







































  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

43 
 

MANAGING LEARNING: MISTAKES FEEDBACK ORAL AND 
WRITTEN WORK 

 
Wisran1, Dewi Furwana2, Andi Husni A. Zainuddin3* & Fauziah Tanjung4 

1,2,3,4 State Islamic Institute of Palopo (IAIN Palopo), Palopo, Indonesia 
 

*andihusni69gmail.com  
 

ABSTRACT 
This study explores the critical role of mistakes and feedback in the learning process, 
focusing on the management of student performance in oral and written assessments. 
Mistakes are considered an inherent part of learning, so this study discusses strategies to 
effectively assess student performance, provide timely feedback, and create an environment 
that encourages continuous improvement. The first part of this study highlights that 
mistakes can be valuable learning opportunities. The study delves into the details of 
providing feedback in oral tasks, including how to deliver constructive feedback, encourage 
student reflection, identify areas for improvement, and motivate active participation in the 
learning process. The next section of the study addresses another crucial aspect of feedback, 
focusing on written assessments. It emphasizes effective methods to provide feedback to 
help students refine their writing skills. Additionally, it discusses how feedback can foster a 
growth mindset, increase resilience, and create a positive learning environment. The 
conclusion of this study advocates a holistic approach to learning, recognizing the role of 
mistakes while emphasizing the transformative impact of constructive feedback. By 
addressing both oral and written components, this study offers insights into effectively 
managing learning and creating an educational environment that supports continuous 
growth and improvement. 
Keywords: Managing Learning, Mistakes Feedback, Oral Work, Written Work 

 

INTRODUCTION 
Learning a new language presents numerous challenges, and students often make 

errors during this process. Making errors is the most natural thing in the world and is 
intrinsically linked to being human; it is a necessary part of learning, and teachers should 
leverage these errors to achieve better results in the classroom  (Li & Vuono, 2019). This 
suggests that teachers of a second language need to be both experienced and adequately 
qualified to harness these mistakes as learning opportunities (Shadiev & Yang, 2020). 
Furthermore, teaching English is an extraordinarily complex endeavor. Not everyone 
proficient in English is equipped to teach it effectively (Solhi & Eǧinli, 2020). Therefore, it is 
crucial for English teachers to enhance their teaching strategies by understanding the 
learning difficulties and the factors that influence English language acquisition, which can be 
gleaned from the errors students make. Mistakes tell us more about what children 
understand about language than the correct things they say (Ahmad, 2011; Getie, 2020). 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
andihusni69gmail.com


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

44 
 

Despite generally good writing skills, Indonesian EFL students still face significant 
challenges in various aspects of writing such as content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, 
and mechanics (Tarigan et al., 2023). These difficulties stem not only from a limited 
understanding of writing components and essay structures but also from personal factors 
such as a lack of writing practice, aversion to writing, writing anxiety, negative perceptions 
of writing, low motivation, insufficient time during tests, and inadequate instructional 
methods in the teaching of writing (Supiani et al., 2023). To address these issues, it is 
essential for improvements in teaching writing to be a collaborative effort involving both 
students and lecturers, aimed at overcoming the students' specific challenges and enhancing 
their writing skills (Toba et al., 2019). 

On the other hand, the oral abilities of Indonesian students in English as a Foreign 
Language (EFL) contexts have been the focus of numerous studies. These students often find 
oral presentations beneficial for enhancing their English and academic skills. Their speaking 
abilities are commonly evaluated through presentations in university-level courses 
(Purwandari, 2023). Moreover, Indonesian EFL students consider the ability to 
communicate in English one of the most challenging skills to master (Sari et al., 2021). These 
observations underscore the need to focus on and improve the oral communication skills of 
Indonesian students in EFL settings. 

