapted from Mod Azim Saidon (2018) These questions utilize a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree), allowing for nuanced responses regarding the effectiveness of feedback in the learning process.
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Data analysis
As can be seen from table 4.1 below, females made up an overwhelming proportion of 87.2 percent of the total participants, while males accounted for just
12.8 percent The percentage for the students by second, third and final academic year are 13.9, 45.5, and 40.6 respectively
Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of a scale, as defined by Parasuraman (1991) In this study, Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha was employed to assess the applicability of each item and evaluate the reliability of the scales used The reliability of the questionnaire sections was analyzed using SPSS 20, with the results presented in a table format.
Below demonstrates the reliability degrees by questionnaire section
Table 4.2 Cronbach's Alpha computed summary statistics
Frequencies of direct teacher corrective feedback in academic writing
Frequencies of indirect teacher corrective feedback in academic writing
Student's perception on teacher corrective feedback in academic writing
The Cronbach's Alpha values for all sections of the questionnaire exceeded 0.8, indicating a very good scale according to Ursachi, Horodnic, & Zait (2015) Values ranging from 0.7 to 0.8 signify a decent scale, while any value of 0.6 or higher is considered acceptable This demonstrates that the question items in the research scale exhibit a high level of internal consistency.
According to Cristobal, Flavián, and Guinalíu (2007), the adjusted item's total correlation values must exceed 0.30 In this research questionnaire, all corrected item-total correlation values for the variables in the described sections were found to be above 0.3.
Table 4.3 The corrected item - total correlation of section 2
I received direct feedback from my teacher, highlighting the importance of various aspects of my writing The corrected item-total correlation scores indicate that my essay organization is strong at 626, while paragraph structure is even higher at 715 Cohesive and linking devices received a score of 563, and my vocabulary was rated at 648 Additionally, grammar was assessed with a correlation of 589, and mechanics, including punctuation and spelling, scored 574.
Table 4.4 The corrected item - total correlation of section 3
Correlation feedback on errors that is characterized by symbols such as sp: spelling, vt: verb tenses
.6063 feedback on errors that is circled, underlined or crossed in the margin without explanation
.579 feedback on errors that is coded in different colors such as red, blue, yellow but without explanation
.506 suggestion feedback 655 question feedback 673 opinion feedback 656 instruction feedback 632 question mark feedback 628 interjection feedback 602
Table 4.5 The corrected item - total correlation of section 4
I feel satisfied when I get my teacher's feedback 537
I prefer to get feedback than no feedback 566
I think the feedback is helpful 617
My teacher's remarks cheered me on while rewriting or revising my drafts
I feel overwhelmed when I received too much feedback in one writing
I feel assessed when I get my teacher's feedback 520
My teacher's feedback increased my motivation to revise my texts
I prefer teachers just correct the error directly without underlining it
I feel overwhelmed when I received feedback in full red ink
I want to receive corrective feedback timely once I finished my writing
4.2.1 Results on frequencies of direct teacher corrective feedback that students get in academic writing
This section presents the frequencies of direct teacher corrective feedback received by students in academic writing Table 4.6 below illustrates the mean scores and standard deviations of this feedback.
Table 4.6 Frequencies of direct corrective feedback by teachers
Question items Mean Standard deviation Interpretation
1 I received direct teacher written CF on content 3.43 842 Often
I received direct teacher written CF on essay organization
I received direct teacher written CF on paragraph structure
I received direct teacher written CF on cohesive devices/ linking devices
5 I received direct teacher written CF on vocabulary 3.93 707 Often
6 I received direct teacher written CF on grammar 3.81 707 Often
I received direct teacher written CF on mechanic (e.g punctuation, spelling)
Figure 4.1 Frequencies of direct corrective feedback by teachers (in percentage)
Table 4.6 illustrates the frequency of direct corrective feedback provided by teachers to students in academic writing, revealing a total mean score of 3.69 This indicates that students at the Faculty of Foreign Languages at Banking Academy frequently receive feedback on their essays Notably, feedback on vocabulary ranks highest among the questionnaire items, with a mean score of 3.93, emphasizing the importance teachers place on students' vocabulary skills Additionally, feedback on cohesive devices/linking devices, grammar, essay organization, and paragraph structure is also provided at a frequent level, with mean scores of 3.87, 3.81, 3.71, and 3.61, respectively.
