THE EFFICACY OF DIGITAL AND NON-DIGITAL CF IN INDONESIAN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL WRITING

Wiwik Sribudiati, Sonny Elfiyanto

Abstract


This systematic literature review examines the effectiveness of digital and non-digital corrective feedback in Indonesian secondary school writing skills, particularly in improving writing accuracy, revision behavior, and student engagement. It also seeks its alignment with SLA theories. 18 empirical articles published between 2015-2025 were selected from Google Scholar through Publish or Perish using the PRISMA guideline. The findings showed that both modes of feedback highly improve students’ writing skills. Non-digital feedback, such as indirect and coded feedback, improves grammatical accuracy and encourages student autonomy in the revision process. Digital feedback, such as AI-based tools and collaborative platforms, is effective in enhancing surface-level accuracy, facilitating revision, and increasing student engagement, as outlined in SLA theories, especially interactionist and socio-cultural theories, indirect feedback supports “Noticing,” and digital feedback increases interaction and reduces affective filters. For maximum results, the review recommends a combination of both corrective feedback modes.

Keywords: efficacy; digital and non-digital feedback; senior high school; writing


Full Text:

PDF

References


Afreilyanti, E., & Kuswandono, P. (2024). Unleashing the Potential of Indonesian EFL High School Students’ Writing Proficiency and Self-Regulated Learning through Written Corrective Feedback. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 14(2), 570–596.

Angin, A. P., Limbong, E., & Zamruddin, M. P. (2025). Exploring Direct Written Corrective Feedback on Senior High School Students’ Compositions. English Teaching Journal: A Journal of English Literature, Linguistics, and Education, 13(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.25273/etj.v13i1.22630

Aprilia, F., Rochsantiningsih, D., & Haryati, S. (2022). The Implementation of Indirect Corrective Feedback to Improve Eleventh Graders’ Writing Performances. English Education Journal, 10(3), 201–212.

Astuti, F., & Pratolo, B. W. (2025). Secondary Students’ Cyclical Self-Assessment Process Mediated by Grammarly in Recount Text Writing. Indonesian EFL Journal, 11(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v11i1.10993

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400

Damayanti, I. L., Abdurahman, N. H., & Wulandari, L. (2021, April). Collaborative Writing and Peer Feedback Practices using Google Docs. In Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020) (pp. 225-232). Atlantis Press.

Defianty, M., Zulfa, S., & Mulyati, Y. F. (2024). Embedding Automated Writing Evaluation in Providing Formative Feedback. NOBEL Journal of Literature and Language Teaching, 15(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.15642/NOBEL.2024.15.2.155-170

Dewi, A., Putri, E., & Widiawati, U. (2023). Conventional Written Corrective Feedback for EFL Learners’ Writing Skill Enhancement. International Journal of Educational Best Practices, 7(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.31258/ijebp.v7n2.p172-188

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

Ellis, R. (2009). A Typology of Written Corrective Feedback Types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Elsayed, A. S. A., & Hassan, S. M. A. (2020). Handwritten vs. Digital Feedback: Which is the Most Effective in Improving the Writing Accuracy of Kuwaiti Undergraduate University Students? Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 7(1), 106–124.

Fadhly, F. Z., Solihat, D., & Wihadi, M. (2025). Unraveling the Power of Written Feedback: A Meta-Synthesis on Student Academic Writing. Elsya: Journal of English Language Studies, 7(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.31849/n66j6w65

Ferris, D. R. (1999). The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6

Gaffar, M. A. ., Fadilah, D. F., & Nopita, D. . (2024). The Influence of Peer Corrective Feedback (PCF) on Students’ Writing Skills in Hortatory Exposition Text. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 11(2), 557–578. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v11i2.3364

Guna, S., Kande, F., & Halum, Y. S. (2025). Lexical and Structural Challenges in Indonesian EFL Learners’ Narrative Writing. Lensa: Kajian Kebahasaan, Kesusastraan, dan Budaya, 15(2), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.26714/lensa.15.2.2025.280-299

Gunawan, S. T., Dewi, R. S., & An’asy, Z. (2020). The Impact of Teacher’s Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Eleventh Graders’ Ability in Writing Explanation Texts. Indonesian Journal of English Education. http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee

Harahap, D. I., & Uswar, Y. (2025). The Impact of the Grammarly Tool on Senior High School Students’ Confidence in Learning English. MELT Journal, 10(1), 19–26.

Hafizah, W., Husna, N., Sunengsih, N., & Maulidya, R. A. (2024). High School Students’ Difficulties in Writing Descriptive Text. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 8(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.23887/jipp.v8i1.66730

Henderson, M., Ryan, T., & Phillips, M. (2019). The Challenges of Feedback in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1237–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

Kamilia, A., Rahmani, B. D., & Siswana. (2020). The Effectiveness of Teachers’ Indirect Feedback for Students’ Writing Performance on Descriptive Text. ELLTER-J, 1(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.22236/ellter-j.v1i1.4915

Kormos, J. (2023). The Role of Cognitive Factors in Second Language Writing and Writing to Learn a Second Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(3), 622–646. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000481

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Socio-Cultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press.

Lee, I. (2017). Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9

Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2017). Automated Writing Evaluation for Formative Assessment of Second Language Writing. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 495-508). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700-38

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2022). The Effectiveness of Automated Writing Evaluation on Writing Quality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(0), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221127300

Zhang, Z. V. & Hyland, K. (2022) Fostering Student Engagement with Feedback: An Integrated Approach. Assessing Writing, 51: 100586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31932/jees.v9i2.6114

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.