Main Article Content


Indirect corrective feedback is the type of feedback that requires the students to understand the teacher’s signs, and they should understand the feedback independently. This study aims to determine the process of students’ three aspects of engagement involve affective, behavior, and cognitive engagement. It is significant to discover the engagement of students concerning indirect corrective feedback to explore how the teacher and students’ relationship happened. Specifically, this study mainly focused on one class of vocational high school students in multimedia class grade X. Writing a report text was the activity occurring in the study. Furthermore, this study used qualitative research to explore the students’ process in a writing activity. This study had two instruments documentation of students’ drafts and semi-structured interview. The study found that students were affectively, behaviorally, and cognitively engaged in the teacher’s indirect corrective feedback. Although, a few students had different perspectives related to the implemented feedback.


Keywords: Student engagement, Indirect Corrective Feedback, Writing Activity

Article Details

How to Cite
Yudhia, S. D., & Aminin, Z. (2022). Exploring Students’ Engagement toward Indirect Corrective Feedback in Writing a Report Text. English Focus: Journal of English Language Education, 5(2), 90-106.


  1. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211.
  2. Eslami, E. (2014). The Effects of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback Techniques on EFL Students’ Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445–452.
  3. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement Potential of The Concept. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
  4. Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: GerdStabler.
  5. Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133–142.
  6. Han, Y. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80, 288–303.
  7. Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1–13.
  8. Karim, M. Z., & Ivy, T. I. (2011). The nature of teacher feedback in second language (L2) writing classrooms: A study on some private universities in Bangladesh. Journal of the Bangladesh Association of Young Researchers, 1(1), 31–48.
  9. Khanlarzadeh, M., & Nemati, M. (2016). The effect of written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy of EFL students: An improvement over previous unfocused designs. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 55–68.
  10. Kiriakos, C. M., & Tienari, J. (2018). Academic writing as love. Management Learning, 49(3), 263–277.
  11. Kurzer, K. (2018). Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback in Developmental Multilingual Writing Classes. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 5–33.
  12. Lambert, V. a., & Lambert, C. E. (2013). Qualitative Descriptive Research: An Acceptable Design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255–256.
  13. MA, J. J. (2019). L2 Students’ Engagement with Written Corrective Feedback. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–7.
  14. Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72.
  15. 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.
  16. Mirzaii, M., & Aliabadi, R. B. (2013). Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in the context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing. Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 191–213.
  17. Onukwugha, U. (2007). The Four Cardinal Points of Any Good Writing: Expression, Content, Organization & Technical Accuracy
  18. Poorebrahim, F. (2017). Indirect written corrective feedback, revision, and learning. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 184–192.
  19. Rahman, M. S. (2016). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102.
  20. Sidney Ilman Aziez, Muh. Asrori, E. I. P. H. (2021). The Implementation of Teacher’s Indirect Corrective Feedback in Learning Writing Sidney. English Education Journal, 9(3), 17.
  21. Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness, 24(3), 233–254.
  22. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research International. Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 5(2), 18–27.
  23. Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37(January), 13–24.
  24. Zheng, Y., Yu, S., & Liu, Z. (2020). Understanding individual differences in lower-proficiency students’ engagement with teacher written corrective feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–21.