 
METHODS 

The research method employed in this study is a literature review, which was selected 
to systematically explore and analyze existing scholarly works, studies, and theoretical 
frameworks (Snyder, 2019). This method focuses particularly on the effective management 
of learning processes, emphasizing how mistakes are addressed and feedback is provided in 
both oral and written assessments. By critically examining a broad spectrum of academic 
sources, this research aims to synthesize and evaluate the prevailing state of knowledge, 
identify predominant themes, and derive valuable insights into the best practices for 
managing learning through strategic handling of mistakes and feedback. The literature 
review facilitates a comprehensive examination of diverse perspectives, theoretical 
underpinnings, and empirical findings. This approach contributes to a more nuanced 
understanding of the topic and helps inform practical applications for educators and learners 
alike. 

 
RESULTS 
Mistakes and Feedback 

The literature review reveals several intriguing findings about why students continue 
to make the same mistakes despite repeated corrections. These mistakes categorized into 
three types: 'slips', which students can correct themselves once pointed out; 'errors', which 
they cannot correct without further explanation; and 'attempts', where students try to 
express something but lack the correct method. Particularly challenging for teachers are 
'errors', as these reflect a deeper misunderstanding and 'attempts' which can offer insights 
into a student's current linguistic understanding and provide opportunities for targeted 
instruction. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

45 
 

Two primary sources of errors have been identified: 'interference' from the student’s 
first language, and 'developmental errors' common in language acquisition. 'Interference' 
occurs as students apply rules or sounds from their native language to English, leading to 
specific errors depending on their linguistic background. For example, Arabic speakers may 
confuse certain phonemes, while French students might struggle with grammatical 
constructions like the present perfect due to differences in time expression in their native 
language. 'Developmental errors' resemble those seen in child language development, where 
learners over-generalize language rules, such as applying incorrect past tense forms like 
"goed" instead of "went." 

To effectively eradicate these mistakes, the research proposes three necessary 
conditions: the student's desire or need to correct the mistake, awareness of the mistake 
through some form of feedback, and opportunities for repeated practice in real-world 
conditions. This approach suggests that mistake correction is not just about pointing out 
errors but also about motivating students, providing clear and constructive feedback, and 
allowing ample practice in contextually meaningful settings. 
 
Feedback During Oral Work 

The research emphasizes that feedback should be specifically tailored to the actions of 
the individual rather than their personal characteristics to foster effective learning. Such 
personalized feedback helps learners recognize the consequences of their actions, making it 
more likely for them to adopt changes. For example, when learners are provided with 
specific oral feedback on the correct pronunciation of words, they not only learn the accurate 
pronunciation but are also more inclined to use it regularly, understanding its benefits such 
as adherence to standard pronunciation norms like Received Pronunciation. However, it's 
crucial to moderate the amount of corrective feedback given, as excessive feedback can lead 
to discouragement and negative outcomes. 

Feedback in educational settings is often categorized by its delivery method, oral or 
written, and its focus, which can either be on accuracy or fluency. Before engaging in the 
feedback process, it's important for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers to 
distinguish between the types of errors students typically make. Systematic errors are 
usually due to incomplete knowledge of the language and require different instructional 
strategies compared to mistakes, which are often caused by external, non-linguistic factors 
such as fatigue or distractions. 

Four primary forms of corrective feedback used by teachers. Clarification requests 
prompt students to repeat or reformulate their statements, aiding in clearer understanding. 
Recasts involve teachers subtly correcting errors by modeling the correct language form 
during their response. Elicitations encourage learners to correct themselves through 
strategic questioning that leads them to the correct form. Finally, metalinguistic feedback 
involves teachers providing explanations that include linguistic terms to clarify why certain 
forms are incorrect and how to correct them. 

The study also considers the emotional and psychological aspects of receiving 
feedback. Since feedback can often feel like criticism, it may be met with resistance or 
rejection by learners. The emotional impact of feedback is significantly influenced by how it 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

46 
 

is presented and managed. Needs into the feedback process suggests that ensuring basic 
needs such as physiological safety and social belonging are met can create a supportive 
learning environment. This foundation allows learners to progress towards higher needs like 
esteem and self-actualization, promoting a more receptive and proactive engagement with 
feedback and personal development. 
 
