Exploring Effective Written Feedback Strategies in Business Writing Education: Teachers’ Approaches and Students’ Views
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v7i3.23923Keywords:
Written feedback, perception, business writing, education.Abstract
The importance of business correspondence mastery for students in business schools is critical, as it differs significantly from academic writing in humanities programs. Its primary aim is to prepare students for professional success and service excellence in their future careers. This study explores the subtleties of written corrective feedback in business writing courses. It examines the types and techniques used by lecturers and analyzes students' perceptions of this feedback. Employing a mixed-methods research design, the study combines observational and qualitative data through document analysis, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. It involves lecturers and 65 students from a business writing course, with a specific focus on analyzing 64 student assignments for lecturers' feedback practices. The results indicate a preference for indirect feedback, primarily addressing grammatical errors through techniques like circling, underlining, and highlighting, complemented by direct comments and questions. Most students viewed this feedback positively, noting its benefit in improving grammatical skills, though some preferred more direct feedback on content and structure. These findings underscore the need for diverse feedback methods in business writing education to accommodate varied student needs and enhance engagement and learning outcomes. The study emphasizes the significance of customized feedback strategies in the effectiveness of teaching and learning in business writing courses.Top of Form
References
Alamis, M. M. P. (2010). Evaluating Students’ Reactions and Responses to Teachers’ Written Feedbacsks. Philippine ESL Journal, 5, 40-57
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
Black, D. A., & Nanni, A. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Preferences and justifications of teachers and students in a Thai context. Journal of Language Studies, 16(3), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-07
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). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Davis, S., & Dargusch, J. (2015). Feedback, iterative Processing and Academic trust - Teacher education Students’ perceptions of assessment feedback. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(40). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n1.10
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Par, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602336
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42, 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.023
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in sla. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990490
Hedgcock, J. S., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01612.x
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Jinowat, N., & Wiboolyasarin, W. (2022). Investigating learner preferences for written corrective feedback in a thai higher education context. TEFLIN Journal, 33(2), 386. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i2/386-402
Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Rasool, U., Mahmood, R., Aslam, M. Z., Barzani, S. H. H., & Qian, J. (2023). Perceptions and preferences of senior high school students about written corrective feedback in Pakistan. SAGE Open, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231187612
Regan, P. (2010). Read between the lines; The emancipatory nature of formative annotative feedback on draft assignments. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(6), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9168-2
Rashtchi, M., & Bakar, Z. B. A. (2019). Written corrective feedback: What do Malaysian learners prefer and why? International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8(5c), 1221–1225. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.e1173.0585c19
Sanavi, R. V., & Nemati, M. (2014). The effect of six different corrective feedback strategies on Iranian English language learners’ IELTS writing Task 2. SAGE Open, 4(2), 215824401453827. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014538271
Sanu, L. O. (2016). EFL students’ preferences toward the lecturer’s corrective feedback in business letter writing. Dinamika Ilmu. 16(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v16i2.311
Sugiyono. (2009). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R & D). Alfabeta.
Wiboolyasarin, K., Kamonsawad, R., Jinowat, N., Wiboolyasarin, W., (2022). efl learners' preference for corrective feedback strategies in relation to their self-perceived levels of proficiency. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 5(1), 32-47.
Yu, S., Zhou, Y., & Di Zhang, E. (2022). Discourses of writing and learning to write in L2 writing curriculum in Chinese universities. Language Teaching Research, 136216882211139. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221113929
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and Student Attitudes toward Teacher Feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076157
Zhan, L. (2016). Written teacher feedback: student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and actual teacher performance. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 73. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p73
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3004_8
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with the VELES Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
VELES Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.