A Comprehensive Exploration of Lecturer’s Written Corrective Feedback on Students’ Counterargument Paragraphs in Enhancing Argumentative Writing Proficiency

  • Himma Jihadiah Arrosyidah State University of Surabaya, Surabaya,  Indonesia
  • Ahmad Munir State University of Surabaya, Surabaya,  Indonesia
  • Ali Mustofa State University of Surabaya, Surabaya,  Indonesia
Keywords: Argumentative writing, Comprehensive exploration, Lecturer’s feedback, Students’counterargument paragraphs, Written corrective feedback


Objective: This study delved into the methods employed by lecturers when offering feedback on argumentative essays authored by students. It particularly emphasized examining the feedback mechanism about counterargument paragraphs within these essays. Method: The research utilized a qualitative method to delve into the feedback provided by the lecturer on students' argumentative essays. This involved thoroughly exploring the various types of feedback imparted by the lecturer. Additionally, document analysis served as the primary means of data collection, enabling a comprehensive examination of written feedback and its nuance. Results: The results emphasize the importance of feedback in improving writing skills and suggest that lecturers should continue to give clear and direct feedback. Novelty:  In the context of existing literature on lecturer's written corrective feedback, this study provides valuable insights into students' argumentative writing dynamics. It highlights the significance of using clear feedback to enhance writing skills, benefiting lecturers and students in academic writing. Additionally, feedback on counterarguments could increase writing proficiency since it is usually the weakest point.

Abstract View: 55 PDF Download: 53 Similarity Check Download: 6
Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


Al-khazraji, A. (2019). Analysis of discourse markers in essays writing in ESL Classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 559-572. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12235a

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to research in education. Cengage Learning.

Barrot, J. S. (2023). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071

Brown, D., Liu, Q., & Norouzian, R. (2023). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.

Deane, P. (2022). The importance of assessing student writing and improving writing instruction. Research Notes. Educational Testing Service.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Febriani, T. N. (2022). “Writing is challenging”: Factors contributing to undergraduate students’ difficulties in writing English essays. Erudita: Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1), 83-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.28918/erudita.v2i1.5441

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2023). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003004943

Filippou, K., Kallo, J., & Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2019). Supervising master’s theses in international master’s degree programmes: roles, responsibilities and models. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1636220

Ha, X. V., & Murray, J. C. (2023). Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of vietnamese primary EFL teachers. LAnguage Teaching Research, 27(1), 137-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820931897

Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC journal, 21(1), 66-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829002100105

Kılıçkaya, F. (2022). Pre-service language teachers’ online written corrective feedback preferences and timing of feedback in computer-supported L2 grammar instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(1-2), 62-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1668811

Koltovskaia, S., & Mahapatra, S. (2022). Student engagement with computermediated teacher written corrective feedback: A case study. JALT CALL Journal, 18(2), 286-315. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v18n2.519

Kushki, A., Rahimi, M., & Davin, K. J. (2022). Dynamic assessment of argumentative writing: Mediating task response. Assessing Writing, 52, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100606

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

Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 605–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323

Lira-Gonzales, M. L., & Valeo, A. (2023). Written corrective feedback and learner engagement: A case study of a french as a second language program. Journal of Response to Writing, 9(1), 5-46.

McCarthy, P. M., Kaddoura, N. W., Ahmed, K., Buck, R. H., Thomas, A. M., Al-harthy, A., & Duran, N. D. (2021). Metadiscourse and counterargument integration in student argumentative papers. English Language Teaching, 14(6), 96-113. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.vl4n6p96

McCarthy, P. M., Kaddoura, N. W., Al-Harthy, A., Thomas, A. M., Duran, N. D., & Ahmed, K. (2022). Corpus analysis on students' counter and support arguments in argumentative writing. PEGEM Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(1), 256-271. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.01.27

Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Bayat, A., Van Ginkel, S., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2020). Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: Does gender matter? Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 698-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200

Ozfidan, B., & Mitchell, C. (2020). Detected difficulties in argumentative writing: The case of culturally and linguistically saudi backgrounded students. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 15-29. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/382

Papi, M., Wolff, D., Nakatsukasa, K., & Bellwoar, E. (2021). Motivational factors underlying learner preferences for corrective feedback: Language mindsets and achievement goals. LAnguage Teaching Research, 25(6), 858-877. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211018808

Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D. (2024). Detection of GPT-4 generated text in higher education: Combining academic judgement and software to identify generative AI tool misuse. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6

Prihatini, A., Pangesti, F., & Wuryaningrum, R. (2024). The relationship among language mindset, corrective feedback preferences, and follow-up strategies of students in writing scientific texts. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 12(1), 104-119. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v%vi%i.9078

Saeed, M. A., & Al Qunayeer, H. S. (2022). Exploring teacher interactive e-feedback on students’ writing through google docs: factors promoting interactivity and potential for learning. The Language Learning Journal, 50(3), 360–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711

Salaxiddinovna, M. G. (2022). Solutions to the problems of teaching writing skills in English in higher education institutions based on foreign manuals. Web of Scientist: International Scientific Research Journal, 3(6), 1782–1785. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QPY3E

Solmaz, F., Taş, S., & Kalın, İ. M. (2023). A study on teacher practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards written corrective feedback. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 23(1), 18-31.

Sundari, H., & Febriyanti, R. H. (2021). The analysis of Indonesian EFL argumentative writing using Toulmin’s model: The structure and struggles from the learners. Scope: Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(2), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v5i2.8544

Teng, M. F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2022). Validation of metacognitive academic writing strategies and the predictive effects on academic writing performance in a foreign language context. Metacogn Learn, 17(1), 167-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09278-4

Valero, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2022). Argumentation competence: Students’ argumentation knowledge, behavior and attitude and their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 35(1), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1734995

Wicaksono, B. H. (2024). Exploring students’ writing performance through corrective feedback. SELL (Scope of English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature) Journal, 9(1), 29-64. https://doi.org/10.31597/sl.v9i1.1011

Xu, W., & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying thematic analysis to education: A hybrid approach to interpreting data in practitioner research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920918810

Yu, S., & Liu, C. (2021). Improving student feedback literacy in academic writing: An evidence-based framework. Assessing Writing, 48, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100525

Yu, W. (2022). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback: Which is more effective? 2022 International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities and Arts (SSHA 2022), 1-10.

How to Cite
Arrosyidah, H. J., Munir, A., & Mustofa, A. (2024). A Comprehensive Exploration of Lecturer’s Written Corrective Feedback on Students’ Counterargument Paragraphs in Enhancing Argumentative Writing Proficiency. IJORER : International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 5(3), 666-678. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v5i3.593
Abstract viewed = 55 times
PDF downloaded = 53 times Similarity Check downloaded = 6 times