The last two items with the lower score, which are feedback on mechanics (e.g
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always punctuation, spelling) (mean= 3.45) and feedback on content (mean= 3.43) are also ranked at often level
4.2.2 Results on frequencies of indirect teacher corrective feedback students get in academic writing
This section outlines the frequency of indirect corrective feedback received by students from their teachers Table 4.7 presents the means and standard deviations for each question item in the third section of the questionnaire.
Table 4.7 Frequencies of indirect corrective feedback by teachers
Question items Mean Standard deviation Interpretation
I received feedback on errors that is characterized by symbols such as sp: spelling, vt: verb tenses, but without explanation
I received feedback on errors that is circled, underlined or crossed in the margin without explanation
I received feedback on errors that is coded in different colors such as red, blue, yellow but without explanation
8 I received question marks feedback 3.47 825 Often
Figure 4.2 Frequencies of indirect corrective feedback by teachers (in percentage)
According to Table 4.7, the average mean score for the third section is 3.45, indicating that students frequently receive indirect corrective feedback from their instructors The most common form of this feedback is the coded type, which includes markings such as circled, underlined, or crossed comments in the margins, achieving the highest score of 3.68 This suggests that teachers often utilize this method of feedback Other forms of indirect corrective feedback also scored at the "often" level, including instructional feedback (mean=3.64), suggestion feedback (mean=3.56), question feedback (mean=3.52), and feedback coded in various colors.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
(mean= 3.50), and question marks feedback (mean= 3.47),
Feedback on errors, represented by symbols like "sp" for spelling and "vt" for verb tenses, received the lowest mean score of 3.05 In contrast, other types of feedback, such as interjection and opinion feedback, are occasionally utilized by teachers, with mean scores ranging from 3.28 to 3.32.
4.2.3 Students' perception of teacher written corrective feedback in academic writing
The table below depicts each question item's mean score and standard deviation in the final section of students’ perception on teacher written corrective feedback
Table 4.8 Students' perception on teacher written corrective feedback
I feel satisfied when I get my teacher's feedback
I prefer to get feedback than no feedback
3 I think the feedback is helpful 4.84 780 Agree
My teacher's remarks cheered me on while I rewrite and revise my drafts
I feel overwhelmed when I received too much feedback in one writing
I feel assessed when I get my teacher's feedback
My teacher's feedback increased my motivation to revise my texts
I prefer the teacher just corrects directly the error without underlining it
I feel overwhelmed when I received feedback in full red ink
I want to receive corrective feedback timely once I finished my writing
Figure 4.3 Perceived feedback of teacher corrective feedback (in percentage)
Table 4.8 reveals that students prefer receiving feedback, as indicated by a high mean score of 4.91 However, when questioned about feeling overwhelmed by excessive feedback on a single writing task, their response was more moderate, reflected in a lower mean score of 3.76.
The survey results reveal that the statement "I think the feedback is helpful" received a high mean score of 4.84, ranking second overall Following closely are the items "I want to receive corrective feedback timely once I finish my writing" (4.67), "I feel satisfied when I get my teacher's feedback" (4.66), and "My teacher's remarks cheered me on while I rewrite and revise my drafts" (4.43) Overall, the data indicates that the majority of participants value timely corrective feedback and express satisfaction with the feedback received from their teachers.
Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhatAgree somewhat Agree Strongly agree
Participants expressed a moderate level of agreement regarding their feelings about teacher feedback, with average scores of 4.20 for feeling assessed by feedback, 3.9 for feeling overwhelmed by extensive red ink corrections, and 3.87 for preferring direct error corrections without underlining.
Overall, participants' responses indicated that they valued teacher corrective feedback and had a favorable attitude toward the instructor's input.
