Article Sidebar

Submitted
December 2, 2024
Published
August 31, 2025
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 39 Download : 16

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Feedback plays a crucial role in achieving learning objectives. This study explores students’ experience and preferences in feedback provision and its implications on reading and writing instruction. This study applied a qualitative research design with a case study method. The participants were ten fifth-semester students of the 2023/2024 academic year of the English education study program at a public university in Jambi, Indonesia. A focus group discussion with the students was used to explore their experiences and preferences, supported by the data from the learning management system (LMS) of the university. Furthermore, the data were analysed using thematic analysis. The findings revealed that feedback was provided by lecturers and peers, both in online and offline modes. The peers provided more informal feedback, and lecturers provided more detailed and natural feedback on the students’ reading and writing exercises. While students appreciated peer feedback, they also felt uncertain when they received feedback from peers. In addition, the students preferred face-to-face direct constructive feedback, which can help them increase self-awareness and understand more details. However, being loaded with other teaching tasks and academic activities on campus, lecturers could not fully meet this particular preference.  Thus, as the pedagogical implication, multimodal feedback which is personalized to enable students to feed forward in their own individual learning journeys should be used.

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Radiatan Mardiah, Melati, Lilik Ulfiati, Nyimas Triyana Safitri

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive 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 acknowledgement 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 (See The Effect of Open Access).
  4. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Mardiah, R., Melati, Ulfiati, L., & Safitri, N. T. (2025). Feedback on Reading and Writing: Exploring Students’ Experience and Preferences. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 10(2), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v10i2.38471
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Allen, D., & Katayama, A. (2016). Relative second language proficiency and the giving and receiving of written peer feedback. System, 56, 96–106.
  2. Ardiningtyas, S. Y., Butarbutar, R., Weda, S., & Nur, S. (2024). Online scaffolding behavior for speaking EFL improvement: narrative inquiry issues. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5009–5019.
  3. Basnet, H. B. (2018). Focus group discussion: a tool for qualitative inquiry. Researcher: A Research Journal of Culture and Society, 3(3), 81–88.
  4. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development (Vol. 96). Multilingual Matters.
  5. Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013). Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 941–956.
  6. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712.
  7. Bourne, J., & Winstone, N. (2021). Empowering students’ voices: the use of activity-oriented focus groups in higher education research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 44(4), 352–365.
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
  9. Butarbutar, R. (2024). Students’ perceptions of online scaffolding tools for improving writing skills. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2428906.
  10. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018a). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.
  11. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018b). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  12. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407.
  13. Chang, C. Y. (2015). Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing, 25, 2–21.
  14. Chen, W., Liu, D., & Lin, C. (2023). Collaborative peer feedback in L2 writing: Affective, behavioral, cognitive, and social engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1078141.
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2016). Pendekatan Metode Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan Campuran Edisi Keempat. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
  16. Dawson, C. (2002). Practical research methods: A user-friendly guide to mastering research. How to books.
  17. Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25–36.
  18. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
  19. Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021). A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: a theoretical framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 586–600.
  20. Erdel, D. (2023). Student Feedback Literacy (SFL) Profiles in an L2 Writing Classroom and the Influence of Peer Feedback on the SFL Features. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 11(3), 112–125.
  21. Fitriyah, I., Basthomi, Y., Khotimah, K., & Gozali, I. (2022). Implementation of assessment for learning in online EFL writing class: A case of novice undergraduate teachers. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(2), 129–159.
  22. Flores, M. A., Veiga Simão, A. M., Ferreira, P. C., Pereira, D., Barros, A., Flores, P., Fernandes, E. L., & Costa, L. (2024). Online learning, perceived difficulty and the role of feedback in COVID-19 times. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 29(2), 324–344.
  23. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
  24. Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38, 371–394.
  25. Karakaya, K. (2024). Navigating Feedback in Higher Education: Insights from University Students in Turkiye. Education Reform Journal, 9(2), 19–40.
  26. Leijen, D. A. J. (2017). A novel approach to examine the impact of web-based peer review on the revisions of L2 writers. Computers and Composition, 43, 35–54.
  27. Li, D., & Zhang, L. (2022). Contextualizing feedback in L2 writing: the role of teacher scaffolding. Language Awareness, 31(3), 328–350.
  28. Little, T., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Tai, J. (2024). Can students’ feedback literacy be improved? A scoping review of interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(1), 39–52.
  29. Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students, 134–145.
  30. Nasim, S. M., Mujeeba, S., AlShraah, S. M., Khan, I. A., Amir, & Ali, Z. (2024). Exploring pedagogical perspectives of EFL instructors: advantages, disadvantages, and implications of Blackboard as an LMS for language instruction. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2312659
  31. Nicol, D. (2014). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. In Approaches to assessment that enhance learning in higher education (pp. 11–27). Routledge.
  32. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
  33. Pham, H. T. P. (2022). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2112–2147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530
  34. Phuong, H. Y., Phan, Q. T., & Le, T. T. (2023). The effects of using analytical rubrics in peer and self-assessment on EFL students’ writing proficiency: a Vietnamese contextual study. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 42.
  35. Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896.
  36. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
  37. Sánchez-Naranjo, J. (2019). Peer review and training: Pathways to quality and value in second language writing. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), 612–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12414
  38. Selwyn, N. (2015). Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: The role of sociological theory. In Digital Technologies in the Lives of Young People (pp. 81–96). Routledge.
  39. Shokouhi, M., & Shakouri, N. (2015). Revisiting Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development: towards a stage of proximity. International Journal of English Literature and Culture, 3(2), 60–63.
  40. Smith, D. A. (2017). Collaborative Peer Feedback. International Association for Development of the Information Society.
  41. Sutton, P. (2009). Towards dialogic feedback. Critical and Reflective Practice in Education, 1(1).
  42. Tasdemir, M. S., & Yalcin Arslan, F. (2018). Feedback preferences of EFL learners with respect to their learning styles. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1481560.
  43. Uymaz, E. (2019). The effects of peer feedback on the essay writing performances of EFL students. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 11(2), 20–37.
  44. 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.
  45. Williams, A. (2024). Delivering Effective Student Feedback in Higher Education: An Evaluation of the Challenges and Best Practice. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 10(2), 473–501.
  46. Wu, Z. (2019). Lower English proficiency means poorer feedback performance? A mixed-methods study. Assessing Writing, 41, 14–24.
  47. Xu, Y., & Carless, D. (2017). ‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1082–1094.
  48. Zadkhast, M., Rezvani, E., & Lotfi, A. R. (2023). Effects of concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessments on EFL learners’ development of reading comprehension micro-skills. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 29.
  49. Zalzadehy, Zahra & Ghanbari, N. (2022). The Journal of Asia TEFL EFL Learners ’ Anxiety When Using LMS and WhatsApp : The Journal of Asia TEFL, 19(1), 317–326.
  50. Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–897.