Online Corrective Feedback: A Study on University Students’ Expectations and Preferences in the Malaysian ESL Classroom

Online Corrective Feedback: A Study on University Students’ Expectations and Preferences in the Malaysian ESL Classroom

Wan Faizatul Azirah Ismayatim¹, *Khairunnisa Mohd Daud², Hawa Syamsina Md Supie³

^1,2Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam

³Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Johor Kampus Pasir Gudamg

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0576

Received: 19 September 2025; Accepted: 24 September 2025; Published: 23 October 2025

ABSTRACT

The role of a teacher in giving feedback to students’ works or assessments is always crucial to help students to improve. Studies on the use of different approaches in giving feedback and how students feel about it indicate a mismatch between what students are looking for and what teachers think they are giving (Chalmers et al., 2017; Lindsey, 2012). With the adoption of open and distance learning (ODL) in Malaysian public universities, understanding students’ feedback preferences has become increasingly important.  This study investigates the types and modes of corrective feedback that students prefer when preparing speech outlines for oral presentation assignments. A questionnaire was distributed to four different groups of students enrolled in the English for Oral presentation course from the Faculty of Dentistry and Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying at a Malaysian public university. A number of 120 students responded to the questionnaire and the results of the survey revealed that the majority of the students preferred the combinations of written, oral and classroom discussions feedback when receiving comments about their work. This study also found that students preferred to receive the lecturers’ feedback via asynchronous online platforms such as Google Classroom, Edmodo and WhatsApp or Telegram chat. These results highlight the need for lecturers to adopt a blended feedback approach that aligns with students’ expectations and digital learning practices.

Keywords: Online feedback, written corrective feedback, oral corrective feedback, open and distance learning, student preferences

INTRODUCTION

In the ESL classroom, online learning has become an increasingly common mode of instruction. Alongside the shift, the way teachers provide corrective feedback has also evolved. Corrective feedback plays an important role in language learning as it helps students notice and address their mistakes, thus improving their proficiency. However, limited research has examined the challenges students face in obtaining feedback on their tasks, as well as whether the feedback they receive in online classes aligns with their expectations. This study thus seeks to analyse the students’ expectations and preferences when receiving online feedback about their speech outline in an English for oral presentation course. In this course, the students, who are also second language learners of English, were required to prepare an outline of their informative speech prior to their actual informative speech presentation. The main objective of this study is to identify the students’ preferred mode of receiving online corrective feedback from their lecturers and what kind of feedback they expect to be received about their speech outline. The following are the research questions intended to be answered by this study:

1. What online platforms do the students prefer when submitting their speech outline and when receiving feedback about their speech outline?
2. What are the types of online corrective feedback preferred by the students when receiving feedback about their speech outline?
3. What are the different types of errors that the students expect lecturers to highlight when marking their speech outline?
4. What are the specific aspects of feedback that the students expected the lecturers to provide when commenting on the students’ speech outline?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Perspectives on Teachers’ corrective feedback

Corrective feedback (CF) can be categorised in various ways, depending on its purpose and the degree of explicitness. In practice, CF is often applied selectively, as it is not feasible to address every error due to time constraints and instructional priorities. Feedback may also come from different sources, including the teacher, the learner who produced the error, or peers. Studies have further shown that the success or failure of teacher feedback depends on multiple factors, such as classroom size, learners’ proficiency, instructional orientation (product- or process-based), and the type of writing task involved.

Across different contexts, teachers tend to value similar aspects of feedback. For instance, Chinese L2 teachers, much like their counterparts elsewhere, regard CF (Ferris, 1997; Lee, 2005) as most effective when students notice it. They also recognise the benefits of combining strategies with scaffolding, while acknowledging that the type of feedback, the nature of the error, the timing of delivery, and the identity of the feedback provider can all influence how CF is given (Chen & Liu, 2021). Similarly, Saragih et al. (2023) found that teachers mainly provided feedback to help students organise their ideas more logically, with a strong emphasis on correcting inaccurate content. Suggestions were the most common form of feedback offered, and most teachers rated their own practices as excellent, reflecting their confidence in providing CF.

At the same time, research has pointed out tensions between teachers’ and students’ views. The study initially revealed that participants held positive views about CF’s role in supporting student learning, and also showed that with adequate training, teachers’ beliefs about CF can be reshaped (Ha & Murray, 2021). However, Nguyen and Chu (2024) synthesised that the gap between teachers’ and students’ perceptions largely stems from teachers’ assumptions about what constitutes best practice in written corrective feedback (WCF), which may not always align with students’ actual needs. They emphasise that teachers should remain mindful of this mismatch and take it into consideration.

