LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Learning http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 582 STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE TEACHERS’ WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN ONLINE PROFESSIONAL NARRATIVE WRITING CLASS *Prema Gupita Sukha1 and Listyani2 1,2Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga, Indonesia premagupita0908@gmail.com1, listyani.listyani@uksw.edu2 *correspondence: premagupita0908@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.4659 received 15 May 2022; accepted 7 October 2022 Abstract This research aimed to find out students' perspectives on the teachers' written corrective feedback in online Professional Narrative Writing classes and discover the types of the teachers' written corrective feedback that Professional Narrative Writing students prefer to help them revise their writing. Thus, the research questions of this study were (1) What are the students' perspectives on the teachers' written corrective feedback in online Professional Narrative Writing class? and (2) What are the types of the teachers' written corrective feedback that the students prefer to get to help them revise their writing in the Professional Narrative Writing class? The participants of this study were thirty-four (34) students from three online Professional Narrative Writing classes at Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana. This study was conducted from September until December 2021. Also, the data collection instruments used open-ended and closed-ended questionnaires and interviews. The findings showed that the participants had positive and negative perspectives toward the teachers' written corrective feedback in the online Professional Narrative Writing class. Then, the most preferred type of the teachers' written corrective feedback was indirect feedback since the participants believed it could help them revise their essays. The findings of this study were expected to be useful for teachers in giving effective written corrective feedback. Keywords: online professional narrative writing class, students' perspectives, the teachers' written corrective feedback Introduction Writing is an activity to share ideas on paper. According to Anggraini (2018), language students find writing a skill that is difficult in language learning since English has rules and structure that is different from the students' native language. Hence, it is difficult for them to pour their ideas into English writing. In Indonesia, English is learned as a foreign language (EFL). Indonesian and English have different sentence structures, syntax, and spelling that make the students feel difficult to convey their ideas in English writing. So, to master writing skills, the lecturers need to design activities that encourage the learners to improve their writing skills. Many activities can be used to practice students' writing skills. One of the activities often used in writing class is writing paragraph essays. mailto:premagupita0908@gmail.com mailto:listyani.listyani@uksw.edu mailto:premagupita0908@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.4659 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 583 In writing essays, the lecturers usually give written feedback to make it easier for the students to revise the errors in the essays. It will help the students to improve their writing skills. Brookhart (2008) as cited in Anggraini (2018) said that learners have useful information to know their position in learning and what they should do through good feedback. There are three types of feedback: oral feedback, written feedback, and visual or demonstration feedback. Also, there are two types of written feedback: directly written feedback and indirect written feedback. In giving feedback, the lecturers have their own decision on what kinds of feedback will be used. This piece of research hopefully contributes different findings that will complete the existing studies. Hence, this research gave more insights to the lecturers about students' perspectives and the types of written corrective feedback that students preferred. Giving written corrective feedback according to the types that students preferred might be helpful for the students to improve their essays. Two research questions were addressed in this study: 1. What are the students' perspectives on the teachers' written corrective feedback in the online Professional Narrative Writing class? 2. What are the types of the teachers' written corrective feedback that the students prefer to get to help them revise their writing in online Professional Narrative Writing class? This study was expected to help the lecturers improve their feedback to be appropriate for the Professional Narrative Writing students' needs. Thereby, the feedback may help the students enhance their writing skills and performance. Literature Review Feedback Feedback is commonly associated with the teaching and learning process. According to Rofiqoh and Chakim (2020), feedback in the teaching area refers to the teacher's response to the achievements, behaviors, and attitudes that the students have. However, feedback is not only focused on the students' achievement. It is an essential part that focuses on the learning process. Feedback during the learning process helps the students gain better achievements, behaviors, and attitudes. The students need to get corrections on their behaviors, attitudes, and achievements to aid in assimilating what they have learned. It also checks students' results in learning. As stated by Kauchack and Eggen (1989) in Rofiqoh and Chakim (2020), feedback gives cognizance of the students' current behavior and can be helpful to raise