Written Corrective Feedback in the ESL Classroom: A Systematic Analysis of Teachers' Beliefs, Students' Perceptions, and Preferences

This comprehensive systematic literature review delves into the educators' beliefs, the students' perceptions, and their preferences concerning written corrective feedback. Encompassing the timeframe from 2020 to 2022, this inquiry consolidates insights from 14 scholarly articles, aiming to furnish a nuanced understanding of the application and consequences of employing written corrective feedback. In alignment with educators' beliefs, there is a consistent emphasis on the positive impact of delivering purposeful and attentive feedback on students' writing proficiency. Teachers demonstrate adaptability by incorporating both direct and indirect feedback and prioritizing constructive and motivational approaches. Conversely, English as a Second Language (ESL) students widely regard written corrective feedback as a pivotal tool for refining their writing skills, especially when it entails immediate feedback on grammatical corrections. These students attribute significant importance to the technical aspects of writing, expressing a preference for corrections of grammatical errors and prompt responses. Nevertheless, some students seek guidance and clarification from teachers when the feedback remains ambiguous. Leveraging data from the SCOPUS database, this research posits that future inquiries could derive benefits from exploring alternative primary and secondary sources. Ultimately, this review contributes to an enriched comprehension of the intricacies of written corrective feedback within the ESL classroom.


Introduction
In the realm of second language acquisition (SLA), written corrective feedback has long been recognized as an essential tool for addressing students' language inaccuracies and enhancing their writing proficiency (Ellis, 2008;Ferris, 2002;Lee, 2008).Students frequently encounter significant challenges in developing their writing skills to a proficient level, seeking guidance through feedback to identify and rectify language errors in their submitted work (Bitchener, 2008).The primary aim of providing students with written corrective feedback is to lead them Vol 13, Issue 1, (2024) E-ISSN: 2226-6348 toward refining their writing abilities, ensuring they meet, or even surpass, professional standards for precision and coherence.Numerous previous studies have underscored the essential role of teacher feedback in enhancing students' writing skills (Lee, 2005;Kamilia et al., 2020).Despite the extensive body of research in this field, there remains a noticeable gap in the existing literature concerning the adequacy and suitability of teacher feedback and its impact on improving students' writing skills.Additionally, a recognized disparity exists between teachers' beliefs and students' preferences and perceptions regarding the approach to written feedback.Building upon these research findings, the primary objective of this paper is to analyze and synthesize data from 14 research articles published between 2000 and 2022.These articles delve into teachers' beliefs, students' perceptions, and preferences regarding the provision of written corrective feedback.This research conducts a comprehensive survey of various forms of corrective feedback, shedding light on methodological gaps within the literature pertaining to assessing the effectiveness of written corrective feedback compared to alternative approaches.The study's outcomes shed light on the pedagogical beliefs underpinning the implementation of teachers' written corrective feedback.Furthermore, this paper offers valuable insights into the multifaceted landscape of students' perceptions and preferences concerning incorporating written feedback within the context of ESL classrooms.Through this research, the goal is to offer a more profound understanding of the landscape of written corrective feedback in the context of language learning and teaching.

Purpose of Study
The primary goal of this study is to delve into educators' pedagogical beliefs regarding the provision of written corrective feedback to their students.Concurrently, it seeks to explore the perceptions and preferences of students concerning this valuable feedback.Furthermore, the research aims to shed light on the specific types of corrective feedback employed by teachers and the underlying principles shaping their application.Additionally, this investigation endeavours to underscore the pivotal role of written corrective feedback in the context of students' writing.It takes into consideration their individual preferences, perceptions of its utility, and appropriateness.Utilizing a systematic review methodology following the framework outlined by Khan et al (2003), this study centralizes the objective of uncovering nuanced preferences, perceptions, and beliefs held by both students and teachers.It also includes an evaluation of the overall adequacy and suitability of written corrective feedback.Moreover, this research aspires to bridge the existing gap in the understanding of the intricate dynamics present in educational settings.The preliminary phase of this research involves formulating pertinent research questions.These questions subsequently guide the composition of this systematic literature review article, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field of second language acquisition and teaching pedagogy.