Types of online corrective feedback

Corrective feedback is a core element of teaching and learning, particularly within many second language (L2) classrooms (Van Ha & Murray, 2021; Lyster et al., 2013). Teacher feedback is considered the largest investment of time and energy, eclipsing even the amount of time spent preparing and conducting lessons (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005). Given its central role, understanding the different forms and delivery modes of feedback is crucial for effective language instruction.

In terms of form, direct feedback refers to the teacher explicitly indicating errors and providing the correct form (Aseeri, 2019). In contrast, indirect feedback highlights the presence of an error without giving the exact correction, encouraging learners to identify and revise their mistakes on their own (Agbayani, 2022, as cited in Delloro, 2024). To ensure that the quality of feedback boosts writing competence and improves students’ confidence, online ESL instructors are encouraged to provide personalised feedback that meets individual learners’ needs. This balance of constructive criticism with encouraging words helps target areas for improvement while also motivating students (Delloro, 2024).

Research also shows that learners value corrective feedback in oral form. Alkhammash and Gulnaz (2019) reported that students showed a clear preference for oral corrective feedback techniques. Similarly, Anugrah et al. (2024) highlighted the pivotal role of teachers in providing oral feedback to support improvements in pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and question formation. Aljabri (2024) discovered that immediate feedback was more effective than delayed feedback at improving long-term retention of prose passages among Saudi EFL students, particularly after intervals of one week and one month.

Direct and indirect feedback

Corrective feedback in L2 learning can be delivered in various ways, most commonly as recasts, explicit corrections, direct feedback, or indirect feedback. Anugrah et al. (2024) explained that recast feedback provides learners with the correct form of words or phrases without directly identifying them as errors. In contrast, explicit correction feedback clearly points out mistakes and supplies corrections or suggestions. Unlike implicit or indirect feedback, which relies on hints or prompts, explicit feedback directly highlights the error.

Within this spectrum, direct corrective feedback has received particular attention. Direct corrective feedback occurs when teachers explicitly identify learners’ errors and immediately provide the correct form (Liang et al., 2023). They also found in their study that both immediate and delayed direct corrective feedback enhanced learners’ engagement; however, immediate feedback proved more effective, leading to greater improvements within a shorter period of time. Teachers themselves have also recognized the value of such approaches.

In Shinta’s (2023) study, teachers expressed that they valued both direct and indirect corrective feedback, especially when it clearly pointed out where the mistake occurred and what kind of error it was. Interestingly, direct feedback stood out as the approach that most teachers preferred, as it gave learners more immediate clarity and direction for improvement. Similarly, Nguyen and Chu (2024) pointed out that, when comparing different types of written corrective feedback (WCF), teachers generally leaned more towards direct WCF. This preference was stronger than for other approaches, such as indirect WCF or metalinguistic explanation (Kara & Abdulrahman, 2022; Rashtchi & Bakar, 2019).

The effectiveness of these preferences is further supported by Rasool et al. (2024), who found that groups receiving written corrective feedback (WCF) showed greater improvement compared to those given only indirect WCF. They also reported that participants’ writing tasks showed steady improvement after the pretest and treatment sessions. The strongest progress was seen in the group receiving metalinguistic explanation, followed by those given direct feedback and lastly indirect feedback. Learners benefited most when their errors were both explained and corrected, which helped them refine their writing skills more effectively.

Oral and written feedback

Research shows that learners value corrective feedback in oral form, yet its effectiveness depends on context. For instance, Alkhammash and Gulnaz (2019) reported students’ clear preference for oral corrective feedback (OCF), while Anugrah et al. (2024) emphasised the crucial role of teachers in using OCF to develop pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and question formation. Duklim (2023) further confirmed its importance, especially for tertiary learners, and Yoke (2023) noted that students found OCF particularly useful for language development alongside written feedback. However, as Anugrah et al. (2024) observed, online OCF is often hampered by technical issues such as poor internet access, showing that while learners appreciate oral feedback, its delivery is vulnerable to external constraints.

