Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 269 English Education Master Students’ Perceptions on Teacher Written Corrective Feedback in Academic Writing Kristian Florensio Wijaya kristianwijaya500@gmail.com Cita Hati International School, Indonesia DOI: 10.35974/acuity.v8i2.2788 Abstract In modern L2 academic writing enterprises, teacher-written corrective feedback can be either facilitating or debilitating depending on language teachers’ understanding, actual practices, and specific-classroom situations. Through this present small-scale qualitative investigation, the researcher attempted to exhaustively investigate English Education Master Students’ perceptions on teacher written corrective feedback in academic writing. Methodologically speaking, this current study was supported by the presence of 10 online Likert-scale questionnaire items and 5 open-ended written narrative inquiry questions. Thus, qualitative content analysis was integrated into this study to obtain more authentic data from the targeted research participants. 18 English Education Master Students, batch 2020, Sanata Dharma University were voluntarily invited to complete 10 online Likert-scale questionnaire items. Meanwhile, 3 randomly-selected interviewees from a similar research sampling were asked to accomplish 5 open-ended written narrative inquiry questions. Two major themes came to the fore after the full accomplishment of data analysis processes namely: (1) An accurate utilization of teacher written corrective feedback and (2) The beneficial values of constructive teacher written corrective feedback. Some specific concluding remarks and further recommendations were also portrayed in this study. Keywords: Teacher written corrective feedback, academic writing, graduate students, qualitative content analysis INTRODUCTION Writing is one of the pivotal competencies that should be fully mastered by modern university EFL learners nowadays. In various discipline-specific fields, the ability to write properly can allow university EFL learners to expound their thoughts accurately, elevate their productive language skills, and jointly disseminate valuable insights to others. Saragih et al., (2021) avow that decent L2 writing competencies will potentially transform globalized university EFL learners into critical thinkers, fluent written target language communicators, and independent knowledge constructors. Contrary to all the aforementioned means, a considerable number of university EFL learners easily lost their higher-level of motivation and confidence while generating their ideas by utilizing the target language due to the complexities forming in writing processes. This belief is closely interlinked with the theory of L2 writing adversity propounded by Zumbrunn et al., (2016) averring that L2 writing enterprises frequently induce anxiety-provoking situations for diverse university EFL learners resulting in the thorough abandonment of existing writing dynamics. These above-explicated hurdles are concurrently intertwined with graduate university EFL learners’ academic writing mailto:kristianwijaya500@gmail.com Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 270 enterprises as well. Since graduate university EFL learners are commissioned to produce high-quality academic writing products to be published in designated national and international journal articles, they oftentimes undergo a higher level of perturbation to go through this hardship. This indispensable requirement is parallel with the contention adduced by Li and Faulhaber (2019) stating that it is easier to discover a vast majority of graduate university EFL learners departing from academic writing enterprises concerning continual stress along with psychological pressure. All these ordeals have become more taxing for graduate university EFL learners in which they are demanded to transfigure into more planful decision-makers, adept idea-creators, and knowledgeable academicians before plunging into real-time academic writing activities. These above-mentioned perspectives are mutually interrelated with the theory of Cotos (2014) mentioning that excellent L2 academic writers are heavily required to gradually transfigure into more judicious planners, eloquent thinkers, and broad-minded knowledge co-constructors to yield more qualified academic writing products. In an attempt to generate more acceptable, comprehensible, and better-quality academic writing products, teacher-written corrective feedback can act as a means of escalating graduate university EFL learners’ writing competencies, conventions, and expressions. These advantageous values are closely interlocked with Budiana and Mahmud (2020) putting forward that with the support of teacher written corrective feedback, university EFL learners will have broader opportunities to foster their rhetoric, linguistics, and conventions in varied situation-specific writing processes eventually enabling them to create better-writing products. Under the supervision of teacher written corrective feedback, graduate university EFL learners can also progressively diminish unintended mistakes in their writing compositions due to the constant profound checking and evaluating stages conducted in this ultimate writing stage. This further advantage is positively linked with the theory of Hyland (2020) propounding that on account of intensive and constructive teacher written corrective feedback, university EFL learners can successfully execute various academic writing tasks with the presence of minimum errors affected their finalized writing qualities. Lastly, graduate university EFL learners can consistently exhibit gratifying academic writing performances in the support of teacher-written corrective feedback regarding the emersion of robust motivation and confidence to deliver high-quality writing outcomes for worldwide readers. This beneficial merit appears to fit with the major finding of Lee (2020) pinpointing