Feedback on Written Work 

Responding to student writing is a fundamental aspect of teaching writing, which 
significantly influences students' learning processes. Effective feedback enables students to 
refine and develop their writing skills crucially. In educational settings where feedback is not 
integrated into teaching practices, or where students struggle to comprehend and apply the 
feedback provided, developing sufficient writing proficiency becomes a formidable 
challenge. The capacity to access and effectively utilize teacher feedback is thus a critical 
element of the learning-to-write process. It is in these interactions that students learn to 
navigate the complexities of written expression and fine-tune their communicative abilities. 

The importance of teacher feedback in writing has been extensively documented 
within both ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) 
writing research. Particularly in classrooms adopting a process-oriented approach to writing 
instruction, the role of feedback is profoundly acknowledged by both teachers and students. 
This process-oriented approach emphasizes continuous revision and refinement of student 
work, where teacher feedback acts as a pivotal guide. It helps students understand where 
their writing meets expected standards and where it falls short, providing clear directions 
for improvement. 

Teacher written feedback typically encompasses any comments, questions, or 
corrections made on students' assignments and can take various forms such as questions, 
error corrections, praises, suggestions, and criticisms. Research in ESL education has 
highlighted the utility of teacher feedback as a powerful tool that encourages student 
revisions and facilitates the learning-to-write process. It is through feedback that teachers 
communicate the necessary changes and improvements required, making the revision 
process a central component of writing development. 

Prominent educators and researchers have stressed the significance of this practice. 
The teacher’s role as a "feedback provider" as central to the process-oriented approach to 
teaching writing. Teacher feedback is crucial as it not only identifies students’ strengths and 
weaknesses but also significantly enhances their motivation during the writing process. 
Echoing this sentiment, Peterson points out that feedback informs students about the 
reader’s reactions, thereby serving as a crucial link between the student writer and the 
audience. By providing insight into how their writing is perceived, teachers help foster 
students’ development as writers and nurture their confidence, making feedback an 
indispensable tool in the education of effective communicators. 

 
 
 
 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

47 
 

DISCUSSION 
Mistakes and Feedback 

The literature review conducted by Julian Edge provides a structured understanding of 

the recurring mistakes made by students in language learning, categorizing them into 'slips', 

'errors', and 'attempts' (Edge & Darling, 1989). Each category represents a different level of 

cognitive processing and linguistic understanding, demanding tailored instructional 

responses. 'Slips' are relatively minor and can be self-corrected upon recognition, suggesting 

a level of knowledge that merely requires cueing (Akhzhibek & Kudaibergenova, 2023). On 

the other hand, 'errors' signify a deeper lack of understanding and require more substantive 

instructional intervention, indicating areas where learners have not yet internalized the 

correct linguistic forms. 'Attempts' highlight the explorative nature of language acquisition, 

where students try to articulate thoughts without having fully mastered the necessary 
linguistic structures, providing educators with valuable insights into the learners’ 

developmental stage and potential areas for focused teaching (Edge & Darling, 1989; Juraj, 

2024). 

The research also identifies two predominant sources of these errors: 'interference' 

from a student's first language and 'developmental errors' typical of the language learning 

process. Interference errors occur when students unconsciously apply phonetic, 

grammatical, or lexical rules from their native language to the new language, which can lead 

to systematic mistakes depending on their linguistic background (Ratnaningsih & Azizah, 

2019; Saeed Al-Sobhi, 2019). For example, the confusion of phonemes by Arabic speakers or 

the misuse of tense by French speakers illustrates how native language structures can 

impede the acquisition of English structures. Developmental errors, akin to those observed 

in child language development, occur when learners apply rules too broadly, evident in over-

generalizations like using "goed" instead of "went" (Pasaribu, 2021; Yusuf et al., 2021). These 

errors are part of the natural learning process but require correction to prevent them from 

becoming ingrained. 