At the same time, students also express strong preferences for written feedback, especially when it is personalised. Aydawati (2025) found that learners favoured written, individualised comments over oral or class-based feedback, as detailed and tailored feedback was seen as essential for academic progress. Students valued the permanence of written feedback, which allowed them to revisit comments and reflect at their own pace, unlike oral feedback that could be easily forgotten. These findings align with Mao et al. (2024), who defined WCF as markings, symbols, or comments that correct language errors and improve writing quality, and with Wang et al. (2023), who highlighted its role in helping learners notice knowledge gaps, increase accuracy, and set learning goals. Online WCF appears particularly powerful, as Alam et al. (2025) showed it promotes self-regulation, autonomy, and sustained improvement across different proficiency levels, reinforcing the view that written feedback provides both cognitive and motivational benefits.

Despite these advantages, critiques highlight that WCF is not without limitations. Barnes (2023) argued that WCF, especially for grammar correction, often fails to improve accuracy and may even waste teachers’ time if students do not engage with it. Similarly, Lee (2023) cautioned against framing WCF purely in terms of “correctness,” as this risks reducing writing to right or wrong answers and conflating language with error. Instead, he suggested that errors should be treated as only one component of feedback, addressed selectively and used to support learning rather than as the primary focus. Together, these perspectives suggest that while WCF is widely valued, its effectiveness depends on both the way it is delivered and the extent to which learners actually engage with it.

METHODOLOGY

The participants in the study were combinations of first- and second-year students enrolled in the English language for oral presentation class in a public university in Malaysia. Of the 120 students, 70 were from the Faculty of Dentistry and 50 were from the Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying. 50 of the students were female and 20 were male and they aged between 18 – 23 years old. These students had the experience attending ODL class in the previous semester and the current semester is their second experience with ODL.

The sample size was determined using the Raosoft sample size calculator  (http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html). The target population is approximately 90,000 students at UiTM Main Campus, Shah Alam (Chandra Bose, 2019). With a 95% confidence level and an 8% margin of error, the ideal sample size for this study is 150. The actual sample collected for this study wad 120, slightly below the ideal size but within commonly accepted margins of error for survey research, as a margin of error between 4% and 8% at the 95% confidence level is often considered acceptable (DataStar, 2008).

Data were collected through a questionnaire adapted from Hamouda (2011), which has been widely used in earlier written corrective feedback (WCF) studies (e.g., Ferris, 1995), supporting its validity and comparability with prior research. The instrument consisted of 17 questions divided into five sections. Section one elicited demographic information such as faculty, age, and gender. Section two asked students to identify their preferred online platforms for submitting outlines and receiving lecturer feedback (e.g., email, Google Classroom, Facebook). Section three focused on students’ preferred modes of feedback including oral, written, or classroom discussion. While section four explored the specific aspects of their speech outlines on which they expected comments. Section five investigated the challenges students faced when receiving feedback via online platforms.

The questionnaire included multiple-choice and Likert-scale items to collect quantitative data, while open-ended questions provided qualitative insights. The aim was not to establish a “correct” feedback strategy, as past research has shown no universal recipe for effective corrective feedback, but rather to better understand students’ expectations and preferences. Such insights are intended to inform pedagogical practices, particularly within the context of online learning.

FINDINGS

RQ1: What online platforms do the students prefer when submitting their speech outline and when receiving feedback about their speech outline?

Platform for Submission:

Figure 1 shows students’ preferences of online platforms when writing their speech outline to be submitted to their lecturer. Writing using Word Document was the most popular platform with 72% of the students choosing the platform. This was followed by Google Classroom and Edmodo, with 62% and 43% students choosing this platform respectively, as their preferences when writing their speech outline during ODL. However, only 12% of the students preferred to write their speech outline using the email platform.

Figure 1: Students’ Preferred Online Platforms When Writing Their Speech Outline

Platform for Receiving Feedback:

Figure 2 shows students’ preferred types of online platforms when receiving feedback about their speech outlines from their lecturers. The most preferred platforms were WhatsApp/Telegram Chat, Google Classroom and Edmodo with 64%, 57% and 40% of students preferred the lecturers to use these platforms respectively when giving feedback about their work. A fewer percentage of students preferred to use WhatsApp/Telegram voice notes (31%), video call/video conference (24%) and Email (21%).

Figure 2: Students’ Preferred Types of Online Platforms When Receiving Feedback about Their Speech Outline

RQ 2: What are the types of online corrective feedback preferred by the students when receiving the feedback about their speech outline?

Figure 3 shows students’ preferences when receiving the corrective feedback from the lecturers regarding their work. More than half (55%) of the students would like to receive the oral, written and also online class discussion feedback when receiving the comments about their work. 22% of the students however preferred both written and online class discussion feedback while 15% preferred to receive oral and written corrective feedback to their writing assignment. Only a small percentage of students preferred oral written feedback only (4%), oral feedback only (2%) and online class discussion (2%) when receiving the lecturers’ comments and feedback regarding their writing.