that an overwhelming majority of worldwide university EFL learners having received facilitative teacher written corrective feedback were more liable to be more encouraged and confident in delineating their particular thoughts in the target language resulting in the significant enhancement of whole writing qualities. To release all these aforesaid rewarding values, language teachers are strongly prompted to impart meaningful, encouraging, and constructive written corrective feedback for their learners to better promote a more psychologically sound academic writing classroom atmosphere. This suggestive input is in agreement with the theory of teacher written corrective feedback devised by Bitchener (2016) asserting that it is indisputable for worldwide university EFL teachers to address more enlightening, meaning-making, and constructive written corrective feedback for diverse-wide ranging learners to terrifically advance their L2 writing competencies, minimize writing drawbacks, and improve the writing products. Another pivotal teacher-written corrective feedback component that should be kept in mind by university EFL teachers is the applicability of its internalization. Applicability denotes the efficient suggestive inputs fully understood by learners for the betterment of their upcoming writing accuracy. Hence, high-quality teacher-written Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 271 corrective feedback needs to be addressed in harmony with the learners’ particular writing proficiency, impediments, and compositions presented in tangible writing classroom circumstances. This perspective seems to concur with Van Beuningen et al., (2012) adducing that it is vitally essential for university EFL teachers to bring about more holistic written corrective feedback responding to their learners’ specific writing products to significantly increase their writing accuracy, qualities, and organizations in the future writing enterprises. Furthermore, university EFL teachers need to cultivate more stress-free and relaxing academic writing classroom surroundings for learners in an attempt to magnify their writing endeavors and confidence. It has been a consensus that when learners are capable of substantiating their writing volitions together with confidence, they will have more liability to write longer, dedicate their valuable time to write, and began to inculcate positive perceptions toward writing activities. Undoubtedly, these three supportive writing behaviors can potentially lead learners to improve their specific writing performances to the utmost potential. This account of contention also hinged on the main finding of Wihadi and Martiana (2017) discover that a great majority of university EFL learners who are skillful in writing composing processes are the ones having been exposed to supportive writing activities, encouraging written corrective feedback, and positive writing experiences manifesting in the striking escalation of their writing competencies. Similarly, the precise internalization of teacher written corrective feedback can gradually reduce graduate university EFL learners’ grammatical errors while depicting varied conceptions in their academic writing products. This positive writing merit takes place since learners have made such a clear discernment toward the writing compositions that have been repeatedly evaluated by their teachers. Through these iterative review cycles, learners are more aware of the repetitive grammatical mistakes they made eventually directing them to ameliorate these unintended errors in future writing occasions. This beneficial value is pertinent to the finding of Kim et al., (2020) revealing that well-informed written corrective feedback can be functioned as one of the propelling forces for university EFL learners to not insistently conduct identical mistakes in their writings. Another potential benefactor promoted by constructive teacher-written corrective feedback is the prominent enhancement of learners’ autonomous writing engagement. It is worth accentuating here that when university EFL teachers avoid utilizing a one-size-fits-all written corrective feedback approach amid the writing evaluation processes, learners will have wider chances to develop their ideas, conceptual frameworks, and writing conventions accordingly. As a result, they are transfigured into more autonomous L2 writers highly desirous of practicing their writing skills in concord with the specifically-given teacher written corrective feedback. In light of this ultimate beneficial merit, Winstone et al., (2017) theorize that more contextual and versatile teacher written corrective feedback is considerably important to be incorporated in L2 writing processes to prolifically proliferate university EFL learners’ independent writing behaviors outside of the classroom walls. To actualize those advantages, another action that should be continuously carried out by university EFL teachers is to establish more solid collaborative networking while evaluating a wide range of writing products all together with their learners. It is principal to note that university EFL teachers have to transform into more facilitative co-learners and facilitators amid writing ideation, clarification, and evaluation processes to create a more positively- sound writing climate. This paramount action is simultaneously evinced in the theory of Carless and Winstone (2020) signifying that the mutual collegiality between university EFL teachers and learners is crucially essential for them to ascertain the prospective writing qualities in consonance with the imparted written corrective feedback they are working on. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 272 There were eight previous related studies run to investigate the specific utilities of teacher written corrective feedback in L2 writing composing processes. The first study was conducted by Budianto et al., (2017) unveiling that a considerable number of university EFL learners were capable of producing more qualified academic writing products after receiving more comprehensive written corrective feedback from their lecturers. In another study, Isnawati et al., (2019) unearthed that most graduate university EFL learners could display more gratifying academic writing performances after being accompanied with meaningful teacher-written corrective feedback. Janah et al., (2021) strongly prompted university EFL teachers to become more conscientious while selecting some specific comments, words, and sentences in depicting written corrective feedback through learners’ writing products to not induce dispiriting feelings within them that might be one of the major reasons to depart from the writing enterprises. Furthermore, Sabarun (2020) unfolded that the majority of university EFL learners had transfigured into more confident, thoughtful, and proficient academic writers after being exposed to contextual teacher written corrective feedback functioning to directly point out their grammatical mistakes as well as writing accuracy. Furthermore, Kencana (2020) highly recommended worldwide university EFL teachers to address more positive, meaningful, and motivating written corrective feedback for the specific writing products created by learners to maintain their higher level of writing motivation longitudinally. Uzun and Ulum (2022) highly advocated globalized EFL teachers to integrate more interactive, hands-on, and practical writing teaching approaches to amplify EFL learners’ writing proficiency along with independent writing behaviors. Saglamel and Aydogdu (2022) strongly advised worldwide EFL teachers to immerse their learners into academic writing activities in order to progressively transfigure them into more critical, strategic, and excellent L2 writers. In the last study, Woottipong (2022) uncovered that the majority of University EFL learners in the control groups showcased more satisfying writing performances compared to other learning counterparts assigned in experimental groups due to the cultivation of robust self-efficacy and self-regulatory learning habits. As important, this present small-scale qualitative investigation was one of the proactive attempts aimed by the researcher to open broader windows of perspective for globalized ELT experts, practitioners, policy-makers, and educationalists concerning the accurate internalization of teacher written corrective feedback in varied academic writing enterprises. Thus, to fulfill this research objectivity, the researcher attempted to profoundly investigate English Education Master Students’ perceptions on teacher written corrective feedback in academic writing. By taking this action into the researcher’s account, the subsequent research results will be advantageous in which they will shed more enlightenment on the possible effective classroom learning approaches that can be capitalized on by L2 academic writing instructors in addressing comprehensive teacher written corrective feedback based on graduate university EFL learners’ perceptions. To this end, one research problem was framed as a reference point guiding the pathway of this current qualitative investigation namely: To what extent did English Education Master Students value the utilities of teacher written corrective feedback in their academic writing enterprises? METHODS The researcher ran this current small-scale qualitative investigation in the fashion of qualitative content analysis to attain more overarching depictions concerning the particular events endured by the research participants. Mayring (2014) exclaims that one of the major benefits of applying a qualitative content analysis is more authentic and thorough obtained data can be potentially obtained by the researchers due to the specific life-sharing truth shared by the targeted research participants. To accomplish this aforesaid mission, the Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 273 researcher concurrently capitalized on two particular research instruments that functioned to affirm the trustworthiness of the specific-obtained data namely 10 online Likert-scale questionnaire items along with 5 open-ended written narrative inquiry questions. Concerning the first research instrument, the researcher designed all these 10 online Likert-scale questionnaire items in line with English Education Master Students’ perceptions on teacher written corrective feedback in academic writing to precisely notice the extent they valued a wide array of this feedback mode imparted by their lecturers. The researcher distributed this set of 10 questionnaire items with the assistance of Google Form to 18 English Education Master Students, Batch 2020, Sanata Dharma University. Meanwhile, 5 open-ended written narrative inquiry questions were aimed to gain more in-depth insight for 3 randomly-invited interviewees derived from similar research samplings concerning the potential utilities of teacher written corrective feedback implementation upon the academic writing enterprises. Clandinin and Caine (2013) articulate that in the support of open-ended written narrative inquiry, the researchers will have more spacious chances to collect more robust, authentic, and reliable data due to the ingenious sharing disseminated by the research participants. One of the focal points prompting the researcher to involve English Education Master Students enrolling in a private university in this study is due to their long-lengthy experiences as well as familiarity with teacher-written corrective feedback. As they were individually required to publish at least one scientific academic paper in a particular accredited national or international journal, this feedback type was sustainably employed to make significant progress toward their academic writing skills, conventions, proficiency, and products before they were being sent to the designated journal platforms. Concerning the data analysis processes, the researcher categorized each obtained data taken from 10 online Likert-scale questionnaire items in the tables to be corroborated with specific themes, theories, previous relevant findings, and selected 3 interviewees’ excerpts. By doing so, the in-depth argumentations represented those above-mentioned data would act as one continuum that may shed more obvious enlightenment for globalized ELT practitioners dealing with teacher- written corrective feedback incorporation in graduate university EFL learners’ academic writing venture. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this part, the researcher aimed to exhaustively expound 2 main particular themes attained from the research participants. The following specific delineations are fully affirmed by well- selected interviewees’ excerpts, theories, and findings yielded by previous relevant investigations. The major themes are (1) An accurate utilization of teacher written corrective feedback and (2) The beneficial values of teacher written corrective feedback. All integrated explications can be discerned as follows. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 274 Figure 1: An Accurate Utilization of Teacher-Written Corrective Feedback (92% Participants Agree) Based on the above-depicted figure 1 above, it can be judiciously repudiated that a considerable number of research participants agreed that an accurate utilization of teacher written corrective feedback is crucially pivotal for them to improve their whole academic writing competencies. The first foundational pattern determining this rewarding academic writing outcome is the frequent constructive written corrective feedback addressed by their lecturers to assist these graduate university EFL learners to delineate each written idea clearly and precisely. Through this first strategy, these research participants will progressively transform into more competent L2 academic writers in the support of intensive writing supervision manifested in regular teacher-written corrective feedback. This approach is closely interlinked with the theory of Kencana (2020) truly necessitating university EFL teachers to grant a large amount of rewarding written corrective feedback toward learners’ academic writing products to explicate all their ideas clearly and accurately. This theory is also scientifically proven by the above-given table where 17 out of 18 participants admitted that their lecturers oftentimes addressed constructive written corrective feedback constantly toward their writing progression. Moving forward to the second approach, 14 out of 18 participants forthrightly confessed that their lecturers continuously elude themselves from giving negative written corrective feedback that can potentially degrade learners’ academic writing motivation and confidence. From this statement, it is worth underscoring here that written corrective feedback should be given in more emphatic ways by university EFL teachers to continually maintain, or even heighten their learners’ academic writing volition along with persistence while confronting a vast range of unintended obstacles. This second strategy is in conjunction with the finding of Janah et al., (2021) strongly prompting worldwide university EFL teachers to address more motivating, enlightening, and positive written corrective feedback that might as a means of the significant elevation of academic writing products enacted by learners. All these conceptions are closely aligned with the following three interviewees’ excerpts. 1 4 0 0 2 17 14 18 18 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Frequently Imparting Constructive Feedback Judiciously Avoiding Dispiriting Feedback Constantly Reading Specifically-Given Feedback Thoroughly Understanding the Feedback Successfully Minimizing Writing Errors Never Always Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 275 [Interviewee 1: Sometimes there is some corrective feedback that I can't understand. For example, I have written with the appropriate rules and format, but the lecturer says that it is still wrong. It confused me but I defended what I thought was right.] [Interviewee 2: Discussing about lecturers’ action in improving students’ writing products, my lecturers tended to give readings related the students’ topics. It helped the students to enrich their understanding of the topics they discussed about.] [Interviewee 3: My lecturers usually made a regular discussion every week or once every two weeks. In the discussion, my lecturers will give feedback related to the content of my academic writing product.] Furthermore, those above-mentioned prerequisite requirements will not run accordingly when graduate university EFL learners are not prone to iteratively revise their academic writing products in line with the particular written corrective feedback imparted by their lecturers. As can be observed clearly, all research participants were in accord with this further academic writing strategy. In agreement with their standpoint, the participants frankly sanctioned that a vast array of specific writing errors in terms of grammar, dictions, punctuations, and conventions had been progressively settled due to the intensive feedback evaluation enterprises they were committed to generating more high-quality academic writing products. This conception is in harmony with the theory of Sabarun (2020) averring that university EFL learners’ academic writing progression can be vested with suitable, acceptable, and applicable teacher-written corrective feedback where they can thoroughly value a vast array of writing inputs, impressively yield more organized writing compositions, and consistently ameliorate particular writing shortcomings in accord with those imparted teachers’ suggestions. Graduate university EFL learners’ ingenuity in generating more qualified academic writing works also shared common ground with the comprehensive understanding