ABSTRACT
This study is a classroom-based experimental research by design which was to establish a valid investigation on the effects of traditional/direct and innovative process-oriented/indirect teacher feedback on students’ revision of their persuasive essays across the five components of writing- content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics, and their significant difference and relationship of the students’ persuasive essays in the writing quality and quantity of the Grade 11 ABM students of Amsic Integrated School, Division of Angeles City. The participants in this research were purposively sampled and divided into experimental and control groups to ensure comparable theoretical performance and English proficiency. Students' written persuasive essays intended for the writing sessions were provided with teacher feedback, and students' initial and final drafts were scored/evaluated by three language experts utilizing the ESL Composition Profile (Hughey, 1983). Data obtained were interpreted using frequency distribution, measure of central tendency, and standard deviation, to determine between mean scores; Paired main t-tests, and Fisher’s Exact Probability, to state the difference between two variables, and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (Pearson’s r), to distinguish the relationship of co-variation between variables (Sevilla et al., 1992). The study was to investigate the effects of teacher feedback on students’ revision of their written persuasive essays in English across the five writing components, gross revisions, and the relationship between quality and quantity of writing. The normality, as an assumption of the test, was checked using Shapiro-Wilk, and the sample was homogenous by design. Results manifested for both traditional/direct feedback and innovative process-oriented approach/indirect feedback statistically enhanced the students’ quality of writing across content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics, with the innovative process-oriented approach additionally fostering a much profound meaning on teacher and student engagement and reflection. There were no significant differences revealed between teacher feedback types in post-test performance scores, and no significant relationship was recorded between writing quality and quantity. Major research findings were teacher quality and teacher feedback regardless of types play an emerging role in guiding appropriate revisions, enhancing writing English proficiency and competence, and promoting reflective learning in the ESL classroom context.
Keywords: Teacher Feedback, Writing Performance, Direct/Traditional Feedback, Indirect/Innovative Process-Oriented Feedback, and ESL Composition Profile
The strategies of teachers who provided technical and innovative feedback largely depended on their own styles in assisting students to enhance their theoretical writing competence in the English language. Ensuring appropriate written corrective feedback was a primary method to improve students’ writing performance in persuasive essays because it helped them identify their wimpish points and guided them at the same time to produce further authentic and orderly pieces of writing. This innovative practice aligned with principles of communicative language teaching that focused on facilitating students to build their writing component skills gradually, editing their work exceptionally, and producing more effective writers in the discipline. English teachers who provided suggestions as corrected feedback motivated students to think analytically, creatively, and critically on their written compositions and become accountable in their own learning, which afterwards benefitted them to exhibit advanced and improved English language skills particularly in writing.
Many proven studies that teacher corrective feedback occupies a wee bit unfavorable role in elevating the quality of students’ writing skills in English and their motivation from the teachers in the ESL classrooms. (Cruz & Lapuz, 2019) investigated that teacher feedback helps students to identify their lapses in grammar, content errors, poor word choice, and illogical organization of paragraphs; however, the responses of students largely depend on their received motivation and established high level of self-confidence. (Bautista, 2020) reported that both the teacher and the student reflect on feedback as a very pivotal strategy, peculiarly when it is trenchant and supportive. (Gonzales, 2022) revealed that feedback, whether it comes from a language expert or via automatic system approach, establishes a slim chance for writing skills improvement, and likewise technical language problems in keeping accuracy and recondite understanding are somewhat compromised when inappropriately. These studies have demonstrated that aspect of operative feedback is still one of the most essential elements of teaching writing as a macro skill.
Considering the bulk of efforts, Filipino students deemed to systematize that writing is somehow challenging to master. (Pablo & Lasaten, 2018) studied that several senior high school students have difficulties in developing content structure, writing correct phrases and sentences, choosing appropriate and polite expressions, organizing main and supporting ideas, observing correct usage, and determining mechanical errors. These language barriers often emanate from insufficient exposure to the English classes, less teacher feedback on writing activities, and few structured writing programs in the academe. (Setianingsih, Prastikawati, & Wiyaka, 2020) also investigated that Filipino SEA teacher-trainees still make fragment sentences and rudimentary sentence structures, showing that effective writing in the discipline is still an arduous concern.
This research aimed to identify the effects of teacher feedback on students’ revision of their written outputs in English.