Figure 3:  Students’ Preferred Type of Online Corrective Feedback/ Types of Online Corrective Feedback Preferred by Students

RQ 3: What are the different types of errors that the students Expect lecturers to highlight when marking their speech outline?

The following Table 1 shows the different types of errors that participants expect lecturers to highlight when marking their work. Most of the students (65.2%) expected the lecturers to highlight all the errors made by them in their writing. Some of the students (10%) also expected the lecturers to highlight most of their errors, and 16.3 % of the students expected the lecturers to highlight all their major errors. This is already an indicator that many students are depending on lecturers to identify and point out the errors for them. The result also shows that, only a small percentage of the students (7.8%) expected the lecturer to highlight only the specific errors found in their writing.

Table I The Different Types of Errors that Participants Expect Lecturers to Highlight When Marking Their Work

Table 2 shows errors students expect lecturers to highlight if there were many errors in their writing. Most of the students expected the lecturers to highlight all errors even if there were many errors in their writing. A significant percentage of students however expected the lecturers to highlight only serious errors (21.3%) and errors affecting understanding (25.5%) when there were many errors in their writing. A very small percentage (4.3%) of the students expected lecturers to highlight all repeated errors when many errors were found in their writing.

Table 2 Errors Students Expect Lecturers to Highlight If There Were Many Errors in Their Speech Outline

RQ 4: What are the specific aspects of feedback that the students expected the lecturers to provide when commenting on the students’ speech outline?

Table 3 shows participants’ expectations of what lecturers should do when giving online written corrective feedback. Majority of the students agreed that lecturers should cross out the errors and provide the appropriate words in the feedback (58.87%, mean=3.31), use a correction code (68.96%, mean=3.09) and write questions to ask for clarifications about the errors they made (67.38%, mean =3.10). However, the mean score for ‘underline the errors and write comments at the end of the essay’ (mean=3.45) is significantly higher than the mean score of the other approaches, in which 47.52 % of the students strongly agreed, and 50.35% of the students agreed that lecturers should underline the errors and write comments at the end of the students’ writing.

Table 3 Participants’ Expectations to What Lecturers Should Do When Giving Online Written Corrective Feedback

Table 4 shows participants’ expectations of what lecturers should do when giving online oral corrective feedback. When giving online corrective feedback, ‘give me suggestions how to improve my outline’ and ‘tell me errors that I made’ recorded a high mean score with 3.68 and 3.48 respectively. A majority (69.50%) of the students strongly agreed that the lecturers should give suggestions on how to improve their outline, while more than half (50.35%) of the students strongly agreed that the lecturers should tell the students the errors that they have made in their writing. The mean score for ‘ask me questions related to the errors I made’ recorded the lowest mean score with 3.16, where only 27.66% of the students agreed that lecturers should ask questions related to the errors that they made when giving online oral corrective feedback to the students.

Table 4 Participants’ Expectations to What Lecturers Should Do When Giving Online Oral Corrective Feedback

DISCUSSION

The first research objective was to determine the online platforms that the students preferred to use when submitting their speech outline and also the online platform that the students preferred when receiving feedback about their speech outline from the lecturers.  When submitting their work online, the result showed that most of the students preferred to use Word documents and the majority of them also preferred the use of free educational platforms such as Edmodo and Google Classroom to submit their work. Padlet and Email which provide fewer interactive features as compared to Google Classroom and Edmodo were less preferred by the students with a low percentage of them choosing these platforms to submit their work. When receiving the feedback from the lecturers, the result showed that most students preferred the lecturers to use WhatsApp/Telegram chat as the platform in giving the feedback. This can be seen that the students preferred platforms that allow two-way communications between the students and the lecturers. The result also revealed that students not only preferred to submit their work through Google Classroom and Edmodo but these two platforms were also preferred by the students when receiving feedback about their work from the lecturers. Platforms that provide the opportunity for oral corrective feedback were seen as less favoured by the students when a lower percentage of them preferred to use platforms such as WhatsApp/Telegram voice notes and video call/video conference. Thus, from these findings, it can be concluded that students preferred to receive the written corrective feedback from the lecturers more than the oral corrective feedback.