of the specifically-addressed written corrective feedback from their lecturers. By terrifically referring to this approach, learners will be more capable of inculcating a higher degree of writing excitement eventually directing them to yield more acceptable academic writing products fulfilling their lecturers’ expectations. This argument has shared compatibility with the theory of Kisnanto (2016) articulating that the appropriateness of comprehensive teacher written corrective feedback can be attributed to its clarity and comprehensibility in which learners have broader opportunities to precisely revise their writing products in accord with the teachers’ particular objectivities. All participated research participants acknowledged that they had fully understood the main core of written corrective feedback imparted by their lecturers in academic writing enterprises. These above-explicated conceptions are paralleled with three interviewees’ excerpts as follows. [Interviewee 1: I try to get the feedback point and equalize with the lecturer's perception. Then revised the writing based on the corrective feedback given by the lecturers.] [Interviewee 2: I used the feedback as the guideline so that I could re-arrange, add, or delete some of the ideas in my writing product.] [Interviewee 3: After my lecturers did regular discussion with me and gave some feedback, I constantly revised my academic writing products based on the feedback to create better writings.] To fine-tune all these internal and external written corrective feedback processes, globalized university EFL teachers must impart appropriate feedback specifically pointing out a vast Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 276 variety of learners’ academic writing shortcomings. Without lessening the critical importance of learners’ feelings, emotions, motivation, and confidence while receiving this set of straightforward inputs, modern educationalists are highly advocated to integrate the further utilization of encouraging with in-depth written corrective feedback in an attempt to help their graduate university EFL learners gain more exhaustive awareness of the unintended mistakes recurring in the academic writing compositions. This ultimate strategy sits well with the finding of Isnawati et al., (2019) highly recommending university EFL teachers to intensively address more contextual written corrective feedback concerning their learners’ academic writing products to enable them to gradually diminish common writing errors constituting of grammar, dictions, and conventions. 16 out of 18 research participants testified that more profound written corrective feedback, although daunting, had gradually assisted them to minimize general academic writing errors. Figure 2: The Beneficial Values of Teacher-Written Corrective Feedback (99% Participants Agree) The indispensability of teacher written corrective feedback is corroborated by the consensus that this type of L2 writing input can potentially enable all graduate university EFL learners to generate more high-quality academic writing products as observed in the first item of the above-depicted table. It is worth accentuating here that through more apprehensible written corrective feedback, graduate university EFL learners will eventually elevate their life-long, autonomous, and responsible characters in accomplishing their academic writing tasks. By nurturing all these aforesaid laudable writing behaviours, they have more tendencies to put their utmost willingness, resilience, and endeavour to eventually yield more qualified academic writing products. This first rewarding value is in correspond with the finding of Mao and Crosthwaite (2019) strongly advocated university EFL teachers hone their learners’ independent and accountable characters in interpreting a vast range of constructive written corrective feedback given by them to constantly assist them to generate high-quality academic writing products. The second impressive value having been fully obtained by graduate university EFL learners in the light of constructive teacher written corrective feedback was they have progressively transformed into better academic writers. This term 0 0 0 0 1 18 18 18 18 17 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Generating More Qualified Writing Products Transfiguring into Better Writers Accomplishing Writing Tasks Contextual Use of Feedback The Presence of Supportive Learning Companions Never Always Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 277 does not necessarily deal with the designated academic writing qualities produced by the learners but also the holistic writing behaviors. Concerning this study scope, all research participants forthrightly propounded that varied constructive teacher written corrective feedback had progressively enabled them to confidently face various writing hurdles, increase their self-confidence in writing, and significantly develop their target language skills through academic writing enterprises. All these positive influential impacts align with the finding of Karimi (2016) unfolding that a considerable number of university EFL learners having been armed with constructive teacher-written corrective feedback were capable of increasing their writing confidence, tirelessly handling varied writing hurdles, and fostering their targeted L2 writing competencies terrifically. These above-explicated means are strongly substantiated by the following interviewees’ excerpts. [Interviewee 1: I am pleased to know the deficiencies of my writing and able to identify things that need to be revised.] [Interviewee 2: I was fine. In my opinion, some specific written corrective feedback from the lecturer helped me in producing a better writing. It facilitated me to organize the words or ideas in my writing.] [Interviewee 3: It will be better for the lecturers to not only give feedback but also motivation to help the students improve their academic