Lindawaty Bunga Djaya Kusuma(1*), Wisma Yunita(2), Mei Hardiah(3),

(1) University of Bengkulu
(*) Corresponding Author


Students' feedback preferences are essential in the research proposal writing process. This research aims to reveal the students' preferences toward the supervisor has written feedback and the types of written feedback provided by the supervisors in the students' research proposal in terms of the error correction feedback and the comment feedback. This research employed a mixed-method design. There were 39 samples chosen purposively to gain the quantitative data and 16 documents chosen from five random students to gain the qualitative data. Based on the data analysis, the type of error correction feedback and comment feedback preferred by the students respectively are the direct error correction feedback with the score of 155 (38,46%) and the directive comment feedback with 293 (22,37%). Besides, the type of error correction feedback and comment feedback provided by the supervisors respectively are the direct error correction feedback with 79 (51,97%) scores and the referential comment feedback with the scores of 206 (63,00%). This study implies that various feedback should address the students' preferences and learning styles since the outputs are their academic writing achievement. 


Preferences; Research Proposal; Written Feedback

Full Text:



Adrefiza, A., & Fortunasari, F. (2020). Written corrective feedback on students’ thesis writing: an analysis of student-supervisory interactions. JELTIM (Journal of English Language Teaching Innovation and Materials), 2(1), 14.

Aridah, A., Atmowardoyo, H., & Salija, K. (2017). Teacher Practices and Students’ Preferences for Written Corrective Feedback and Their Implications on Writing Instruction. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(1), 112.

Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 432–445.

Chokwe, J. M. (2015). Students’ and tutors’ perceptions of feedback on academic essays in an open and distance learning context. Open Praxis, 7(1), 39–56.

Chuang, P., Susanty, M. T., Silmawati, H., & Effendi, S. (2019). EFL students’ preference in receiving written corrective feedback. Indonesian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 2(2), 23–32.

Chugh, R., Macht, S., & Harreveld, B. (2021). Supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students: a literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–15.

Creswell, J. w. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Danial, H., & Idul, R. (2020). Preferensi Peserta Didik Terhadap Umpan Balik Guru Pada Kemampuan Menulis Bahasa Inggris di Sekolah Menengah Kawasan Teluk Tomini. Jurnal KIBASP (Kajian Bahasa, Sastra Dan Pengajaran), 4(1), 36–48.

Dwihandini, L. A., Marhaeni, A. A. I. N., & I.W.Suarnajaya. (2013). The analysis of the factors affecting undergraduate students ’ difficulties in writing thesis in the English department of Mahasaraswati University. E-Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, 2, 1–12.

Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315.

Firza, F., & Aisiah, A. (2019). Error of Proposal Writing by Students. 3rd Asian Education Symposium (AES 2018). Atlantis Press, 253, 359–363.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Competencies for Analysis and Applications 10th Edition. In Pearson Education, Inc (10th ed., Vol. 6). New Jersey: Pearson. Retrieved from

Irwin, B. (2018). Written Corrective Feedback: Student Preferences and Teacher Feedback Practices. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(2), 35–58.

Jiang, S., & Yan, X. (2019). Research on the Effect of Supervisor Feedback for Undergraduate Thesis Writing. English Language Teaching, 13(1), 43.

Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An Analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470.

Li, H., & He, Q. (2017). Chinese Secondary EFL Learners’ and Teachers’ Preferences for Types of Written Corrective Feedback. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 63.

Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

Paterson, C., Paterson, N., Jackson, W., & Work, F. (2020). What are students’ needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education? A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 85, 104236.

Razali, R., & Jupri, R. (2014). Exploring Teacher Written Feedback and Student Revisions on ESL Students’ Writing. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(5), 63–70.

Rupiper Taggart, A., & Laughlin, M. (2017). Affect Matters: When Writing Feedback Leads to Negative Feeling. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2).

Saeli, H. (2019). Teachers’ Practices and Students’ Preferences: Grammar-Centered Written Corrective Feedback in Iran. In Research in English Language Pedagogy RELP (Vol. 7).

Sermsook, K., Liamnimitr, J., & Pochakorn, R. (2017). The Impact of Teacher Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writers’ Grammatical Improvement. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 43.

Silver, R., & Lee, S. (2007). What does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions. 6(1), 25–49.

Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers’ comment types on students’ revision. ELT Journal, 60(1), 34–41.

Truscott, J. (2016). The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers. Epoch Making in English Teaching and Learning: A Special Monograph for Celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th Anniversary, (August), 129–141.

Turmudi, D. (2020). English Scholarly Publishing Activities in the Industrial Revolution 4 . 0 : What , Why , and How ? ELTEJ, 3(1), 52–63. Retrieved from

Wan Mohd Yunus, W. N. M. (2020). Written corrective feedback in English compositions: Teachers’ practices and students’ expectations. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(2), 95.

Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback: Student Perceptions. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(2), 17–32.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics

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



Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro

Unit Publikasi Ilmiah (Scientific Publication Unit)


Gedung HI Lt 1, Ruang UPT Publikasi Ilmiah Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro

Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara No.116, Iringmulyo, Metro Timur, Kota Metro, Lampung 34111
Phone/WA: +6285709141060 


e-ISSN-2442-482x  p-ISSN-2089-3355

Download Premise Official Template  June -October 2023