Students’ Cognitive Attitude toward the Use of Direct Written Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing

Nur Sailah, Abdul Halim



The purpose of this research was to analyse and investigate students’ cognitive attitude toward the use of direct written corrective feedback in L2 Writing. The participants of this study consist of 17 students from Senior High School in MAN 1 Konsel at X Agama who were selected based on their participated in the classroom in the learning process. The students were done to follow the learning process used direct written corrective feedback method from the researcher. The qualitative data were analyzed byobservation form video recorded and reflection from the students. The results of the research indicated that direct written corrective feedback led the students have positive attitude. The students felt happy, motivated, and perceive that this method is useful to apply in L2 Writing. Regardless of positivity, there were some students that showed negative cognition after applied direct written corrective feedback that given by teacher. This study implies that, the use ofdirect written corrective feedback that was given is really helped crossing out the students’ errors in spelling and writing the correct form near the errors in order to assist them to acquire correct English direct corrective feedback is the way the teacher provides the student with the correct form of the student’s mistake in writing.      

Full Text:



Ajzeen, I. (1989). Ajzen (1989)- Attitude structure and behavior.1989.pdf (pp. 241–274).

Ajzen, I. (2014). Attitude theory and the attitude-behavior relation .January 1993.

Arifin, M., Zaim, M., & Ningsih, K. (2019). The Effect of Direct Corrective Feedback on Students’ Writing of Recount Text. 301(Icla 2018), 292–297.

Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation : what can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us ?29, 371–383.

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

Browne, J. R. (2013). Chapter Iii. Etchings of a Whaling Cruise, 1, 20–33.

Campbell, J., Smith, D., Boulton-lewis, G., Brownlee, J., Burnett, P. C., & Carrington, S. (2001). Students ’ Perceptions of Teaching and Learning : the influence of students ’ approaches to learning and teachers ’ approaches to teaching.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1–17.

Chuo, T.-W. (2007). The Effects of the WebQuest Writing Instruction Program on EFL Learners’ Writing Performance, Writing Apprehension, and Perception. Tesl-Ej, 11(3), 1–27.

Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 61–84.

Daneshvar, E., & Rahimi, A. (2014). Written Corrective Feedback and Teaching Grammar. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 217–221.

Elam, J. R. (n.d.). Indirect and Direct Feedback in L2 Composition : Using Corrective Feedback ( CF ) in Japanese EFL. 71–78.

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2012). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers §. Journal of Second Language Writing.

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Languag Teaching. 394–409.

Hyland, T. (2006). Vocational education and training and the therapeutic turn. Educational Studies, 32(3), 299–306.

Jabulani, S. (2018). Efficacy of written corrective feedback on university students’ writing. Journal of Social Sciences, 45(2), 84–95.

Jodaie, M., Farrokhi, F., & Zoghi, M. (2011). A Comparative Study of EFL Teachers’ and Intermediate High School Students’ Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Errors. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 36–48.


Kisnanto, Y. P. (2016). the Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Higher Education Students’ Writing Accuracy. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra, 16(2), 121.

Kwon, J., & Vogt, C. A. (2010). Identifying the role of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components in understanding residents’ attitudes toward place marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 423–435.

Mawlawi Diab, N. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34.

Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a Qualitative Study. 214–253.

Morra, A. M., & Asís, M. I. (2009). The Effect of Audio and Written Teacher Responses on EFL Student Revision. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 68–81.

Mubarak, Z. H., Batam, U. P., Susanto, A., & Batam, U. P. (2018). the Influence of Direct Written Corrective Feedback Toward Efl Students ’ Essay Writing. 4(2), 121–130.

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.

Nicolás–Conesa, F., Manchón, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Rewritten Texts and New Texts: Looking into Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848–873.

Ramli, D. (2013). An Analysis on Students’ Errors in Writing Recount Text. Journal of Education & Social Sciences, 1, 32.

Rezaei, S. (2011). Corrective feedback in task-based grammar instruction grammar instruction: A case of recast vs. metalinguistic feedback. Book.

Shang, H. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–13.

Shintani, N., Bag, P., Street, S., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The Effectiveness of Synchronous and Asynchronous Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy in a Computer-Mediated Environment.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013a). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013b). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners ’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306.



  • There are currently no refbacks.