Focused Written Corrective Feedback: EFL Students’ Engagement in Online Asynchronous Platform

Sitti Nurfaidah


This study is intended to investigate the students’ engagement on teacher’s focused written corrective feedback (FWCF) on their writing in online asynchronous platform. Data gathered from students’ written drafts and reflective journal were analyzed using Ferris’ (2012) FWCF framework as well as sociocultural and activity framework in the online instructional setting. The findings of the study indicate that the students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement in online asynchronous platform with FWCF portray their learning beliefs as they are exposed to written feedback. Students engagement with online FWCF reveal that such online platform feedback helps students check their progress without time and place boundary. Such feedback also facilitates them to do self-revision because the feedback raises their awareness of their mistakes leading them into more autonomous learners. Moreover, the online platform is considered to be effective due to its mobility. Students’ only complaint is when they are encountered with limited data usage and network around campus.


Asynchronous; EFL writing; online platform; focused written corrective feedback

Full Text:



Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. Tesol Quarterly, 46(4), 855-860.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT journal, 63(3), 204-211.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L., Rosso, J., Austin, K., Orcutt, S., & Martin, D. (2001). How people learn: Introduction to learning theory. The Learning Classroom.

Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning with mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 61-70.

Ellis, N. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22-42.

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.

Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446–459. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444812000250

Ferris, D. (2015). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Connors & Lunsford (1988); Lunsford & Lunsford (2008); Lalande (1982). Language Teaching, 48(4), 531–544. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444815000257

Ferris, D., & Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research, 46(4), 855–860. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.62

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1). DOI: 10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2

Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133-142.

Hawkes, R. (2009). Digital technology as a tool for active learning in MFL: Engaging language learners in and beyond the secondary classroom. In M. J. Evans (Ed.), Foreign-language learning with digital technology, (pp. 80-103). New York: Continuum.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24(2), 31-32.

Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 205-218.

Kisnanto, Y. P. (2016). The effect of written corrective feedback on higher education students' writing accuracy. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra, 16(2), 121-131.

Lee, I. (2017). Working hard or working smart: Comprehensive versus focused written corrective feedback in L2 academic contexts. In J. Bitchener, N. Storch, & R. Wette, Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students (pp. 168-180). Routledge.

Lee, I. (2019a). Teachers’ frequently asked questions about focused written corrective feedback. TESOL Journal, 10(3), e00427.

Lee, I. (2019b). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524-536.

Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(2), 248-269.

Liskinasih, A. (2016). Corrective feedbacks interaction in CLT-adopted classrooms. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 60-69.

Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159-167. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00053.2006.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.

Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315-334.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.

Nemati, M., Alavi, S. M., & Mohebbi, H. (2019). Assessing the effect of focused direct and focused indirect written corrective feedback on explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1-18.

Nurfaidah, S. (2016). EFL preservice teachers’ reflection: A case study in an Indonesian instructional context. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Nurfaidah, S., Lengkanawati, N. S., & Sukyadi, D. (2017). Levels of reflection in EFL preservice teachers’ teaching journal. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 80-92.

Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A beginner's guide to e-learning and e-teaching in higher education. Mount Lawley, Australia: Centre for Research in Information Technology and Communications, Edith Cowan University.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction-what can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning? European Psychologist, 10(3), 199-208.

Saukah, A., Dewanti, D. M. I., & Laksmi, E. D. (2017). The effect of coded and non-coded correction feedback on the quality of Indonesian EFL students’ writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 247-252.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. Consciousness in second language learning, 11, 237-326.

Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262-277.

Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross‐cultural study of teacher perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collaborative learning in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 147-165.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Sitti Nurfaidah

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




View My Stats