The second research objective was to examine the types of online corrective feedback preferred by the students when receiving the feedback about their speech outline. The results showed that the students preferred the combinations of oral, written and online discussion modes when receiving feedback about their work. This showed that students believe that they can improve their work through the oral and written comments given by the lecturers, as well as through class discussion with the lecturer and friends during an online class. The students believed that they could also learn how to improve their work through learning from others’ work. This was also proven when fewer students preferred online and written corrective feedback only mode when receiving feedback from their lecturers. In addition, based on the findings, only a few students preferred to receive their feedback through oral mode and written mode only from their lecturers and thus concluded that students are very much dependent on their lecturers’ help in order to improve their learning.

The third research objective was to find out what are the different types of errors that the students expected the lecturers to highlight when marking their speech outline. The results found that most students wanted the lecturers to mark all errors as compared to marking most errors, all major errors, only specific errors and no marking of errors. This indicates that students are of the view that feedback given on all errors is crucial to help them to increase their understanding of the task, and helps them to improve and learn better. Likewise, the results also found that most students wanted the lecturers to mark all errors that they made even when there were too many errors found in their outline as opposed to only serious errors, errors affecting understanding and all repeated errors. This again proved that students attempted to be better and correct their errors through the lecturer’s marking. It seems that students are very much depending on the lecturers to help them to improve and learn better about the task given to them.

The last research objective was to identify the students’ expectations on what the lecturers should do when giving online oral and written corrective feedback. When giving written corrective feedback via online platforms, the findings of this study revealed that the majority of the students wanted the lecturers to underline the errors and write comments at the end of the students’ writing and wanted their lecturers to cross out the errors and give the appropriate words to replace the wrong words used. These two approaches received the highest mean score (mean>3.30) from the survey conducted. The findings also showed that the students also wanted the lecturers to use a correction code (mean=3.09) and write questions to ask for clarifications about the errors they made (mean=3.10) when these two approaches recorded a slightly lower mean score as compared to the former two approaches from the survey answered by the students. Meanwhile, when giving oral corrective feedback via online platforms, the findings showed that the students wanted the lecturers to give them suggestions on how to improve their outline and tell them the errors that they made. These two approaches received a high mean score (mean>3.4). In addition, the students also wanted the lecturers to ask them questions related to the errors that they made, and this approach received a slightly lower mean score (mean=3.16) than the former two approaches. Based on the findings, it was found that similar to receiving online written corrective feedback, students also preferred the lecturers to point out their errors when giving the online oral corrective feedback: the students wanted the lecturers to cross out errors and underline errors when giving written corrective feedback; the students wanted the lecturers to tell them their errors and give suggestions on how to improve their outline. This study also found that lecturers asking questions to ask for clarifications about the errors made was less preferred by the students in both online written and oral corrective feedback. This shows that students are very much dependent on the lecturers to help them to learn, improve and become better in the task given to them.

CONCLUSION

The main findings highlight that many students preferred the explicit form or Direct CF when receiving feedback from the lecturers. They wanted the lecturers to mark their errors and at the same time provide to them the correct linguistic form or structure to the errors made. Only a few students preferred the lecturers to mark only significant errors and allow the lecturers to provide the implicit form or indirect CF to their work. This group of students are independent learners and allow the lecturers to point out the errors without providing correction and leaving it up to the students to make the correction (Ellis, 2009). This phenomenon in the Malaysian ESL classroom reveals that students are too dependent on their lecturers and thus become very passive if these kinds of expectations are to be fulfilled in an ESL classroom. According to Ganapathy et al. (2020), direct feedback elicits passive learning among students and they become too reliant on teachers for improvement and find it difficult to progress and correct their own errors later.

Nonetheless, to facilitate students’ learning, it is important for the lecturers to fulfil the students’ wants and needs as the effectiveness of CF is very much dependent on students’ preferences. In this study, the students believed that giving online direct feedback will help them to improve better as compared to indirect CF. Thus, it is important for the lecturers to be aware of the students’ needs to avoid frustrations and to motivate them to learn especially during the current pandemic situation as remote learning is very challenging when face-to-face between lecturers and friends is almost non-existence. Although some research findings have proven that giving direct feedback does not work well to help students to improve their writing, some other studies found that direct feedback helps students to improve their work.