The effective elimination of these mistakes hinges on fulfilling three conditions: 

students’ motivation to change (driven by the need or desire to correct the mistake), their 

awareness of the error (typically enhanced by specific feedback), and sufficient 

opportunities for practice in contextually relevant settings. This holistic approach 

emphasizes not only the correction of mistakes but also the motivational and practical 

aspects of learning, suggesting that real progress in language proficiency requires more than 

just the identification of errors—it requires creating an environment where students are 
encouraged to understand their mistakes and are given ample opportunities to apply 

corrections in meaningful contexts (Han, 2019; Mao & Crosthwaite, 2019; Reynolds & Kao, 

2021). This methodology not only addresses the cognitive aspects of learning but also 

acknowledges the emotional and practical dimensions, fostering a more comprehensive and 

effective learning experience (Johnson, 1988; Zhang et al., 2021). 
 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

48 
 

Feedback During Oral Work 
The research underscores the critical importance of tailoring feedback to the specific 

actions of learners rather than their personal characteristics, emphasizing the effectiveness 
of personalized feedback in facilitating meaningful learning experiences. Such feedback 
helps learners understand the implications of their actions, thereby increasing their 
likelihood to make necessary adjustments (Bergmann et al., 1997; Chen et al., 2020). For 
instance, providing learners with targeted oral feedback on pronunciation not only helps 
them grasp the correct sounds but also motivates them to consistently apply these 
corrections in their speech, appreciating benefits such as adherence to standard 
pronunciation norms like Received Pronunciation (Almusaed et al., 2023; Saine & Santoso, 
2024). However, the study cautions against the overuse of corrective feedback, which can be 
counterproductive, leading to discouragement and adverse educational outcomes. 

The methodology of delivering feedback, whether oral or written, and its focus—on 
either accuracy or fluency—plays a significant role in the educational context, especially for 
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers. Teachers must be adept at distinguishing 
between systematic errors, which stem from an incomplete understanding of language 
structures, and mistakes caused by external factors like fatigue or distractions (Ha et al., 
2021; Tricia Hedge, 2000). Lightbown and Spada identify four primary types of corrective 
feedback: clarification requests, recasts, elicitations, and metalinguistic feedback, each 
serving a unique purpose in aiding students' comprehension and correction of errors (Spada 
& Lightbown, 1999). Clarification requests help clarify misunderstandings, recasts provide 
subtle corrections within the flow of conversation, elicitations probe students towards self-
correction, and metalinguistic feedback offers deep insights into language rules 
(Khanahmadi, 2024; Menyani & Merabti, 2024). 

Furthermore, the study delves into the emotional and psychological impacts of 
receiving feedback, acknowledging that feedback can often be perceived as criticism, which 
might lead to resistance or outright rejection from students. The emotional response to 
feedback is significantly shaped by its presentation and management. Integrating principles 
from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs into the feedback process can greatly enhance its 
effectiveness (Ihensekien & Joel, 2023; Spada & Lightbown, 1999). By ensuring that basic 
physiological and safety needs are met, and fostering a sense of belonging and esteem, 
educators can create a supportive learning environment that not only facilitates error 
correction but also promotes personal growth and self-actualization among learners 
(Alqahtani, 2011; Hassan, 2019). This holistic approach to feedback not only addresses 
linguistic competencies but also supports the overall developmental needs of students, 
making the feedback process a powerful tool for educational and personal development. 
 