students' performance. Keeley, Smith, and Buskist (2006), as cited in Listyani (2019), conducted a study involving 313 students who were evaluating 3 instructors. Keeley et al. used factor analysis to evaluate the contributions of each of these behaviors listed to overall teaching effectiveness. They found that there were 28 behaviors contributing to teaching effectiveness. Ten of these behaviors were being approachable, encouraging and caring, open-minded, a good listener, happy/ humorous, professional, giving constructive feedback, building good relationships, being respectful, and understanding Rofiqoh and Chakim (2020) categorize feedback into teachers' feedback and peers' feedback. Teachers' feedback is the feedback that the teachers give. The teachers respond to the students' work, achievements, and behaviors. Then, peers' LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 584 feedback is the feedback that the other students provide. It means that the students react to their friends' work, achievements, and behaviors. This study will only focus on teachers' feedback since the limitations of time and space. Teachers need to provide complete information about the students' work, achievements, and behaviors in giving good feedback. It is done to make the students understand what they have to do. Anggraini (2018) said that the students could enhance their ability after knowing what to do and how to set it up. Hence, good feedback given will encourage the students to improve their skills. Corrective Feedback There is a term related to giving feedback in language learning: corrective feedback. Corrective feedback is given when the students make errors in their learning process, such as misusing the target language. According to the teaching point of view, Corder (1967) in Anggraini (2018) stated that errors give information on what the students need to learn. So, the teacher has to concentrate on correcting the errors. Also, Chen, Lin, and Jiang (2016) stated that corrective feedback is a way that teachers use to correct any students' errors or grammar errors that happen in a second language (L2) learning. It means that corrective feedback tends to relate to the writing linguistic aspects. According to Anggraini (2018), there are two types of corrective feedback: written corrective feedback and oral corrective feedback. Written corrective feedback is the feedback that identifies some errors in writing which does not follow the rules of the target language. Meanwhile, oral corrective feedback is the feedback that identifies some errors in speaking to correct the linguistic forms used. It means that written corrective feedback can be found in writing class, while oral corrective feedback can be found in speaking class. Because there are several types of corrective feedback, the research will deal with written corrective feedback. Written Corrective Feedback Anne (2017) explained that in 1996, Truscott argued that written corrective feedback (WCF) can only contribute to explicit, knowledge of a language. And that this knowledge is irrelevant to actual language acquisition. However, researchers have recently claimed that according to several theoretical approaches, we may expect writing and moreover WCF to help improve second language acquisition In writing class, the teacher often uses written corrective feedback in the learning process. According to Shao (2015) in Pabur and Liando (2018), written corrective feedback is the correction of grammar and writing errors. Written corrective feedback is one of the important ways to enhance writing accuracy. As Ferris (1999) stated in Pabur and Liando (2018), written corrective feedback helps develop students' writing skill accuracy so that it should not be ignored. Ignoring the linguistic errors in students' writing will be impacted the whole of students' papers. There are two types of written corrective feedback: direct corrective feedback and indirect corrective feedback (Hosseiny, 2014). Direct corrective feedback is the feedback that indicates the errors and provides the correct linguistic form. Meanwhile, indirect corrective feedback is the feedback that only shows the errors without giving the proper linguistic form so that the students will discover the correct answers to the errors by themselves. In showing the errors in indirect LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 585 corrective feedback, the teacher uses various forms such as giving underline, giving circles, giving codes, and according to Sheen (2007) in Wicaksono (2017) that providing highlights can be a way to indicate the errors. Writing Class In language learning, four skills have to be learned which are reading, writing, listening, and speaking. According to Brown (2000) in Hamied and Emilia (2016), in producing writing, the author needs to have the ability related to some writing procedures, which are brainstorming, formulating ideas, and fixing the writing. Those procedures prove that writing requires a process, not an instant outcome. From those steps, it seems that writing is not an easy thing to do. Moreover, writing using English is done by students in which English is their foreign language, such as Indonesian students. Therefore, it will be challenging to do. Writing skills are not a natural skill. However, it is learned through a sequence of practice in formal instructional settings or other environments (Nam & Seong, 2020). Therefore, providing a writing class can become a platform for the students to practice writing English. Also, according to Oster (1989) in Seo and Kim (2020), creating creative writing exercises done by teachers in the writing class enhances the students' writing ability. For example, they are writing paragraph essays and writing