Investigating English Lecturers’ Strategies of Committing Online Written Corrective Feedback during Covid-19 Pandemic

Ahmad Hanan, Edi Firman, Terasne Terasne


Written corrective feedback is essential in the teaching of writing skills to help prospective teacher enhance their writing performance. Lecturers try to apply strategies in committing written corrective feedback in fully online learning. In addition, written corrective feedback can improve learners’ metalinguistics, metacognition, teachers-learners interaction, and peer connection. Consequently, the present study will be aimed at investigating English lecturers’ common practices and strategies in committing online written corrective feedback during Covid-19 pandemic at higher education. This study is classified as a qualitative study which is a descriptive qualitative study. It is chosen because the data of this study relates to opinions or attitudes in the form of lecturers’ strategies in the teaching of writing skills and online corrective feedback. The data are elaborated in the form of words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. To attain the data, researchers use interview technique. There are five English lecturers involved in the current study. The data are analyzed by using qualitative processes which are data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing or verification. The novelty of this study lies on written feedback, written corrective feedback, and online written corrective feedback. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the teaching-learning process is done in fully online learning.


Lecturers’ Strategies; Online Learning; Written Corrective Feedback;

Full Text:

Full PDF


Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726.

Beuningen, C. Van. (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(0), 1–27.

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.

Borg, S. (2012). Current approaches to language teacher cognition research: A methodological analysis. In R. Barnard & A. Burns (Eds.), Researching language teacher cognition and practice: International case studies (pp. 11–29). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Chukharev-hudilainen, E., & Saricaoglu, A. (2016). Causal discourse analyzer: improving automated feedback on academic ESL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8221(February), 0–23.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th Edition). New York: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Fifth Edition). In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53, Issue 9). Los Angeles: Sage Publication.

DeWitt, D., Siraj, S., & Alias, N. (2014). Collaborative m-Learning: A module for learning secondary school science. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 89–101

Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21, 18–36.

Du, Q. J. (2013). On course design of business English teaching based on QQ platform. Overseas English, 7, 106–108.

Ebyary, K., & Windeat, S. (2010). The Impact of Computer-Based Feedback on Students’ Written Work. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(2), 121–142.

Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349.

Gao, X., Moses, M., & Adelina, A. (2016). Online Features of Qzone Weblog for Critical Peer Feedback to Facilitate Business English Writing. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(2), 285–301.

Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2019). The effect of two forms of computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback. Language Learning and Technology, 23(2), 65–83.

Ghosn-chelala, M., & Al-chibani, W. (2018). Screencasting : Supportive Feedback for EFL Remedial Writing Students. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology.

Haerazi, H., Utama, I. M. P., & Hidayatullah, H. (2020). Mobile Applications to Improve English Writing Skills Viewed from Critical Thinking Ability for Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM), 14(07), 58.

Haerazi, H., Irawan, L. A., Suadiyatno, T., & Hidayatullah, H. (2020). Triggering Preservice Teachers’ Writing Skills through Genre-Based Instructional Model Viewed from Creativity. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1), 234–244.

Huun, K. (2018). Student Prsence and Faculty Availability in Fully Online Course: Is Alignment Requisite? Journal of Educators Online, 15(2).

Jacob, L., Lachner, A., & Scheiter, K. (2020). Learning by explaining orally or in written form? Text complexity matters. Learning and Instruction, 68(October 2019), 101344.

Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536.

Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2015). Bringing Innovation to Conventional Feedback Approaches in EFL Secondary Writing Classrooms. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(2), 140–163.

Lomicka, L. (2020). Creating and sustaining virtual language communities. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 306–313.

Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2014). Twitter as a tool to promote community among language teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 187–212. Retrieved from

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 32, Issue 2). Kean University.

Ma, J. (2019). The effect of two forms of computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback. Language Learning and Technology, 23(2), 65–83.

Mandernach, B. J. (2018). Strategies to Maximize the Impact of Feedback and Streamline Your Time. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3). Retrieve from

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2016). Quantitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (Third). Los Angeles: Sage Publication.

Milla, R., & Mayo, M. P. G. (2013). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of Language Studies, 14(1), 1–20.

Paesani, K. (2020). Teacher Professional Development and Online Instruction: Cultivating Coherence and Sustainability. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 292–297.

Papi, M., Bondarenko, A., Wawire, D., Jiang, C., & Zhou, S. (2020). Feedback-seeking behaviour in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing, 33, page 485–

Ranalli, J. (2019). The affordances of process-tracing technologies for supporting L2 writing instruction. Language Learning and Technology, 23(2), 1–11.

Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive Instruction Enhances the Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: Variable Effects of Feedback Types and Linguistic Targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545.

Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 32, Issue 2).

Shintani, N. (2015). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, February, 37–41.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.

Sippel, L. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), 595–611.

Song, S. Y. (2015). Teacher beliefs about language learning and teaching. In M. Bigelow & J. Ennser‐Kananen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 263–275). New York, NY: Routledge.

Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct Written Corrective Feedback, Learner Differences, and the Acquisition of Second Language Article Use for Generic and Specific Plural Reference. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282.

Storch, N. (2010). Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 32, Issue 2).

Strickland, B. M. (2019). Writing for the (virtual) other: Bakhtinian intertextuality within online L2 writing exchanges. Language Learning Journal, 47(1), 1–18.

Xianwie, X., Samuel, S., & Asmawi, A. (2016). A model of critical peer feedback to facilitate Business English Writing using Qzone weblogs among Chinese undergraduates. Malaysia Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 1–17.

Yuan, R., & Stapleton, P. (2020). Student teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking and its teaching. ELT Journal, 74(1), 40–48.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Ahmad Hanan, Muhammad Muhlisin, taufik Suadiyatno

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

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching (p-issn: 2338-0810 | e-issn: 2621-1378) has been Indexed/Listed by

 Creative Commons License

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