Feedback on Written Work 

Responding to student writing effectively is a cornerstone of teaching in process-
oriented writing classrooms, particularly in ESL and EFL contexts (Mack, 2009). The study 
highlights the indispensable role of teacher feedback in enhancing the learning-to-write 
process, emphasizing that without adequate feedback, students struggle significantly to 
develop writing proficiency. Feedback serves as a critical tool for guiding students through 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

49 
 

the iterative process of writing, revising, and refining their work (van der Kleij, 2020). In 
environments where feedback is lacking or not properly utilized, students often fail to make 
the necessary progress in their writing skills (Fathia Baresh, 2022). This underscores the 
importance of not only providing feedback but also ensuring that it is accessible and 
actionable for students. 

The nature and implementation of teacher feedback can greatly influence the 
effectiveness of the learning process. Feedback is defined broadly to include any comments, 
questions, or corrections teachers provide on student assignments, and it can take many 
forms from specific corrections and questions to praise and more general suggestions. This 
versatility allows teachers to address diverse aspects of a student's writing, tailoring their 
feedback to the individual needs of each student (Eskelinen, 2016; Wihastyanang et al., 
2020). Prominent educators like Jeremy Harmer and researchers such as Silver and Lee have 
noted that effective feedback not only helps correct immediate errors but also plays a crucial 
role in developing students' overall writing abilities (Harmer, 2015; Silver & Lee, 2007; 
Zhang et al., 2021). It boosts their motivation, helps identify their strengths and weaknesses, 
and provides essential insights into how their writing is perceived by others. Peterson's 
research further supports this by highlighting how feedback informs students about the 
reader’s reactions, thereby building their confidence and helping them understand the 
impact of their writing. Thus, teacher feedback transcends mere error correction; it is a 
fundamental component of teaching that fosters deeper learning, encourages self-reflection, 
and supports students in becoming more competent and confident writers (Peterson & 
McClay, 2010; Williams & Beam, 2019). 

 
CONCLUSION 

This study explores strategies to enhance the learning process by addressing mistakes 
and optimizing feedback mechanisms in both oral and written assessments. Through an 
extensive literature review, key themes emerged, highlighting the critical role of specific, 
timely, and empowering feedback in boosting student performance. The research also 
emphasizes the importance of fostering a positive attitude towards mistakes, encouraging 
students to view them as essential learning opportunities. This shift in perspective is vital 
for students to embrace errors as part of their educational growth rather than setbacks, with 
effective feedback principles found to be universally applicable across different assessment 
modes. 

The findings of this study provide a nuanced understanding of managing mistakes and 
delivering effective feedback, offering educators practical insights into best practices for 
improving learning outcomes. It underscores that a well-crafted feedback mechanism, 
coupled with a positive learning environment, significantly enhances both oral and written 
educational experiences. As education continues to evolve, the paper suggests that educators 
adopt strategies that not only correct errors but also empower students, fostering a culture 
of continuous improvement and resilience. This approach has the potential to transform 
educational practices, creating more supportive and enriching learning environments. 
 
 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

50 
 

REFERENCES 
Ahmad, N. (2011). The Nature of Difficulties in Learning English by the students at Secondary 

School level in Pakistan. Of Education and Practice (JEP), 2(10), 18–24. 

Akhzhibek, B., & Kudaibergenova, M. R. (2023). Ways of Dealing with Pronunciation Errors 
of EFL Learners in School. International Journal of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary 
Research, 3630(April), 29–32. 

Almusaed, A., Almssad, A., Yitmen, I., & Homod, R. Z. (2023). Enhancing Student Engagement: 
Harnessing “AIED”’s Power in Hybrid Education—A Review Analysis. Education 
Sciences, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070632 

Alqahtani, A. A. (2011). EFL Teachers’ Feedback to Oral Errors in EFL Classroom: Teachers’ 
Perspectives Abdulmuhsen. Arab World English Journal, 2(1), 214–232. 