stories. Afterward, in Writing Class, the learning is stressed in the writing sequence, which is prewriting, writing, and rewriting (Han, 2013) so that the students will get used to practicing producing English writing. Professional Narrative Writing Class Professional Narrative Writing is one of the classes offered in the English Language Education Program (ELEP) at a private university in Central Java. According to ELEP, UKSW (2020), in the Professional Narrative Writing class, the students are encouraged to fulfill their professional necessities and future jobs through narrative writing. Professional Narrative Writing is taught using various communicative activities. Through some kinds of communicative activities, the students comprehend the structure and linguistic features of narrative writing and exercise their narrative writing skills. Moreover, in the Professional Narrative Writing class, the teacher provides several exercises, including vocabulary exercises and grammar exercises, to enhance the students writing skills (English Language Education Program, 2020). Professional Narrative Writing class has some learning objectives that the students need to achieve. The first learning objective is that the students are expected to understand the concept of narrative text, both structure, and linguistics features. Second, the students are expected to write English narrative texts to complete their professional needs as students and future teachers. Third, the students can conquer the four skills in daily/academic contexts. For the fourth learning objective, the students are expected to write their own narrative story in the format of a digital story. The last learning objective is the development of students' grammar and vocabulary in English (English Language Education Program, 2020). So, in the Professional Narrative Writing class, the students will be taught how to write narrative texts and be encouraged to use grammar and vocabulary correctly. LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 586 Teacher Online Feedback Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been known by almost everyone globally because it has spread fast in nearly all countries worldwide. According to BBC (2020) in Efriana (2021), in March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that COVID-19 is a universal pandemic. COVID-19 impacts most life fields such as economics, politics, education, and tourism, and the phenomenon encourages change in those aspects. One of the changes is the emergence of new policies, such as the work-from-home policy where most employees of government institutions do not come to the office. They do their work online (Efriana, 2021). "In the education sector, the government through the Ministry of Education and Culture in all countries has implemented a learning policy, namely learning from home" (Efriana, 2021). Learning from home policy brings up online learning terms. Efriana (2021) stated that online learning could be defined as distance education that integrates both electronic and internet-based technology in the learning process. Also, Allen and Seaman (2007) in Efriana (2021) said that teachers and students do not face directly in online learning. The teacher and students have to use technology to do the learning process. Online learning encourages teachers and students to be creative to achieve learning goals. One of the efforts to achieve the learning goals in online learning is by providing teachers with online feedback. Teachers' online feedback is one of the innovations in online learning. According to Pan and Shao (2020), online teachers' feedback can be defined that the teachers using network technology to give feedback on the students' learning and give directions on the learning process. Through online teachers' feedback, the students can access the feedback given everywhere and are not limited by time. As stated by Ozkara and Cakir (2018) in Pan and Shao (2020) online teacher feedback could help the teacher organize the feedback given so it will be easier for the students to understand the feedback given. Moreover, Larmuseau, Desmet, and Depaepe (2019) in Pan and Shao (2020) stated that online teachers' feedback could make the students feel supported and have a good connection with the teachers so that the students will be motivated in online learning. Previous Research Some previous research has been done to investigate students' perspectives on written feedback in writing classes. The first previous research was done by Iswandari (2016). The researcher investigated students' preferences for written corrective feedback in writing class, and the types of errors students prefer to correct. The participants were 31 second-semester students from Group D of the Paragraph Writing class in the English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. The qualitative research implemented both open and close- ended questionnaires in gathering data. The research findings were that the majority of the participants preferred indirect written corrective feedback that indicated and located errors. Also, the participants preferred grammatical, vocabulary, punctuation, and spelling errors that were corrected than content and organization. The second previous research has been done by Anggraini (2018). The researcher investigated the students' perspectives toward teachers' written corrective feedback on students' writing in the Paragraph Writing class. The LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 587 participants were 17 second-semester students of the Paragraph Writing class in the English Study Program at Jambi University. The research used a qualitative design, especially a descriptive qualitative study. In gathering data, the