Statement of the Problem
It is widely acknowledged that a considerable number of Malaysians possess a certain level of proficiency in English, given that it is a mandatory subject for all Malaysian students.However, the actual proficiency levels may vary among individuals (Imran, 2023).In the domain of writing, the necessity for written corrective feedback in second-language writing endures (Razali et al., 2021).This need is firmly grounded in a body of research that underscores its pivotal role in improving the quality and performance of writing among second language learners (Bitchener, 2008;Hyland, 2008;Kartal & Atay, 2019).Therefore, when delving into systematic literature reviews that explore studies aiming to substantiate the enduring effects of corrective feedback on the development of L2 writing, it becomes evident that investigating how ESL teachers utilize their beliefs to assess the appropriateness of written corrective feedback techniques is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of its impact on students' writing abilities.
In the Malaysian education context, students in secondary schools are obligated to undertake the SPM or the Malaysian Certificate of Education, as outlined in the (Malaysian Education Blueprint, 2019).A subset of ESL teachers is assigned the responsibility of evaluating English SPM papers.These teachers undergo training from the Malaysian Examinations Syndicate also known as Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia (LPM) to apply a standardized scoring method.Presently, ESL teachers utilize a customized version of the LPM scoring system, highlighting the importance for English educators in Malaysia to possess a comprehensive understanding of the diverse feedback formats at their disposal.A profound understanding of teacher cognition, encompassing their beliefs and perspectives regarding various feedback types, and students' perceptions of the feedback they receive is essential for gaining insights into their cognitive processes and emotions (Couper, 2019).Given the limited research on the cognitive aspects of teaching, this article focuses on exploring various written feedback types and how teachers translate these into practice.This focus aligns with the research question, revealing a notable gap in the current understanding of students' perceptions of different types of written corrective feedback and the effectiveness of the teachers' practices in delivering such feedback.
The efficacy of written feedback in fostering learning is influenced by students' expectations and individual preferences, serving as a conduit to enhance the quality of their writing (Bitchener, 2008).However, the appropriateness of different types and amounts of written corrective feedback for diverse learners remains undetermined and unclear.A student's motivation to concentrate on preferred feedback and apply corrections during the corrective phase may increase when they perceive certain inputs as more beneficial than others.In this context, feedback plays a pivotal role in assisting students in identifying and rectifying their errors (Hyland, 2008).Providing written corrective feedback and presenting students with various feedback options as they refine their writing skills in an ESL classroom is crucial.Consequently, it is essential to uncover students' preferences towards different forms of corrective feedback and their impact on overall writing performance.Hence, this investigation aims to reveal students' preferences by delving into a multitude of literature review studies, shedding light on various types of corrective feedback that can bridge disparities in their overall writing abilities.

Research Objectives 1.
Investigate how ESL teachers employ their beliefs to assess the adequacy and suitability of written corrective feedback techniques.

2.
Examine students' perceptions regarding different types of written corrective feedback and the effectiveness of feedback they receive.

3.
Analyse how students' preferences for corrective feedback influence their writing performance.

Research Questions 1.
How do ESL teachers employ their beliefs to determine the adequacy and suitability of written corrective feedback techniques? 2.
What are the students' perceptions towards the types of written corrective feedback and the effectiveness of receiving the feedback?3.
How do the students' preferences concerning the different types of corrective feedback influence their overall writing performance?