Bergmann, B. A., Rubin, A. R., & Campbell, C. R. (1997). Potential of Paulownia Elongata Trees 
for Swine Waste Utilization. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural 
Engineers, 40(6), 1733–1738. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.21401 

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review. IEEE Access, 
8, 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510 

Edge, K. A., & Darling, J. (1989). The Pumping Dynamics of Swash Plate Piston Pumps. Journal 
of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, Transactions of the ASME, 111(2), 307–
312. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3153051 

Eskelinen, M. (2016). Written Essay Feedback Given by a Teacher and As Experienced by 
Students (Issue September). University of Jyväskylä. 

Fathia Baresh, E. (2022). Developing Libyan Undergraduates’ Writing Skills Through 
Reflective Journaling: a Critical Literature Review. Journal of English Language Teaching 
and Learning, 3(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.33365/jeltl.v3i1.1835 

Getie, A. S. (2020). Factors Affecting the Attitudes of Students Towards Learning English as 
a Foreign Language. Cogent Education, 7(1). 
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1738184 

Ha, X. Van, Nguyen, L. T., & Hung, B. P. (2021). Oral Corrective Feedback in English as a 
Foreign Language Classrooms: A Teaching and Learning Perspective. Heliyon, 7(7), 
e07550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550 

Han, Y. (2019). Written Corrective Feedback from an Ecological Perspective: The Interaction 
between the Context and Individual Learners. System, 80, 288–303. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.009 

Harmer, J. (2015). The Pratice of English Language Teaching Fifth Edition. ELT Journal, 5(1), 
1. 
https://www.scribd.com/embeds/490938777/content?start_page=1&view_mode=sg

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

51 
 

ulung&access_key=key-fFexxf7MbzEfWu3HKwf 

Hassan, N. A. A. Al. (2019). Saudi EFL University Instructors’ Barriers to Teaching the 
Speaking Skills: Causes and Solutions. Arab World English Journal, 222, 1–53. 
https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/th.222 

Ihensekien, O. A., & Joel, A. C. (2023). Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Frederick 
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Motivation Theories: Implications for Organizational 
Performance. The Romanian Economic Journal, 85. 
https://doi.org/10.24818/rej/2023/85/04 

Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake Correction. ELT Journal, 42(2), 89–96. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.2.89 

Juraj, J. (2024). Error Analysis of English Word Order in Written Assignments by EFL BA and 
Secondary School Students Language as a Foreign Language , MA Programme BA and 
secondary school students Supervisor : Tanja Gradečak , Associate Professor. J.J. 
Strossmayer University in Osijek Faculty. 

Khanahmadi, A. (2024). ESP Teachers’ Oral Corrective Feedback on Medical Students’ 
Reading Comprehension. International Arab Journal of English for Specific Purposes 
(IAJESP), 7(1), 27–43. 

Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-Five Years of Research on Oral and Written Corrective 
Feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006 

Mack, L. (2009). Issues and Dilemmas: What Conditions are Necessary for Effective Teacher 
Written Feedback for ESL Learners ? Polyglossia, 16, 33–39. http://r-
cube.ritsumei.ac.jp/repo/repository/rcube/680/4-polyglossia16_Issues and 
Dilemmas .pdf 

Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating Written Corrective Feedback: (Mis) 
Alignment of Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 
45(November 2018), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004 

Menyani, N., & Merabti, M. (2024). An Investigation of the Impact of Teachers’ Corrective 
Feedback on Students’ Spoken Errors: The Case of Moroccan High School Teachers. 
International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, 5(2), 19–40. 
https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v5i2.427 

Pasaribu, A. N. (2021). A Common Error Analysis in Students’ English Narrative Writing. 
Linguistic, English Education and Art (LEEA) Journal, 4(2), 436–445. 
https://doi.org/10.31539/leea.v4i2.2338 

Peterson, S. S., & McClay, J. (2010). Assessing and Providing Feedback for Student Writing in 
Canadian Classrooms. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 86–99. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

52 
 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.003 

Purwandari, J. D. (2023). EFL Students’ Emotional Responses to Oral Feedback: The Case of 
Indonesia. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 11(1), 224–235. 
https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v11i1.17794 