researcher used purposive sampling and interviewing. There were some findings of this research. First, the students considered that the teacher's written corrective feedback was valuable and helpful. Second, the students needed clear information about their errors, including what the errors are and how to fix them so that they could easily revise the errors. Another piece of research was conducted by Tursina and Chuang (2016). The study involved forty (40) NCYU students and twenty (20) UT students. They were divided into four big groups and received two types of written feedback. They were direct corrective feedback in endnotes and indirect corrective feedback in endnotes. Students' responses to feedback preferences were then analyzed. The study found that low-performing students who received direct corrective feedback performed better than low-performing students who received indirect corrective feedback. High-performing students, no matter what kind of feedback was received, performed equally well. The last previous research was done by Zhan (2016). The researcher investigated student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and actual teacher performance toward written teacher feedback. The research participants were one writing teacher and 62 writing students from a university in China. The research used qualitative methods, and the instrument were questionnaires and interviews. The findings of the study were that most of the participants felt it challenging to revise essays based on teachers' written feedback to some extent, the participants preferred to be given feedback on organization, vocabulary, content, and grammar, and then the participants wanted feedback about expressions and word choice problems. In summary, feedback is a way to respond to students' behavior, attitudes, and achievement in the learning process. The feedback can be given by both teachers and students in the class. The aim of providing feedback is to increase the students' performance in learning. In giving feedback, there is a term written corrective feedback. Written corrective feedback is the feedback that aims to correct linguistic errors in writing. So, written corrective feedback is used in Writing class. There are two types of written corrective feedback which are direct feedback and indirect feedback. Direct feedback shows the errors in writing and gives the correct linguistic forms. While indirect feedback only gives clues or codes in the wrong part without providing the correct linguistic forms. Method The Context of the Study This research was conducted in Semester I of the 2021/2022 academic year in Professional Narrative Writing class, at English Language Education Program (ELEP), Faculty of Language and Arts (FLA), of Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana using a mixed method. Participants The research participants were three groups of thirty-eight (38) students who took Professional Narrative Writing class in Semester I of the 2021/2022 academic LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 588 year at the English Language Education Program (ELEP), Faculty of Language and Arts (FLA) of Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana. However, there were four students out of the thirty-eight target participants who did not fill out the questionnaire, so there were thirty-four (34) students who filled out the questionnaire. Then, the interviews were conducted with five students from the end of December 2021 until the beginning of January 2022. Data Collection Instruments Two instruments were used in collecting the data, which were the combination of close-ended and open-ended item questionnaires and semi- structured interviews. The questionnaire was used to find out the students' perspectives on the teachers' written corrective feedback and the types of the teachers' written corrective feedback that students prefer from all of the participants. Then, the interviews were used to find out richer data and clarify the questionnaire answers that need to be dug to make clear results. This was in line with Creswell's (2008) statement, the researcher has two instruments where the first instrument has a primary aim to collect one form of data and the other instrument will give supportive information data. The questionnaire used Google Forms and the link was shared with the participants using WhatsApp messages. The interviews were conducted online with five participants via WhatsApp Voice Notes. Findings and Discussion The data for this study were collected from both the participant's answers to the questionnaire and interview. Based on the answers, three emerging themes were found in this research: good perspectives on written corrective feedback, negative perspectives on written corrective feedback, and methods of giving written corrective feedback that students preferred. Positive Perspectives on Written Corrective Feedback Improving students’ writing accuracy Increasing writing skills was the positive perspective that most participants agreed on. In addition, the researcher found that 33 of 34 participants (97%) agreed that the teacher's written corrective feedback improved students writing accuracy. The participants had a reason that they were helped in choosing vocabulary and using appropriate grammar from the feedback. The reasons were stated by Participant 3 and Participant 13. Excerpt 1: "Yes, it can be, feedback from lecturers can improve writing skills because the feedback is not only about sentences that are less efficient but also about grammar that is correct or not and vocabulary that is appropriate or not with the sentence used." (Participant 3/Interview on December 31, 2021). Excerpt 2: "Lecturer corrects my essay and grammar