Discussion
Students frequently receive direct corrective feedback primarily focused on vocabulary, grammar, and cohesive devices, as these aspects are easier for teachers to identify and address While comments on content are also provided, they are less common, aligning with Glenn & Goldthwaite's (2014) findings that emphasize the simplicity of assessing form over content Teachers often prefer to give feedback on form because it allows for clear identification of specific mistakes, facilitating easier revisions for students Bitchener (2005) noted that detailed written feedback enhances accuracy in future writing, while Ravichandran (2002) highlighted the importance of dialogue between teachers and students, asserting that comprehensive feedback helps educators better understand their students' capabilities.
Teachers frequently use indirect corrective feedback by circling, underlining, or crossing out errors, often employing symbols like "sp" for spelling and "wf" for word form This approach indicates that educators utilize various strategies to help students recognize and correct their mistakes, which is believed to enhance cognitive development Research shows that both coded and uncoded indirect feedback effectively aids students in identifying their errors, as they need guidance to understand their issues Pawlak (2014) supports this notion, highlighting that students receiving coded feedback are more likely to see writing as a skill that can be improved Additionally, indirect corrective feedback not only boosts cognitive skills but also motivates students to strive for error-free writing, a sentiment echoed by the researcher and S M Mujtaba (2019).
The findings indicate that direct corrective feedback is preferred over indirect feedback, with mean scores of 3.69 and 3.45, respectively This preference may stem from the straightforward nature of direct feedback, making it easier for teachers to identify and correct errors Students have expressed a desire for their mistakes to be corrected directly rather than merely indicated Supporting this, Hamouda (2011) found that more than half of the students valued direct feedback for its clarity in addressing their writing issues Conversely, Truscott (1996) argued against direct grammar feedback in writing exercises, claiming it hampers student learning The effectiveness of both direct and indirect corrective feedback in L2 writing remains a topic of debate (Suh, 2014).
Students exhibit a strong desire for feedback from their teachers, preferring constructive comments over a lack of feedback They find such feedback to be essential for understanding and correcting their mistakes This aligns with Amara's (2015) findings, which indicate that EFL students highly value instructor remarks Previous studies, including those by Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990), further support the importance of teacher feedback in enhancing student learning.
Hedgecock and Lefkowitz (1994), and Leki (1991), has also demonstrated that students expect teachers to remark on their mistakes, and that failing to do so leads to frustration (Hyland & Hyland, 2006)
Timely feedback is crucial for students, as they expect prompt responses after submitting drafts to teachers However, teachers often struggle to provide this due to heavy workloads and large class sizes Immediate feedback has been shown to significantly enhance student performance, with Barbetta (1994) noting a 44% increase in accuracy compared to delayed feedback Swart (2019) emphasizes the importance of offering feedback as quickly as possible Additionally, students may feel overwhelmed when their errors are marked in red ink, a concern supported by Ferris, highlighting the need for constructive feedback methods.
(2002) He indicated that writing marked in too much red leads to de-motivation in students and can also cause cognitive overload, and eventually prevents feedback process.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary of the results
This study aims to explore the perceptions of English-major students regarding written corrective feedback from their teachers in academic writing classes To gather insights, an online questionnaire was distributed, addressing specific research questions The findings, derived from the responses, provide a comprehensive summary of the students' views on the effectiveness and impact of written feedback in enhancing their writing skills.
Students show a preference for both direct and indirect written corrective feedback, with a stronger inclination towards direct feedback This method addresses errors in grammar, vocabulary, and content directly within the writing, minimizing ambiguity for learners The study indicates that students predominantly receive direct feedback on specific forms, such as grammar and vocabulary, rather than on content ideas, as the former is easier to evaluate.
The study reveals that students generally have a positive attitude toward corrective feedback, with most participants expressing satisfaction and anticipation when receiving direct feedback from their instructors They believe that such feedback significantly improves their writing, particularly in addressing linguistic issues Additionally, students feel assessed and gain confidence to revise their work after receiving feedback However, the study also highlights some negative effects of corrective feedback on students.
The study reveals that a portion of participants feels overwhelmed by excessive feedback on their writing, particularly when it is marked extensively in red ink Additionally, students indicate that timely feedback is crucial, with many expressing a preference for receiving it as soon as possible.
In short, although corrective feedback brings many benefits to students in improving their academic writing skills, there remain some drawbacks that can affect students’ attitudes toward studying writing.