Purposely, this research sought to answer the following specific questions:
1. How may the types of teacher feedback affect the control and experimental groups’ revision of written outputs in terms of the following components:
1.1. Traditional Feedback
1.1.1. Content
1.1.2. Organization
1.1.3. Vocabulary
1.1.4. Language Use
1.1.5. Mechanics
1.2. Innovative Process-Oriented Feedback
1.2.1. Content
1.2.2. Organization
1.2.3. Vocabulary
1.2.4. Language Use
1.2.5. Mechanics
2. What is the overall effect of teacher feedback on students’ revision of their written outputs for control and experimental groups along the following areas:
2.1 Quality of Writing
2.2 Quantity of writing
3. Is there a significant difference in the types of feedback of the control and experimental groups’ written outputs in terms of quality and quantity?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the students’ quality and quantity of written outputs as a result of teacher feedback?
The following hypotheses were tested at (.05) level of significance:
Ho1. There is no significant difference in the control and experimental groups in terms of the quality and quantity of their written outputs as a result of teacher feedback.
Ho2. There is no significant relationship between the quality and quantity of students’ written outputs as a result of teacher feedback.
This presents comprehensive research designs, research locale, samples and sampling methods, subjects of the study, instrumentation, research procedure, and statistical treatment of data.
The study was a classroom-based experimental research by design, which (McMillan, 2022) described as a design to investigate the tested hypotheses on the effects of teacher feedback on students’ revision of their written outputs. The researcher used a purposive sampling assignment for all participants, making it suitable for studies conducted in natural settings, comparable classrooms. The study compared traditional/direct feedback with innovative process-oriented/indirect feedback, examining both the quality of writing and quantity of words as results of the students’ persuasive essays. This design allowed the researcher to investigate the cause-and-effect relationship between types of feedback and writing performance while still working inside pre-existing English classes.
The study employed structured prompts, ESL composition profile (Hughey et al., 1983), codes of corrections for supplying direct written corrective feedback (Cabrera, 2016), and codes of corrections (Salimi & Valizadeh, 2015; Estaji & Bikineh, 2022) as the independent instruments for this study. The research instruments were checked for reliability by examining the coefficient of equivalence and simultaneously identifying the difficulty and discrimination indices of each item in the instrument. The normality was checked using Shapiro-Wilk and the sample was homogenous by design. The findings from these analyses were used to determine the effects of feedback and draw pedagogic implications. The Profile consisted of five language components with special quantitative points: content (30), organization (20), vocabulary (20), language use (25), and mechanics (5). The scores and grades for both control and experimental groups were recorded in the ESL Composition Profile form (Appendix E) for their pretest and post-test drafts.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This presents a systematic order, linking obtained denary data from the ESL Composition Profile and with statistical interpretations of how students performed on their written outputs in English. The major results and the comprehensive discussions illustrated the effects of the two types of teacher feedback on students’ written outputs. Each research question was addressed step by step, providing insights into the effectiveness of each feedback type and its implications for teaching reading and writing for SHS students.
1. How may the types of teacher feedback (traditional and innovative) affect the control and experimental groups’ revision of students’ written outputs across content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics?
Both traditional and innovative process-oriented feedback approach significantly influenced the revisions of students’ writing across all components. For the traditional feedback group, content scores enhanced from (M=14.8) to (M=16.0), organization from (M=12.2) to (M=12.8), vocabulary from (M=12.0) to (M=12.7), language use from (M=13.1) to (M=14.1), and mechanics from (M=3.11) to (M=3.96). These improvements indicate that traditional feedback helped students develop ideas, structure paragraphs more coherently, choose words more effectively, apply grammatical and syntactical rules correctly, and attend to surface-level errors such as spelling and punctuation. Students reported that the feedback allowed them to revise thoughtfully while maintaining the free meaning of their persuasive essays.
2. What is the overall effect of teacher feedback on students’ revision of their written outputs for control and experimental groups in terms of quality and quantity of writing?
The experimental group, which received the process-oriented feedback approach showed gains in all five components, with content increasing from (M=15.2) to (M=16.5), organization from (M=12.1) to (M=13.0), vocabulary from (M=11.8) to (M=12.8), language use from (M=12.5) to (M=13.7), and mechanics from (M=3.27) to (M=3.89). This feedback encouraged students to elaborate ideas, organize their persuasive essays logically, use richer vocabulary, improve grammar and syntax, and correct automatic errors, all while preserving their free arguments. Although the final scores between the two groups were not statistically different, qualitative responses indicated that both feedback types of efficaciously guided students in revising their writing thoughtfully, promoting general improvement in content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics.