I use, so I know which parts of the essay and grammar that need to be improved. So that it can add to my insight both in grammar and my ability in writing." (Participant 13/Questionnaire on November 8, 2021). LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 589 It can be concluded that the participants' writing skills could be enhanced through the teachers' written corrective feedback. As noted by Hartshorn (2008) in Iswandari (2016), students' writing accuracy, including overall structural accuracy, can be enhanced by written corrective feedback. Moreover, the feedback gave insights on choosing vocabulary based on the context. Also, it made the participants understand grammar correctly in their essays. Helping students in revising essays The teachers' written corrective feedback helped the students in revising their essays. The statement was agreed upon by 32 out of 34 participants (94%). There was a reason why the feedback helped the participants. Based on the participants' answers, the reason was that from the feedback, they knew where the mistakes were, so the participants could revise their essays easily. It can be concluded that the teachers' written corrective feedback helped the participants revise their essays. Sari (2017) stated that the teacher helps the learners fix their writing by informing their errors using the teacher's written feedback. Furthermore, the participants knew the mistakes and could revise them easily through feedback. Motivating students in revising essays In the interview, the researcher was curious whether the interviewees were motivated to revise their essays after getting feedback. Then, the researcher found that all of the interviewees (100%) were inspired to revise their essays by the feedback given. Below are the two statements from Participant 3 and Participant 5. Excerpt 5: "Because from the feedback we know what is wrong, and feedback can also make us more excited and motivated to improve our essay." (Participant 3/Interview on December 31, 2021). Excerpt 3: "Feedback is very motivating because with the feedback, I can find out which ones are lacking, which ones need to be revised, and the intent of writing essays is less clear. So I'm motivated to improve. Also, feedback from lecturers makes me more understand how to make a good and correct essay." (Participant 5/Interview on January 6, 2022). Thus, it can be concluded that the teachers' written corrective feedback motivated the participants to revise their essays since, through the feedback, the participants knew which was the wrong part and what needed to be fixed. Also, the feedback made the students understand how to make better essays. As stated by Sari (2017), making better writing can be motivated by the teachers' written feedback. Appreciating students' hard work The researcher discovered the participants' feelings toward the teachers' written corrective feedback during the interview. The data showed that 4 out of 5 interviewees (80%) stated that they were happy in getting the feedback. LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 590 Thereby, it can be concluded that written corrective feedback can appreciate and reward learners' hard work (Yuliawati, Harmanto, Mustikawati & Maghfiroh, 2021). Moreover, the feedback made them happy since they felt appreciated, and it was a manifestation of the lecturers' sense of care. The data showed that 33 participants agreed that the teachers' written corrective feedback helped them increase their writing skills, revise their essays, and motivate them to improve their essays. Also, the participants who got the teachers' written corrective feedback felt happy because it was a form of appreciation, and it showed the teachers' concern. Therefore, it can be concluded that most of the participants (33 participants) had good perspectives on the teachers' written corrective feedback which is in line with Shultz's (1996) statement in Rosdiana (2016), learners have positive perceptions toward corrective feedback. This finding was in line with Listyani and Kileri’s research (2021). They conducted qualitative research through in-depth interviews with six Academic Writing students. Some students had positive perceptions of teacher feedback, while others showed negative ones. From another piece of research on 76 writing students, Listyani (2021) also found a similar thing. There were students who had positive, negative, as well as mixed responses to teacher feedback. Negative Perspective on Written Corrective Feedback There was only one negative perspective on the teachers' written corrective feedback. The negative perspective was that the teacher's written corrective feedback made the students confused. The researcher found that 10 out of 34 participants had the same negative perspective. The participants thought that the teachers' written corrective feedback was confusing since it was not understandable. Besides, the participants were confused in understanding the feedback given since the teachers only gave highlights or marks in the wrong parts without providing any other comments or explanations. Also, the teachers gave unclear clues. In conclusion, even though 33 out of 34 participants agreed that the teachers' written corrective feedback enhanced their writing accuracy, helped them revise the essays, and motivated them to revise them. However, 10 of them stated that sometimes they were confused by the feedback given since the teachers gave unclear feedback and only gave clues on the wrong parts without providing any other additional comments, so the students could not understand the idea from the feedback given, which would hinder the students in producing better essays. This is in line with Anggraini's (2018) statement that