Therefore, it is recommended that the lecturers become more aware of the students’ needs and they are responsible for delivering the best form of CF to the students, especially to ESL learners since students are struggling more in writing in comparison to other language skills such as reading, listening and speaking). This is important to reduce the gap between what the students are looking for with what the lecturers are giving, and thus increase the students’ involvement and participation which finally helps to motivate them to learn and improve. This study is significant to tertiary education institutions by presenting the many types and approaches forms of CF preferred by students, to be employed in their classroom during online and distance learning. This study also recommends future research on the effectiveness of online direct and indirect feedback on students’ performance as online and distance learning during the pandemic could last longer than what we expected.  It is important to understand not only the students’ expectations and preferences when receiving the CF, but also the effectiveness of the online CF given.

REFERENCES

1. Alam, M. R., Sulaiman, M., Bhuiyan, M. M. R., Islam, M. S., Imam, M. H., Hossen, M. S., & Milon, M. R. K. (2025). Online Corrective Feedback and Self-Regulated Writing: Exploring Student Perceptions and Challenges in Higher Education. World Journal of English Language, 15(6), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n6p139
2. Aljabri, S. (2024). Timing of feedback and retrieval practice: A laboratory study with EFL students. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 1458. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03983-6
3. Alkhammash, R., & Gulnaz, F. (2019). Oral corrective feedback techniques: An investigation of the EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices at Taif university. Arab World English Journal, 10(2), 40-54. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no2.4
4. Anugrah, Y., Friatin, L. Y., & Sugiarto, B. R. (2024). Teacher oral corrective feedback in video conference applications for online learning. Jurnal Wahana Pendidikan. https://doi.org/10.25157/jwp.v11i2.15126
5. Aydawati, E. N. (2025). Exploring Students’ Perspectives on Teacher’s Feedback. IJELT: Indonesian Journal of Education, Language, and Technology, 1(1), 20-27.Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Barnes, A. (2023). Online teacher written corrective feedback outside of class time: (In)effectiveness and task engagement. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning. https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v5n2.911
7. Chalmers, C., Mowat, E., Chapman, M. (2017). Marking and providing feedback face-to-face: Staff and student perspectives. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 35-45.
8. Chandra Bose, A. (2019). Personality figure as potential tourism product: A case study in a public university in Malaysia. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 6(3), 157–169.
9. Chen, ,   &   Liu,   G.   Q.   (2021).   Effectiveness   of   Corrective   Feedback:Teachers’ Perspectives. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research,9(1), 23-42. https://10.30466/ijltr.2021.120974
10. DataStar, Inc. (2008, October). What every researcher should know about statistical significance. StarTips: A Resource for Survey Researchers
11. Delloro, H. J. (2024). Written corrective feedback in online ESL academies. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2024.0546
12. Duklim, B. (2023). Students’ preferences regarding the techniques of oral corrective feedback in a tertiary institution. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.1.22
13. Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple Draft Composition Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly. 29(1), 33-53.
14. Ganapathy, M., Tan, D. A. L., & Phan, J. (2020). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ written corrective feedback in the Malaysian ESL classroom. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 103-136.
15. Hamouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in the Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p128
16. Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84
17. Lee, I. (2023). Problematising written corrective feedback: A Global Englishes perspective. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amad038
18. Lindsey A. Maggs. (2012.) A case study of staff and student satisfaction with assessment feedback at a small specialised higher education institution. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2012.699512
19. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1-40. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365
20. Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444823000393
21. Nguyen, H. M., & Chu, T. A. (2024). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing: A Review of Research. rEFLections, 31(2), 858–870.
22. Rahmawati, E. (2023). The urgency of oral corrective feedback in English language teaching: Students and teachers’ perception. Jadila: Journal of Development and Innovation in Language and Literature Education. https://doi.org/10.52690/jadila.v3i2.395
23. Rasool, U., Abbasi, B., Gao, M., Wang, H., & Hossain, A. (2024). Assessing the impact of written corrective feedback strategies on the writing proficiency of senior high school students. International Journal of Education & Well-Being. https://doi.org/10.62416/ijwb-18
24. Saragih, E., Zein, T. T., & Sumbayak, D. (2023). Contextualizing corrective feedback in scientific writing through online learning platforms. Studies in English Language and Education. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i3.25867
25. Shinta, D. K. (2023). The implementation of implicit corrective feedback through recordings towards EFL students in listening and speaking English class: Case study. International Review of Humanities Studies, 7(1), Article 9. Retrieved from https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/irhs/vol7/iss1/9
26. Yoke, S. K. (2023). The Significance of Online Verbal and Written Corrective Feedback in ESL Report Writing among Tertiary Students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 20(1).
27. Van Ha, X., & Murray, J. C. (2021). The impact of a professional development program on EFL teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. System, 96, 102405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102405