Perceptions and Preferences of Malaysian Secondary Students on Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback
Keywords: education, primary concept, students
Abstract
Even after years of studying the language, second language (L2) learners continue to make frequent grammatical mistakes in their writing, regardless of their proficiency level. Teachers help them reduce these writing mistakes through several strategies, one of which is written corrective feedback (WCF). This study explored the types of WCF employed by English teachers and examined students’ perceptions and preferences regarding such feedback. The research, which involved 68 upper-secondary students, was conducted at a rural school in Sabah, Malaysia and adopted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Data were collected through content analysis of 33 student essays, a questionnaire comprising Likert-scale and open-ended items, and semi-structured interviews with three students. Findings revealed that teachers primarily used Direct WCF, while Indirect ones were applied less frequently, and Metalinguistic feedback was not used at all. Overall, students found WCF to be clear and helpful, particularly in addressing grammar and verb tense issues, though some expressed uncertainty about its impact on their long-term writing development. The majority preferred Direct WCF for its clarity, immediacy, and effectiveness in reducing repeated errors, as supported by thematic analysis of interview data, which revealed students’ preference for straightforward corrections that enhance comprehension and retention. These results suggest that aligning WCF practices with learners’ preferences can strengthen engagement and writing performance. The study contributes valuable insights for ESL educators seeking to optimise WCF strategies in secondary education settings, particularly in underrepresented regionsEven after years of studying the language, second language (L2) learners continue to make frequent grammatical mistakes in their writing, regardless of their proficiency level. Teachers help them reduce these writing mistakes through several strategies, one of which is written corrective feedback (WCF). This study explored the types of WCF employed by English teachers and examined students’ perceptions and preferences regarding such feedback. The research, which involved 68 upper-secondary students, was conducted at a rural school in Sabah, Malaysia and adopted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Data were collected through content analysis of 33 student essays, a questionnaire comprising Likert-scale and open-ended items, and semi-structured interviews with three students. Findings revealed that teachers primarily used Direct WCF, while Indirect ones were applied less frequently, and Metalinguistic feedback was not used at all. Overall, students found WCF to be clear and helpful, particularly in addressing grammar and verb tense issues, though some expressed uncertainty about its impact on their long-term writing development. The majority preferred Direct WCF for its clarity, immediacy, and effectiveness in reducing repeated errors, as supported by thematic analysis of interview data, which revealed students’ preference for straightforward corrections that enhance comprehension and retention. These results suggest that aligning WCF practices with learners’ preferences can strengthen engagement and writing performance. The study contributes valuable insights for ESL educators seeking to optimise WCF strategies in secondary education settings, particularly in underrepresented regions
Downloads
References
Aridah, A., Atmowardoyo, H., & Salija, K. (2017). Teacher practices and students’ preferences for written corrective feedback and their implications on writing instruction. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(1), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n1p112
Dinda Suci Al Aluf. (2024). Written corrective feedback: Senior high school students’ perceptions and preferences. Jurnal Education and Development, 12(1), 250–257.
Ganapathy, M., Ai, D. L. T., & Phan, J. (2020a). Impact of written corrective feedback on
Malaysian ESL secondary students’ writing performance. 3L the Southeast Asian
Journal of English Language Studies, 26(3), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.17576/3l2020-2603-11
Ganapathy, M., Ai, D. L. T., & Phan, J. (2020b). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ written corrective feedback in the Malaysian ESL classroom. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 103–136.
Kamilia, A., Rahmani, B., & Siswana, S. (2020). Effectiveness of teachers’ indirect feedback for students’ writing performance on descriptive text. ELLTER Journal, 1(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.22236/ellter-j.v1i1.4915
Kayatri Vasu, Chai. H. L., & Vahid Nimehchisalem. (2016). Malaysian tertiary level ESL students’ perceptions toward teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-assessment in their writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(5), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.158
Lall, D. (2021). Mixed-Methods research. Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing Education, 22(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcn.ijcn_107_21
Maniam, T., & Parilah Mohd Shah. (2021). Students’ perception and preferences on teachers’ written feedback in ESL writing. International Journal of New Technology and Research, 6(12), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.31871/ijntr.6.12.19
Mimi Estonella Mastan, & Nooreiny Maarof. (2014). ESL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and strategy use in expository writing. Procedia - Social & Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2360–
2363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.573
Mohd Azim Saidon, Nur Ehsan Mohd Said, Tuan Mastura Tuan Soh, & Hazrati Husnin. (2018). ESL students’ perception of teacher’s written feedback practice in Malaysian classrooms. Creative Education, 9, 2300–2310. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.914170
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative, 2, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
Noradzlina Adzhar, & Nurhasmiza Abu Hasan Sazalli. (2024). Written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom: A systematic analysis of teachers’ beliefs, students’ perceptions, and preferences. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(1), 1263–1289. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v13-i1/20719
Plaindaren, C., & Parilah Mohd Shah. (2019). A study on the effectiveness of written feedback in writing tasks among upper secondary school pupils. Creative Education, 10(13), 3491–3508. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.1013269
Sabariah Abd Rahim, & Paramaswari Jaganathan. (2022). Languaging, corrective feedback, and writing accuracy among low proficiency L2 learners. Journal of Research and Innovation in Language, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.v4i1.7420
Sabariah Abd Rahim, Anna Lynn Abu Bakar, & Wan Hurani Osman. (2023). L2 learners’ preferences and opinions of teachers’ written corrective feedback in L2 writing multicultural class. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(4), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v8i4.2252
Sabariah Abd Rahim, Paramaswari Jaganathan, & Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi. (2019). Students’ experiences in L2 writing and their opinion on written corrective feedback. International Journal of Language, Literacy and Translation, 2(1), 68–76.
Sanchez, H. S. (2024). Teacher-written feedback in L2 writing education: Insights into student tensions and responses. Feedback Research in Second Language, 2, 58–80. https://doi.org/10.32038/frsl.2024.02.04
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Wan Hurani Osman. (2019). Written feedback in an English language writing class. AJELP:
Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajelp.vol7.1.1.2019
Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus. (2020). Written corrective feedback in English compositions: Teachers’ practices and students’ expectations. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2255
Copyright (c) 2026 Wirawati Ngui, Anne Anthonia Federick
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