Pedagogical implications
Based on research findings, some suggestions are made to enhance the effectiveness of corrective feedback in a classroom context
Teachers should prioritize indirect corrective feedback to foster self-sufficiency and responsibility in students' learning As highlighted by Guénette (2012), without encouraging students to revise their work, instructors cannot assess whether corrections were understood, rendering the feedback ineffective Self-editing and learning from feedback are crucial for student development Additionally, to prevent students from feeling overwhelmed by excessive red ink, teachers should consider reducing feedback or using different colors Lastly, the timing of feedback is essential; while immediate feedback is ideal, teachers facing heavy workloads should aim to provide corrections within 2 to 3 days to maintain effectiveness.
Suggestions for the next studies
Despite the valuable insights provided by this research, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations Notably, the study did not incorporate other potentially relevant and engaging research methods, such as interviews or mini-tests.
Future research should involve participants completing brief writing assessments to compare their performance before and after treatment, followed by in-depth interviews Additionally, since the current study is limited to students from the Faculty of Foreign Languages at Banking Academy, its findings may not be universally applicable Future studies should include a more diverse student population to enhance the representativeness of the results Ultimately, this research aims to deepen the understanding and appreciation of written corrective feedback, thereby improving English teaching and learning at Banking Academy.
1 Adrefiza Adrefiza, Fortunasari Fortunasari (2020) Written corrective feedback on students’ thesis writing: an analysis of student-supervisory interactions Journal of English Language Teaching Innovations and Materials (JELTIM), 2(1), 14-24
2 Alvira, R (2016) The impact of oral and written feedback on EFL writers with the use of screencasts Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(2), 79-92
3 Atmaca, M., Yildirim, H., Yilmaz, S., Caglar, N., Mermi, O., Korkmaz, S., Akaslan, U., Gurok, M G., Kekilli, Y., & Turkcapar, H (2016) Orbito- Frontal
Cortex and Thalamus Volumes in the Patients with Obsessive- Compulsive Disorder before and after Cognitive Behavioral Therapy International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, E-Pub https://doi.org/10.1177/0091217415621038
4 Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U (2010) Raising the Linguistic Accuracy Level of Advanced L2 Writers with Written Corrective Feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
5 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
6 Chiachieh Tang, Yeu-Ting Liu (2017) Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation Assessing Writing
7 Dusshantini Sivaraman and Karthiyaini Devarajoo Students Perspective on
Teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback:Direct and Indirect
8 Ellis, R (2009) Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development L2 Journal, 1(1)
9 Ellis, R (2009) Task-Based Language Teaching: Sorting out the Misunderstandings International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221- 246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x
10 Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context System, 36 (3), 353-371 doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
11 Ferris, D (2003) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
12 Ferris, D (1995) Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8 (1), 41-62
13 Ferris, D (1999) The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A
Response to Truscott (1996) Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1- 11 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
14 Ferris, D (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, 49-62 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
15 Glenn, C., & Goldthwaite, M A (2014) The St Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing (7th ed.) Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s
16 Guinness, K., Detrich, R., Keyworth, R & States, J (2020) Overview of Corrective Feedback Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute
17 Hyland, F (2003) Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback
18 Hyland, F., & Hyland, K (2001) Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-202
19 Hyland, K (2003) Second Language Writing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
20 Hyland, K.& Hyland, F (2006) Feedback on Second Language students’ writing Language Teaching State of the art review article 39 (2): 83-101
21 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2019) Contexts and Issues in Feedback on L2 Writing In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 1-22)
22 Icy Lee (2019) Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more Language Teaching (2019), 1–13
23 Icy Lee (2019) Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more Language Teaching (2019), 1–13