3. Is there a significant difference in the types of feedback of the control and experimental groups’ written outputs in terms of quality and quantity?
The findings revealed that the types of teacher feedback, whether traditional or innovative process-oriented, did not result in significant differences in students’ writing revisions in terms of quality and quantity. The experimental group receiving free feedback had a mean quantity score of (M=312) compared to (M=274) for the traditional feedback group, while the mean quality scores were (M=60.0) and (M=59.6), respectively. However, the p-values for quantity (0.125) and quality (0.808) exceeded the 0.05 significance level, indicating that these differences were not statistically significant. Qualitative responses showed that students used feedback to refine their essays while maintaining their free ideas, improving grammar and vocabulary without altering the content’s meaning. These results aligned with the feedback intervention theory, which emphasizes that the effectiveness of feedback depends on how it directs attention to task performance rather than its form. Supporting literature likewise suggested that significant engagement with feedback, thoughtless of type, promotes significant revision and skill development.
4. Is there a significant relationship between the students’ quality and quantity of written outputs as a result of teacher feedback?
The findings indicate that teacher feedback, whether traditional or innovative, effectively increased the quantity of students’ writing, as all the 30 participants in both experimental and control groups produced long-final drafts than their initial written persuasive essays. Qualitative responses revealed that students actively applied feedback to add details and elaborate their ideas, demonstrating engagement with the revision process. However, the correlation between increased word count and improvement in writing quality was pallid (r = 0.16, not significant), suggesting that long drafts did not automatically translate to higher quality writing. Students noted that even with long essays, errors in grammar, organization, and clarity persisted, highlighting the distinction between writing more and writing better
The conclusions that were derived from the quantitative and qualitative data analysis on the effectiveness of both traditional and innovative process-oriented feedback strategies in improving student writing.
1. The two types of teacher feedback either traditional or innovative process-oriented feedback significantly influenced the revisions of students’ persuasive essays across all five ESL writing components. Students reported that the feedback allowed them to revise thoughtfully while maintaining the original meaning of their written outputs.
2. The types of teacher feedback, either innovative process-oriented or traditional clearly influenced both the quality and quantity of students’ written outputs, although their disparities between feedback types were still distinct in context. In terms of quality, the experimental group advanced across all five ESL components, while the control group showed a slight advancement. In terms of writing quantity, the experimental group produced longer persuasive essays than the control group.
3. The final scores between the two tested groups were not statistically different, qualitative responses indicated that both feedback types of efficaciously guided students in revising their writing thoughtfully, promoting general improvement across the five ESL components, content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics.
4. Qualitative insights revealed that students used feedback to add details, clarify ideas, and reflect on multiple aspects of their writing. The participants produced higher scores from the initial compared with the final drafts. An indication that teacher feedback helped them process their thoughts during the writing and revising sessions.
5. The types of teacher feedback, either traditional or innovative process-oriented, did not actually correlate with the significant differences on students’ writing revisions in terms of quality and quantity. This only means that these differences were not statistically significant.
6. Qualitative responses recorded that students used feedback to refine their essays while maintaining their own ideas and expressions, improving grammar and vocabulary without altering the content’s meaning. This indicates that teacher feedback, whether traditional or innovative, effectively increased the quantity of students’ persuasive essays.
Limitations of the Study:
The study was minimal with its minimal sample size, which did not represent the wider population of student writers. It was also conducted in only one theoretical term, which restricted the assessment for long-term effect of feedback on writing improvement. Only two types of feedback, traditional and innovative process-oriented, were examined, leaving out other practicable approaches such as peer and automated feedback.
The evaluation of writing quality and quantity relied to teacher scoring, which could had involved some personal interpretations even though set criteria was used. Also, factors like students’ motivation, language proficiency, and classroom environment were not controlled, which might had influenced the results.
1. Educators should provide clear, constructive, and consistent feedback that guides students in revising content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics, emphasizing connections to their original ideas to promote suggestive improvements.
2. Writing programs can integrate both traditional and innovative process-oriented feedback methods, as clarity and relevance are more significant than the feedback type, and students should be given opportunities for reflection and iterative revisions.
