Main Article Content


Examining EFL writing teachers’ beliefs is becoming an essential study since teaching is no longer being noticed merely in a behaviour term but rather as thoughtful behaviour as teachers are active, thinking decision-maker. This study addresses the teachers’ beliefs in the specific teaching writing strategy that is commonly used by the teachers in Indonesia to assist students’ writing, teacher written corrective feedback. It was designed as a case study surveying two teachers from a secondary school in Lampung as its respondents. This current study aims at (1) exploring teachers’ beliefs in providing teacher written corrective feedback both in the explicitness and the amount of feedback, and (2) describing the factors that shape teachers’ beliefs in providing written corrective feedback. The data were collected by using mixed-type questionnaire and interview adapted from Lee (2009) consisting of three items related to the beliefs in written corrective feedback, followed by the factors that shape the beliefs teachers may hold on. The findings show some underlie different beliefs regarding the explicitness and amount of teacher written corrective feedback between the teachers. However, they agreed that academic background in the secondary school and college was counted as the contributed factor that shapes their beliefs in providing written corrective feedback on students’ writing. Further, teacher added practical experience when they are teaching writing as her additional factor.


EFL Writing Instruction Teacher Written Corrective Feedback Beliefs Factors

Article Details

How to Cite
Mulati, D. F., Nurkamto, J., & Drajati, N. A. (2020). THE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS IN TEACHER WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE STUDENTS’ WRITING. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 5(1), 1–10.


  1. Al-Hajri, F., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2013). The Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles August 2013 Volume 70. ASIAN TEFL Journal, 70(August), 1–53.
  2. Alkhatib, N. I. M. (2015). Written Corrective Feedback at a Saudi University: English Language Teachers’ Beliefs, Students’ Preferences, and Teachers’ Practices. University of Essex.
  3. Alshahrani, A. (2014). Investigating Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback Practices in a Saudi EFL Context: How Do They Align with Their Beliefs, Institutional Guidelines, and Students’ Preferences? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 101–122.
  4. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. New York: Routledge.
  5. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
  6. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching?: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do Review article Teacher cognition in language teaching?: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Cambridge Journals, 36(2), 81–109.
  7. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education Research and practice.pdf. London: Bloomsbury.
  8. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296. (03)00038-9
  9. Creswell, John, W. (2012). Educational Research (Fourth Edi). Boston: Pearson.
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Second Edition Qualitative & Research Design (Vol. 1). United States of America: Sage Publications.
  11. Ferris, D. (1999). The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes?: A Response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.
  12. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
  13. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
  14. Issa, R. (2009). Considering Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices in Relation to ESP and EGP Teaching Methodology: A Pilot Study (Vol. 11).
  15. Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). “‘I just want to do it right, but it’s so hard”’: A novice teacher’s written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 19–36.
  16. Kohlbacher, F. (2006). Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum?: Qualitative Social The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research 1. Introduction?: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research?? 2. Research Question, Aim and Structure of the Paper. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), 3–13.
  17. Lee, I. (2003). How Do Hong Kong English Teachers Correct Errors in Writing? Education Journal, 31(1)
  18. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85.
  19. Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22.
  20. Lee, I. (2014). Feedback in writing?: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing, 19, 1–5.
  21. Mansour, N. (2009). Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices?: Issues, Implications and Research Agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25–48.
  22. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
  23. Richards, J. C., Gallo, P. B., & Renandya, W. A. (2001). Exploring Teachers’ Beliefs and the Processes of Change, 47–48.
  24. Savasci-acikalin, F. (2009). Teacher beliefs and practice in science education Part 1?: Debates on Definitions and Nature of Beliefs and Knowledge, 10(1), 1–14.
  25. Septiana, A. R., Sulistyo, G. H., & Kadarisman, A. E. (2016). Corrective Feedback and Writing Accuracy of Students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 1–11.
  26. Shulman, L. E. E. S., & Elstein, A. S. (1975). Studies of Problem Solving, Judgment, and Decision Making?: Implications for Educational Research, 3–42.
  27. Truscott, J. (1996). The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–36.