the unclear information in the feedback is ineffective since the students could not get the points of the parts that need to be revised. Types of the Teachers' Written Corrective Feedback That the Students Preferred In this study, the students' perspectives toward the teachers' written corrective feedback and which types of the teachers' written corrective feedback the students preferred were also investigated. According to Yuliawati, Harmanto, Mustikawati, and Maghfiroh (2021), teachers can use two types of written corrective feedback: indirect feedback and direct feedback. The researcher asked the participants to choose teachers' methods in giving written corrective feedback in the questionnaire. The participants could choose more than one method. The methods were: (1) LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 591 Underlining, circling, or coloring in the wrong part of the essay (Indirect Feedback), (2) Using codes in the wrong part of the essay, e.g., WF letters for the Wrong Form, WW letters for the wrong words (Indirect Feedback), and (3) Correcting the wrong part of the essay directly (Direct Feedback). After getting the results from the questionnaire and interview data, the researcher analyzed the types of written corrective feedback that the participants preferred, whether indirect feedback or direct feedback. The results are shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Methods of giving feedback that students preferred Indirect feedback In the questionnaire, two options were provided for the indirect methods used by the teacher that the participants preferred in giving written corrective feedback. According to Mufanti (2016), as cited in Yuliana et al. (2021), indirect feedback is the feedback where the teacher only provides clues in the issue found without correcting the errors, so the students have to think about how they will revise it by themselves. The methods were underlining, circling, or coloring in the wrong part of the essay and giving codes in the wrong part. For example, WF letters for the wrong form, WW letters for the wrong word, and RO letters for run-on sentences. Of those methods, the giving codes method was the most preferred. There were 26 out of 34 participants who chose the method as shown in Figure 4 above. They thought that giving codes in their essays would make it more effortless to revise their essays. Also, it encouraged the participants' independence in revising their essays. Besides that, 19 out of 34 participants also preferred written feedback by giving underlines, circles, or highlighter. They thought that underlining, circling, and highlighting would be easier for them to find the wrong parts of their essay. Thus, it can be concluded that the 26 participants chose to be given code in giving feedback on their essays, and 19 participants preferred the feedback with underlining, circling, and highlighting their essays. It indicated that indirect feedback was the most preferred type of feedback. Since indirect feedback helps learners think independently, as stated by Aswell (2000) and Ferris (2002) in Chen, LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 592 Lin, and Jiang (2016), indirect corrective feedback engages a great cognitive process. It encourages the students' self-reliance in thinking. Direct feedback In the questionnaire, the researcher provided an option of the method used by the teacher that the participants preferred in giving written corrective feedback to indicate direct feedback. According to Mufanti (2016) in Yuliana et al. (2021), direct feedback is when the teacher suggests errors and gives the correct forms for the errors found. The method was to correct the wrong part of the essay directly. The researcher found that 18 out of 34 participants chose the way as shown in Figure 4 above. They thought that giving the correct answers to the errors found in their essays would help them learn from the correct forms. Also, it allowed the students to produce a perfect essay. It can be concluded that 18 out of 34 participants preferred to be given direct feedback. According to the participants' opinions, direct feedback enabled them to produce good essays and helped them in knowing their errors. Therefore, they would not make the same errors. Chen, Lin, and Jiang (2016) stated that direct corrective feedback encourages the students to understand their errors effectively through the correct forms given. Table 1. Methods of Giving Feedback That the Students Preferred Types and methods of giving feedback Indirect Feedback Direct Feedback Underlining, circling, or coloring in the wrong part of the essay Using codes in the wrong part of the essay Correcting the wrong part of the essay directly Participants’ initials P.3, P.4, P.7, P.9, P.10, P.11, P.12, P.13, P.14, P.15, P.17, P.18, P.19, P.20, P.21, P.22, P.23, P.27, P.29 P.1, P.3, P.5, P.6, P.7, P.8, P.9, P.10, P.12, P.13, P.16, P.17, P.18, P.19, P.20, P.22, P.23, P.24, P.25, P.26, P.27, P.28, P.29, P.30, P.31, P.32 P.2, P.3, P.4, P.7, P.9, P.11, P.P.12, P.13, P.15, P.17, P.18, P.19, P.20, P.21, P.27, P.30, P.33, P.34 In conclusion, 45 participants (71%) preferred indirect feedback, and 18 participants (29%) preferred direct feedback, as shown in Table 1 below, so indirect feedback was the most preferred type of teacher's written corrective feedback chosen by the participants. Through indirect feedback, it would be easier for the students to revise their essays because some clues and codes indicated the errors. Indirect feedback also helped the students know what errors occur in their essays and encouraged them to think independently about how to fix the errors. This is in LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 593 line with the