3. Teachers should include computer-automated system feedback with self-checking instruments, peer evaluation practice to a more personal and authentic engagement, and digital student-evaluation strategy that would empower them to monitor their writing progress and writing independently.
4. Learners should be oriented and be provided with more strategies and ways on how to utilize teacher feedback to improve their grammar and vocabulary, and content while developing self-regulation in writing.
5. Educational institutions should provide language teacher training focusing on feedback strategies that promote different tools, resources, and ways of providing feedback in writing.
6. Further research could investigate the long-term effects or impact of different feedback types on students’ writing quality and quantity, exploring feedback leads to significant improvements over time and across diverse proficiency levels or disciplines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This written work is profoundly dedicated to the Master Planner and Author of my life, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the powerful intercession of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary and Saint Rita de Cascia
There is no other word to express except “gratitude”, and no exact word could ever define this sublime feeling of contentment and worthwhile accomplishment. I am incredibly pleased to acknowledge those significant individuals who made this writing endeavor a success. With their unrelenting love, untiring support, and encouraging words, the researcher was motivated to finally complete this paper.
Dr. Brendalyn A. Manzano. Her exceptional intelligence, prudence, and patience being my thesis adviser was truly a priceless gift from God. I am forever grateful for the empathy and kind-heartedness she extended to me. My prayers and wishes for her are just my simple yet profound ways of expressing my heartfelt gratitude. May God continue to bless her and her family as she continuously serves our highly regarded institution.
Dr. Erwin P. Lacanlale, Dean of the College of Teacher Education. I am indebted to all his significant inputs during the final defense, who served as the Chairman of the panelists. His charisma and motivating presence added significance to the attainment of this writing purpose in the discipline, a notable reward. He is an educator par excellence in the field of education.
Dr. Criselda A. Madriaga, Dr. Myrel M. Santiago, and Dr. Ninez B. Tulo. Their unparalleled expertise and incomparable experience in language teaching contributed to producing a sophisticated paper was worthy of commendation and appreciation. Their intelligible inputs were vital and added integrity to the completion of this paper. Truly, my heart is filled with gratitude to these esteemed panel members during my final paper presentation.
Dr. Cecilia A. Calub. Special and warm greetings to my former thesis adviser. Her brilliance, wisdom, and guidance when I started authoring my paper was undeniably invaluable. I sincerely thank her for lending me reading journals and other related resources that helped me complete this paper. May God bless her always.
Raters/Evaluators, and English Teachers. These are the individuals who were the primary instruments in the conduct of this research paper. They took part in the entire process, and patiently assisted me in gathering the needed data, and for evaluating the written outputs of the students. My profound appreciation is extended to them.
Participants. These are the warriors in writing persuasive essays for almost one semester. They courageously hurdled the challenges of teacher feedback, and the rigorous tasks of writing persuasive essays. Good luck on their studies and carry on the learnings they acquired from this research undertaking.
Rev. Father Rayvin S. Garcia, OP, Sir John Medina, Sir Vincent Cabrera, Dr. Hilda N. Garcia, Dr. Fernandina P. Otchengco, Madam Helen G. Juguilon, Madam Esperanza G. Nabong and Madam Luzviminda Sagum. These are my ever-dearest friends, and I wholeheartedly thank them for sharing a rare and true friendship with me. Their powerful prayers were heard and answered! What a beautiful life to be with genuine people like them.
And, to My Family, especially to my Mother- Ima Nenita. Family is meaningfully defined with all of them! Their firm conviction, inspiration, and belief in me are solid testaments of absolute love and shared values as a family in every sense of the word - I truly owe everything to them.
In closing, I return all the glory and honor to you, our Almighty Father.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
Abot, N. A. T., Salientes, A. J. E., Valdez, W. M., & Syting, C. J. O. (2024). The use of whole-class feedback as an alternative in improving education students’ writing skills: Students’ perspectives. International Journal of Education and Evaluation, 10(1), 144–191.
Aghajanzadeh Kiasi, G., & Rezaie, S. (2021). The effect of peer assessment and collaborative assessment on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ writing ability. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(13), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.32996/jeltal
Ajabshir, Z. F., & Ebadi, S. (2023). The effects of automatic writing evaluation and teacher-focused feedback on L2 writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8(1), 1–26.