24 James A Elwood , Jeroen Bode ( 2014) Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan System 42 (2014) 333– 343
25 John Bitchener , Ute Knoch (2010) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback Journal of Second Language Writing 19 (2010) 207–217 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
26 John Bitchener, Stuart Young, Denise Cameron (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, Volume 14, Issue 3, 191-205
27 Lee, I (2008) Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, (2), 69-
28 Mahmood, R Q (2021) Kurdish EFL Learners’ Perceptions towards Written
Corrective Feedback and Its Types: An Investigative Study Arab World English Journal, 12 (4) 103- 117
29 Maksimilianus Doi, Fransiskus M Separ, Febe F Irawati Wanggai (2021)
Grammatical Accuracy of EFL Writing Class EDUKATIF: JURNAL ILMU PENDIDIKAN
30 Nuwar Mawlawi Diab (2015) Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing 24 (2015) 16–34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
31 Race, P (2001) Using feedback to help students to learn The Higher Education
32 Razlina Razali, Rohaiza Jupri (2014) Exploring Teacher Written Feedback and
Student Revisions on ESL Students’ Writing IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science
33 S M Mujtaba, Rakesh Parkash & Maria Waris Nawaz (2020) Do Indirect
Coded Corrective Feedback and Teachers Short Affective Comments Improve the Writing Performance and Learners Uptake?, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36:1, 34-47
34 Sabarun, S (2020) Direct Teacher Corrective Feedback in EFL Writing Class at Higher Education: What Students Perceive Vision: Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning, 9(1), 18-33
35 Saidon, M , Said, N , Soh, T and Husnin, H (2018) ESL Students’ Perception of Teacher’s Written Feedback Practice in Malaysian Classrooms Creative Education, 9, 2300-2310
36 Sawsan Al-Bakri (2016) Written Corrective Feedback: Teachers’ Beliefs, Practices and Challenges in an Omani Context Arab Journal of Applied Linguisticse- ISSN 2490-4198, 1(1), 44-73
37 Sheen, Y (2007) The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners’ Acquisition of Articles TESOL Quarterly,
39 The Effect of Indirect Coded Versus Indirect Non-Coded Corrective Feedback on Improving Students’
40 Truscott, J (1996) The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes Language Learning, 46, 327-369 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
41 Wei Wei, Yiqian (Katherine) Cao (2020) Written Corrective Feedback Strategies Employed by University English Lecturers: A Teacher Cognition Perspective Educational Measurement & Assessment, Teacher Education, Educational Standards , Language Teaching
42 Yao Zheng, Shulin Yuc (2018) Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students Assessing Writing 37 (2018) 13–24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
Survey about students’ perception of teachers written corrective feedback
4 Have you finished all writing courses including Writing I, Wriing
Section 2 Frequencies of direct teacher corrective feedback in academic writing
(Direct corrective feedback is usually described as any type of explicit correction of linguistic form or structure that occurs above or near the verbal error)
On the scale from 1- Never to 5- Always, how often do you receive direct teacher corrective feedback? (Please tick on the box presenting your preference)
NO I received direct teacher written CF 1 2 3 4 5 2.1 on content
2.4 on cohesive devices/ linking devices
Section3 Frequencies of indirect teacher corrective feedback in academic writing
Indirect corrective feedback encourages students to identify and rectify their own errors by highlighting mistakes without providing explicit explanations This method involves marking errors through underlining, circling, or crossing them in the margins, prompting learners to engage in self-reflection and problem-solving.
On the scale from 1-Never to 5-Always, how often do you receive indirect teacher corrective feedback? (Please tick on the box presenting your preference)
3.1 feedback on errors that is characterized by symbols such as sp: spelling, vt: verb tenses, but without explanation
3.2 feedback on errors that is circled, underlined or crossed in the margin without explanation
3.3 feedback on errors that is coded in different colors such as red, blue, yellow but without explanation
Section 4 Students’ perception on teacher written corrective feedback (WCF)
On the scale from 1- Strongly Disagree to 6- Strongly Agree, how would you rate these statements below? (Please tick on the box presenting your preference)
4.1 I feel satisfied when I get my teacher’s feedback
4.2 I prefer to get feedback than no feedback
4.3 I think the feedback is helpful
4.4 My teacher’s remarks cheered me on while I rewrite and revise my drafts
4.5 I feel overwhelmed when I received too much feedback in one writing
4.6 I feel assessed when I get my teacher’s feedback
4.7 My teacher’s feedback increased my motivation to revise my texts
4.8 I prefer the teacher just corrects directly the error without underlining it
4.9 I feel overwhelmed when I received feedback in full red ink
4.10 I want to receive corrective feedback timely once I finished my writing