Ratnaningsih, S., & Azizah, A. (2019). Error Analysis in the Descriptive Text Writing of 
Vocational High School Students. Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 175–186. 
https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1364 

Reynolds, B. L., & Kao, C. W. (2021). The Effects of Digital Game-Based Instruction, Teacher 
Instruction, and Direct Focused Written Corrective Feedback on the Grammatical 
Accuracy of English Articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(4), 462–482. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1617747 

Saeed Al-Sobhi, B. M. (2019). The Nitty-gritty of Language Learners’ Errors – Contrastive 
Analysis, Error Analysis and Interlanguage. International Journal of Education and 
Literacy Studies, 7(3), 49. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.3p.49 

Saine, K., & Santoso, S. B. (2024). The Impact of Teacher Competencies, Academic 
Supervision, and Principal Leadership on Teacher Performance in the Gambia’s 
Government High Schools. Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities, 
15(Iconomics 2023), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.30595/pssh.v15i.934 

Sari, Y. A., Septiyana, L., Suhono, S., Anggaira, A. S., & Hasyim, U. A. F. A. (2021). Corrective 
Feedback in Learning Interaction: Integration of Surface Strategy Taxonomy. AL-
ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(3), 2266–2280. 
https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i3.847 

Shadiev, R., & Yang, M. (2020). Review of Studies on Technology-Enhanced Language 
Learning and Teaching. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 1–22. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020524 

Silver & Lee, S. (2007). What Does It Take to Make a Change? Teacher Feedback and Student 
Revisions RITA SILVER. Distribution, 6(1), 25–49. 

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and 
Guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 333–339. 

Solhi, M., & Eǧinli, I. (2020). The Effect of Recorded Oral Feedback on EFL Learners’ Writing. 
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 1–13. 
https://doi.org/10.17263/JLLS.712628 

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, First Language Influence, and 
Developmental Readiness in Second Language Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 
83(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00002 

Supiani, Yansyah, & Basthomi, Y. (2023). Indonesian University Students’ Engagement with 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © Wisran et al. 
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

53 
 

Teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback in English as an Additional Language Writing 
Classroom. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 147–166. 
https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2023.121334 

Tarigan, K. E., Stevani, M., Ginting, F. Y. A., Prayuda, M. S., Sari, D. W., & Lumbanraja, B. (2023). 
Oral Corrective Feedback and Error Analysis: Indonesian Teachers‟ Beliefs to Improve 
Speaking Skill. World Journal of English Language, 13(6), 140–150. 
https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n6p140 

Toba, R., Noor, W. N., & Sanu, L. O. (2019). The Current Issues of Indonesian EFL Students’ 
Writing Comparsion and Contrast Essay. Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 57–73. 

Tricia Hedge. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford University 
Press. 

van der Kleij, F. M. (2020). Evaluation of the ‘Feedback Engagement Enhancement Tool’ to 
examine and enhance students’ engagement with feedback on their writing. Studies in 
Educational Evaluation, 66(July), 100907. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100907 

Wihastyanang, W. D., Kusumaningrum, S. R., Latief, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2020). Impacts of 
Providing Online Teacher and Peer Feedback on Students’ Writing Performance. Turkish 
Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 178–189. 
https://doi.org/10.17718/TOJDE.728157 

Williams, C., & Beam, S. (2019). Technology and Writing: Review of Research. Computers and 
Education, 128, 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.024 

Yusuf, Y. Q., Mustafa, F., & Iqbal, R. M. (2021). An Inquiry into Grammatical Errors in Writing 
Committed by High Achieving EFL Students. International Journal of Language Studies, 
15(2), 1–22. 

Zhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P. (2021). EFL Students’ Preferences for Written 
Corrective Feedback: Do Error Types, Language Proficiency, and Foreign Language 
Enjoyment Matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12(April), 1–12. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564 

 
 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689