Al-Ahmad, S., Al-Jarrah, R., & Obeidat, H. (2023). Self-assessment versus instructor’s evaluation of the written product in an EFL context. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 15(3), 849–870. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.15.3.6
Aldosemani, T. I., Assalahi, H., Lhothali, A., & Albsisi, M. (2023). Automated writing evaluation in EFL contexts. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–19.
Anđelković, J. (2022). Peer and teacher assessment of academic essay writing: Procedure and correspondence. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 10(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2201171A
Asfa, M., & Rezvani, E. (2023). Potential impact of automated writing evaluation (AWE) on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Innovare Journal of Education, 11(2), 14–19.
Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible automated feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275
Barrot, J. S. (2024). Trends in automated writing evaluation systems research for teaching, learning, and assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 29(6), 7155–7179.
Baskara, F. R. (2023). Integrating ChatGPT into EFL writing instruction: Benefits and challenges. International Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), 44–55.
Benali, A. (2021). The impact of using automated writing feedback in ESL/EFL classroom contexts. English Language Teaching, 14(12), 189–195.
Boggs, J. A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46(4), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671
Chapelle, C., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Validity arguments for diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation. Language Testing, 32(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214565386
De Los, T. M. A. B., & Dayan, B. E. (2022). Teachers’ feedback methods and students’ motivation in writing. In International Seminar Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of Tamansiswa (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 107–122).
Dhanarattigannon, J., & Thienpermpool, P. (2022). EFL tertiary learners’ perceptions of self-assessment on writing in English. LEARN Journal, 15(2), 521–545.
Elfiyanto, S., & Fukazawa, S. (2021). Three written corrective feedback sources in improving Indonesian and Japanese students’ writing achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14325a
Fan, N. (2023). Exploring the effects of automated written corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing quality. SAGE Open, 13(2), 1–17.
Fitriyah, I., Ningrum, A. S. B., & Gozali, I. (2023). An investigation of written corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment. International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 166–184.
Ginting, P., Muda Batubara, H., & Hasnah, Y. (2023). AI-powered writing tools as adaptable aids for academic writing. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis, 6(10), 4640–4650.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 405–438). Guilford Press.
Gutierrez, M. J., Dabu, S. M., Joy, A. M., Banogon, N. L., & Carambas, J. R. (2024). Effect of written corrective feedback in research writing competence of non-education students. Educational Dimension, 11, 60–80.
Han, T., & Sari, E. (2024). An investigation on the use of automated feedback in Turkish EFL students’ writing classes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(4), 961–985.
Hanh, L. T. T., & Tinh, B. T. (2022). Applying peer-review checklist to improve Vietnamese EFL students’ writing skills. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(5), 166–181.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2002). POW plus TREE equals powerful opinion essays. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(5), 74–77.
Mafulah, S., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2023). Indonesian students’ engagement in online EFL writing class and their perceptions on teacher feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 149–161.
Ngo, T. T. N., Chen, H. H. J., & Lai, K. K. W. (2024). The effectiveness of automated writing evaluation in EFL/ESL writing: A meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2), 727–744.
Phuong, H. Y., Nguyen, A. T., Nguyen, H. T., Quynh, D. T., & Huong, L. T. M. (2024). The impact of training Vietnamese EFL learners for self-assessment on writing performance. International Journal of Instruction, 17(2), 237–258.
Pu, J. (2023). Learner uptake with automated feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. Studies in English Language Teaching, 11(2), 47–61.
Rahmi, R., Amalina, Z., Andriansyah, & Rodgers, A. (2024). Exploring the impact of AI-generated writing assistant on students’ English writing. Studies in English Language and Education, 11(2), 998–1012.
Selim, A. S. M. (2024). The transformative impact of AI-powered tools on academic writing. International Journal of English Linguistics, 14(1), 14–29.
Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Wray, K., & Harris, K. R. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, 1–15.
Suci, D. N., Basthomi, Y., Mukminatien, N., Santihastuti, A., & Syamdianita. (2021). EFL students’ responses on teacher’s online written feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 292–306.
Tambunan, A. R. S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S., & Lubis, F. K. (2022). Investigating EFL students’ linguistic problems using Grammarly as automated writing evaluation feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 16–27.
Vacalares, S. T., Clarin, E., Lapid, R., Malaki, M., Plaza, V., & Barcena, M. (2023). Factors affecting the writing skills of the education students: A descriptive study. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(2), 1192–1201.
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17521301