statement from Ferris (2003), Frantzen (1995), and Lalande (1982) in Hosseiny (2014). Indirect feedback gives a lot of advantages for the long-term writing development of the students than direct feedback. Conclusion This research aims to find the students' perspectives on the teachers' written corrective feedback in the Professional Narrative Writing class in the English Language Education Program at Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana through open- ended and close-ended questionnaires and interviews. There were two research questions in this study, (1) What are the students' perspectives on written corrective feedback in online Professional Narrative Writing class? and (2) What are the types of written corrective feedback that the students prefer to get to help them revise their writing in the Professional Narrative Writing class? The research questions have been answered and drawn in the following conclusions based on the findings and discussion above. The first finding in this study was the students' perspectives toward the teachers' written corrective feedback. There were 33 participants (97%) who had good perspectives on the teachers' written corrective feedback. They agreed that the teachers' written corrective feedback helped them increase their writing skills, revise their essays, and motivate them to improve their essays. Also, the participants felt happy since they considered the teachers' written corrective feedback as the teachers' appreciation and the teachers' concern for them. Then, ten participants (29%) had a negative perspective toward the teachers' written corrective feedback. They were confused by the feedback given. The participants could not get the idea from the feedback since the teacher only put clues on the wrong parts without providing any other additional comments. Therefore, when the participants could not get the point of the elements that needed to be revised, they could not produce better essays. The second finding was the types of teachers’ written corrective feedback that the students preferred. Indirect feedback was the most preferred type of teachers’ written corrective feedback chosen by 31 participants (91%) than direct feedback selected by 18 participants (53%) only. The participants liked indirect feedback because some clues and codes indicated the errors, which would help them revise their essays. Also, those clues and codes that indicate the errors could foster the participants to fix their errors independently. Aridah’s (2016) study also found a similar thing. Written corrective feedback still plays an important role in improving the quality of students’ writing. The researcher believed that the results of the study would be helpful for teachers, especially writing teachers. However, this study had some limitations. First, this study was conducted on a small scale. There were only 34 participants involved in this study. The researcher hoped that other researchers could conduct similar research to find out the students' perspectives and types of teachers' written corrective feedback most favored by students from other areas such as listening, speaking, reading, and grammar classes. Also, there was a limitation in the data collection method. The interviews were conducted online by using voice notes via WhatsApp, so there were no face-to-face interviews. It made the researcher get limited interview results. Future researchers can use close-ended and open-ended questionnaires and face-to-face interviews if it is possible to get richer data. LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 594 References Anne, W. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 22(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02 Anggraini, D. (2018). Students’ perspective toward teacher’s written corrective feedback on students' writing in paragraph writing class. Retrieved 13 January 2021, from https://repository.unja.ac.id/2981/ Aridah. (2016). The effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in EFL writing performance. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on English Language and Teaching (ISELT-4) (pp. 105-115). Retrieved 24 September 2022, from http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/selt/article/viewFile/6917/5451#:~:text =Direct%20feedback%20is%20the%20feedback,them%20(Ellis%2C%20 2009 Chen, J., Lin, J., & Jiang, L. (2016). Corrective feedback in SLA: Theoretical relevance and empirical research. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 85- 94. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n11p85 Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Efriana, L. (2021). Problems of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic in EFL classroom and the solution. Jelita: Journal of English Language Teaching and Literature, 2(1), 38-47. Retrieved 5 April 2021, from https://jurnal.stkipmb.ac.id/index.php/jelita/article/view/74 Hamied, F. A., & Emilia, E. (2016). Exploring an academic writing class in an Indonesian university context. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v11i1.7842 Han, E. (2013). Skill building writing class design: Reflections of triangular writing process. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 141-157. Retrieved 25 February, 2021, from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=4c390 780-09ff-4cf0-95a4-29c46bb69cb3%40sessionmgr4006 Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students' writing skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668-674. Retrieved 23 February 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466 Iswandari, Y. A. (2016). Written corrective feedback in writing class: Students’ preferences and types of errors. Jurnal Penelitian, 20(1), 1-9. Retrieved 13 January 2021, from https://repository.usd.ac.id/8777/ Kileri, Z.H., & Listyani. (2021). Academic Writing students’ perceptions on teacher feedback. Prominent Journal, 4(21), 106-115. https://doi.org/10.24176/pro.v4i2.6187 Listyani. (2019). The essence of a good teacher. The journal of Asia TEFL, 16(4), Winter 2019, 1396-1403. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.23.1396 Listyani. (2021). EFL writing students’ responses towards teacher feedback to enhance their writing quality. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1101.03 https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02 https://repository.unja.ac.id/2981/ http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/selt/article/viewFile/6917/5451#:~:text=Direct%20feedback%20is%20the%20feedback,them%20(Ellis%2C%202009 http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/selt/article/viewFile/6917/5451#:~:text=Direct%20feedback%20is%20the%20feedback,them%20(Ellis%2C%202009 http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/selt/article/viewFile/6917/5451#:~:text=Direct%20feedback%20is%20the%20feedback,them%20(Ellis%2C%202009 https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n11p85 https://jurnal.stkipmb.ac.id/index.php/jelita/article/view/74 https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v11i1.7842 http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=4c390780-09ff-4cf0-95a4-29c46bb69cb3%40sessionmgr4006 http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=4c390780-09ff-4cf0-95a4-29c46bb69cb3%40sessionmgr4006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466 https://repository.usd.ac.id/8777/ https://doi.org/10.24176/pro.v4i2.6187 http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.23.1396 https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1101.03 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol 25, No. 2, October 2022, pp. 582-595 595 Nam, E. H., & Seong, M. H. (2020). Teaching activities and students’ preferences in integrated college English reading and writing classes. English Teaching, 75(2), 69- 91. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.2.202006.69 Pabur, H. E., & Liando, N. V. F. (2018). A perspective on written corrective feedback. Retrieved 13 January, 2021, from http://repository.unima.ac.id/bitstream/123456789/274/1/No.%2024%20G CES%2020 18%20Proceeding%20-%20Pabur%20%26%20Liando.pdf Pan, X., & Shao, H. (2020). Teacher online feedback and learning motivation: Learning engagement as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(6), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9118 Professional Narrative Writing Online Syllabus (2020). English Language Education Program (ELEP), Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga, Indonesia. Rofiqoh, M., & Chakim, N. (2020). Written and oral feedback in writing class. RETAIN, 8(02), 57-65. Retrieved 13 January 2021, from https://jurnalmahasiswa.unesa.ac.id/index.php/43/article/view/33435/3035 7 Rosdiana. (2016). Students’ perception toward written corrective feedback in Writing classroom. Retrieved 13 January 2021, from https://www.neliti.com/publications/217635/students-perception-toward- written-corrective-feedback-in-writing-classroom Sari, M, A. (2017). Students’ response of teacher’s written feedback on their writing. English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 10(2), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.24042/ee-jtbi.v10i2.1752 Seo, Y., & Kim, C. (2020). The use of short fiction in a writing class: Pedagogical suggestions for secondary level teachers in EFL settings. English Teaching, 75(1), 119-139. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.1.202003.119 Tursina, P. & Chuang, M.T. (2016). Direct and indirect corrective feedback on EFL students' writing performance. EEIC, 1(2), 209-214. Retrieved 24 September 2022, from http://jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/EEIC/article/view/15894/11885 Wicaksono, W. P. (2017). Types and frequencies of written corrective feedbacks in adult ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies, 3(2), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijels.v3i2.1065 Yuliawati, L. N., Harmanto, B., Mustikawati, D. A., & Maghfiroh. (2021). Written corrective feedback: Students' perception on online learning. Professional Journal of English Education, 4(6), 1083-1093. http://dx.doi.org/10.22460/project.v4i6.p1083-1093 Zhan, L. (2016). Written teacher feedback: Student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and actual teacher performance. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p73 https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.2.202006.69 http://repository.unima.ac.id/bitstream/123456789/274/1/No.%2024%20GCES%2020%0918%20Proceeding%20-%20Pabur%20%26%20Liando.pdf http://repository.unima.ac.id/bitstream/123456789/274/1/No.%2024%20GCES%2020%0918%20Proceeding%20-%20Pabur%20%26%20Liando.pdf https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9118 https://jurnalmahasiswa.unesa.ac.id/index.php/43/article/view/33435/30357 https://jurnalmahasiswa.unesa.ac.id/index.php/43/article/view/33435/30357 https://www.neliti.com/publications/217635/students-perception-toward-written-corrective-feedback-in-writing-classroom https://www.neliti.com/publications/217635/students-perception-toward-written-corrective-feedback-in-writing-classroom https://doi.org/10.24042/ee-jtbi.v10i2.1752 https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.1.202003.119 http://jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/EEIC/article/view/15894/11885 https://doi.org/10.24071/ijels.v3i2.1065 http://dx.doi.org/10.22460/project.v4i6.p1083-1093 https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p73