Exploring Effective Written Feedback Strategies in Business Writing Education: Teachers’ Approaches and Students’ Views

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v7i3.23923

Keywords:

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

Author Biographies

Tri Ananti Listiana, Universitas Prasetiya Mulya

Tri Ananti Listiana, also known as Ana, has been a Lecturer and Faculty Member at Prasetiya Mulya University, since 2014. Receiving a bachelor’s degree in biology from Padjadjaran University and also A master’s degree in business and general management from the Indonesian Management Development Institute (IPMI) piqued her interest in how English can further one's education and business career. This inspired her to pursue a Doctorate in applied English Linguistics at Atmajaya Catholic University. In 2021, Tri Ananti Listiana published a journal article with his colleagues from Prasetiya Mulya University titled "Improving Students' presentation skills through video and feedback." Currently, Tri Ananti is a Facilitator at the Design Thinking Workshop for master management students at the University of Indonesia. She is also a mentor in one of the UNICEF Programs with the Ministry of Education and Culture and Markoding titled Generasi Terampil 2023. Tri Ananti Listiana aims to continue contributing to education in Indonesia through this UKI conference.

Helena Verusha Ali, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya, Jakarta, Indonesia

Helena Verusha Ali is a Doctoral student currently studying Applied Linguistics at UNIKA Atmajaya Indonesia, Jakarta. Her research interests include transnational identity, translanguaging, and linguistics in society.  She has published the articles in scope of Applied Linguistics.

Farnia Sari, Universitas Tridinanti

Farnia Sari is a lecturer of English Education Study Program in Tridinanti University, Palembang.  Her research interests include Applied Linguistics and TEFL and has published extensively in the area of EFL in education.

Agus Wahyudi, STIK Bina Husada

Agus Wahyudi is a lecturer of STIK Bina Husada since 2008. He had a Magister’s degree in English Education in Universitas Sriwijaya. His research interests are English education in EFL context, ESP, and TEFL.

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

2023-12-27

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 3 (2023): VELES (Voices of English Language Education Society)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with the VELES Journal agree to the following terms:

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Creative Commons License

VELES Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.