writing products.] The thorough and satisfying completion of academic writing tasks also relies heavily on university EFL teachers’ volition, commitment, and dedication in constantly imparting various rewarding written corrective feedback for the advancement of academic writing compositions generated by graduate university EFL learners. This action has to be carried out by current L2 academic writing instructors all around the globe to sustainably preserve their learners’ academic writing motivation. To make all these impactful matters happen, university EFL teachers are simultaneously encouraged to provide written corrective feedback compatible with learners’ academic writing proficiency, interest, needs, and results to deter them from departing their academic writing venture prematurely. Keeping abreast of all these theoretical and strategy constructions, Mulati et al., (2020) earnestly advised university EFL teachers all around the globe to mobilize their dedication, energy, and commitment in providing more beneficial written corrective feedback harmonious with their learners’ specific academic writing tasks, preferences, and interests to continuously maintain their L2 writing motivation. All research participants received this meaningful feedback mode in their academic writing journeys. Since L2 academic writing contexts are presently manifested in ethnically diverse learning community members, it is worth keeping in university EFL teachers’ minds that they have to be more thoughtful, prudent, and conscientious in utilizing a vast array of written constructive feedback for the betterment of learners’ academic writing compositions. It has been a consensus that teacher-written corrective feedback can be either facilitating or debilitating. There is no other way around to forestall these probable side-effects, yet university EFL teachers can invigorate their graduate university EFL learners’ literacy skills along with awareness by devising varied written corrective feedback that can promote a higher level of writing learning engagement among them. This procedure is in accord with the finding of O’Flaherty and Costabile (2020) forthrightly acknowledged that the effectiveness and comprehensibility of teacher written corrective feedback are heavily stimulated by a wide range of L2 writing classroom contexts comprising of learners’ writing competencies, levels, and engagement. All research Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 278 participants were entirely exposed to this adaptive feedback type in their academic writing vicinity. The eventual, yet the most paramount action that should be realized by L2 writing instructors in harnessing constructive written corrective feedback through graduate university EFL learners’ academic writing enterprises is the apparent role of becoming more supportive learning counterparts. It is principal to pinpoint here that L2 academic writing instructors need to bring about a more positive sound learning atmosphere in the presence of diverse learners by gradually transforming into judicious counsellors, proactive encouragers, and faithful companions. By doing so, it can be expectantly hoped that our graduate university EFL learners can exponentially foster their targeted L2 academic writing competencies manifested in a more orderly writing fashion, which no doubt will benefit the whole ecosystems of prospective academic writing learning dynamics. This underlying premise is fairly correlated with the finding of Shintani et al., (2014) strongly suggested globalized university EFL teachers to rejuvenating their current authoritative become more facilitative roles by establishing more intimate rapports with learners while evaluating the academic writing products in harmony with the specifically-given written corrective feedback to produce qualified academic writings. Speaking specifically, 17 out of 18 participants experienced these favourable academic writing learning characteristics reflected in the continual presence of their supportive lecturers. These aforesaid beliefs are terrifically invigorated by three selected interviewees’ excerpts as follows. [Interviewee 1: Lecturers must focus on the issues, not guilt or blame, listen to the response of the recipients, and help to formulate a plan to deal with the issues you raised.] [Interviewee 2: My lecturers gave feedback related to the grammar and the content of my writing by using provided feature, namely new comment. In addition, the students could consult it to the lecturers so that the lecturers could explain the details directly to the students.] [Interviewee 3: When my lecturers gave a lot of negative feedback toward my academic writing products, I will feel sad and disappointed with myself.] CONCLUSION As a final point, the obtained research results strongly indicated that an overwhelming majority of English Education Master Students valued ample utilities of teacher written corrective feedback during their engagement with academic writing enterprises. Due to the unpredictable retardations and ideation in writing academically, these participated research participants consistently appreciated the usage of written corrective feedback addressed by lecturers for the advancement of their desired academic writing competencies, motivation, self-confidence, and compositions. To release all these rewarding academic writing advantageous values, worldwide university EFL teachers are strongly recommended to promote more conducive-friendly classroom climates to progressively elevate graduate university learners’ academic writing motivation, positive beliefs, and qualities to a greater level. Several shortcomings of this present study need to be signified. Firstly, this small-scale qualitative investigation merely relied on English Education Master Students enrolling in one particular private university, which propelled future researchers to replicate this current investigation model by involving a great number of research participants to avoid data bias. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 279 Secondly, this study only collected the intended data for a short period causing the trustworthiness of those above-explained findings. Thus, future researchers are highly recommended to conduct more longitudinal investigations involving L2 academic writing instructors as well to yield more generalizable data. Attach from those above-mentioned drawbacks, this current small-scale investigation can potentially act as one of the reference points for university EFL teachers worldwide to discern their prospective academic writing journeys with rejuvenated viewpoints in which constructive teacher-written corrective feedback rewards can be increasingly magnified to breed more excellent, mature, and life- long L2 academic writers from their graduate departments. REFERENCES Bitchener, J. (2016). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit Budiana, H., & Mahmud, M. (2020). Indirect Written Corrective Feedback (Wcf) in Teaching Writing. Academic Journal Perspective : Education, Language, and Literature, 8(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.33603/perspective.v8i1.3398 Budianto, S., Mukminatien, N., & Adnan Latief, M. (2017). The Debate of Written Corrective Feedback: What to do And Where to Go. KnE Social Sciences, 1(3), 372. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v1i3.758 Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372 Clandinin, D. J., & Caine, V. (2013). Narrative inquiry. In Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 178-191). Routledge. Cotos, E. (2014). Genre-based automated writing evaluation for L2 research writing: From design to evaluation and enhancement. Genre-Based Automated Writing Evaluation for L2 Research Writing: From Design to Evaluation and Enhancement, 1–283. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333377 Hyland, Z. (2020). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing Abstract. Brexit and Tourism, xxi–xxii. Isnawati, I., Sulistyo, G. H., Widiati, U., & Suryati, N. (2019). Impacts of Teacher-Written corrective feedback with Teacher-Student conference on students’ revision. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12143a Janah, U., Usadiati, W., & Ristati, R. (2021). Written Corrective Feedback Applied By English Teacher At the Eighth Grade Students of Smp Nu Palangka Raya. Intensive Journal, 4(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.31602/intensive.v4i2.5750 Karimi, S. H. (2016). Effects of Different Types of Teacher Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(2), 216–229. Kencana, A. T. A. (2020). Students preferences and teachers beliefs towards written corrective feedback. In ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching, 9(1), 85- 95. Kim, Y. J., 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. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 280 https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443 Kisnanto, Y. P. (2016). the Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Higher Education Students’ Writing Accuracy. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra, 16(2), 121. https://doi.org/10.17509/bs_jpbsp.v16i2.4476 Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49(February), 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734 Li, S., & Faulhaber, D. (2019). Li , S ., & Roshan , S . ( 2019 ). The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of ... Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45(May), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004 Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. 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 & Literature), 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v5i1.7644 O’Flaherty, J., & Costabile, M. (2020). Using a science simulation-based learning tool to develop students’ active learning, self-confidence and critical thinking in academic writing. Nurse Education in Practice, 47(June), 102839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102839 Sabarun, S. (2020). Direct Teacher Corrective Feedback in EFL Writing Class at Higher Education: What Students Perceive. Vision: Journal for Language and Foreign Language. Sağlamel, H., & Aydoğdu, Z. M. (2022). The Academic Writing Needs of Students: A Case Study on Stakeholder Perspectives. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 7(1), 37-50. Saragih, N. A., Madya, S., Siregar, R. A., & Saragih, W. (2021). Written Corrective Feedback: Students' Perception and Preferences. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 8(2), 676-690. Language Learning, 9(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.21580/vjv9i14652 Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language learning, 64(1), 103-131. Uzun, K., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2022). Sentiment and Sentence Similarity as Predictors of Integrated and Independent L2 Writing Performance. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 7(1), 1-18. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x Wihadi, M., & Martiana, I. (2017). the Effect of Teacher Written Feedbacks on Indonesian Efl Learners Recount Writing Competence. Indonesian EFL Journal, 1(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v1i1.614 Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting Learners’ Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 Woottipong, K. (2022). Facilitating Learners’ Self-Regulated Learning Skills and Self- Efficacy to Write in English Using Technologies. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 7(1), 101-122. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature, and Culture. Vol.8 No.2 2023 https://jurnal.unai.edu/index.php/acuity 281 Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: a mixed methods study. Reading and Writing, 29(2), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9599-3