Literature Review Written Corrective Feedback in ESL Writing Classroom
In Malaysian secondary schools, students are mandated to sit for the SPM, a national examination that serves as an exit assessment for Form 5 students.As part of this examination, students must complete English test papers (1119), which are integral to the assessment process.In addition to adhering to the yearly scheme of work, teachers are entrusted with the task of evaluating the English language papers through the application of a standardized scoring system, along with offering comprehensive feedback (as outlined in the Malaysian Education Blueprint, 2019).In delivering writing lessons, teachers must consider students' comprehension and proficiency levels and facilitate the acquisition of the requisite skills.Presently, ESL teachers employ a corrective feedback and grading approach sanctioned by the Malaysian Examination Syndicate (LPM).This approach necessitates the identification of errors in students' written assignments, consistent grading of their work, and the provision of written corrective feedback, all according to the guidelines outlined in the (Malaysian Education Blueprint, 2019).
Written corrective feedback is advocated as a valuable tool for nurturing and enhancing students' writing abilities.Teachers employ precise corrective feedback, tailoring their instructional approach to align with the specific requirements for achieving excellence, as demonstrated in (Othman's work, 2012).Corrective feedback is perceived as a collaborative endeavour, fostering interactions between students and teachers, consequently enhancing the precision and quality of written assignments among ESL students (Ahmadian & Tajabadi, 2014).Numerous scholars, including Mahmud (2016), have asserted the indispensable role of written feedback in the teaching process, emphasizing its pronounced positive impact on students' writing processes and long-term performance.Research by Plaindaren and Shah (2019) underscored that students who received feedback were notably adept at identifying their strengths and areas needing improvement in their writing, enabling them to enact selfcorrections effectively.Furthermore, feedback inputs were recognized as an evaluative mechanism facilitating students in achieving their writing objectives.Upon receiving feedback on their assignments and recognizing the direct correlation between feedback and their progress, students realized that their writing abilities had significantly advanced.As a result of the feedback provided by their teachers, students asserted an enhanced understanding of the errors present in their written work, as articulated in the study conducted by Bijami et al. (2016).Mafulah (2021) rigorously challenges the conventional notion that students inherently derive substantial benefits from receiving written feedback to enhance their writing abilities.She posits that this feedback may require a more significant degree of effectiveness.Her empirical study perceptively suggests a lack of substantial differentiation between students who are recipients of direct corrective feedback and those who are not.Indeed, the corrective feedback, as indicated by her meticulous findings, failed to prove its effectiveness in enhancing the students' writing proficiency.Dharma & Tari (2017) echo similar sentiments within the domain of their study, where they uncovered that corrective feedback exhibited comparatively less success in improving students' writing performance.Notably, despite providing feedback that meticulously pointed out errors and thoughtfully offered corrections, students persisted in replicating identical mistakes, thereby underscoring their need for more comprehensive guidance from the teachers.Against the extensive deliberations and debate on the efficacy of written corrective feedback, many empirical studies have demonstrated that students benefiting from written feedback have showcased tangible enhancements in their overall performance (Rashtchi & Bakar, 2019).Consequently, the role of English teachers is to provide feedback that aligns seamlessly with the specific needs of each student, thereby aiding them in enhancing their English writing skills and the consequent elevation of their overall performance.

Teachers' Belief and Practices of Written Corrective Feedback in ESL Writing Classroom
Teachers' activities and classroom practices can be significantly influenced by the instruction they receive during their own educational experiences.Their pedagogical approaches often reflect the knowledge they have acquired.The teachers firmly believe that the insights gained throughout their academic journey empower them to make informed judgments and decisions concerning both pedagogical methods and subject matter (Jafarigohar & Kheiri, 2015).The research findings presented by Couper (2019) elucidate that the effectiveness of teachers in delivering precise corrective feedback is markedly influenced by their level of knowledge and professional experience.Furthermore, teachers' proficiency, prior teaching experience, and individual convictions play a pivotal role in determining whether they choose to correct a student's work.
There remains an ongoing lack of consensus among teachers regarding the optimal approach to addressing students' writing errors.Within scholarly discourse, written feedback techniques have always been debated (Ferris, 2002;Lee, 2008).Various studies have sought to investigate whether particular forms of corrective feedback are more likely to positively impact students.
Students rely heavily on their teachers to provide feedback on their completed written assignments, considering it a fundamental component of the writing instruction process (Lee, 2005).For this feedback to be effective, it must be lucid and precise, ensuring students comprehend the language and symbols employed by the teacher.As elucidated by Latifah et al. (2018), teachers' belief in offering feedback fosters mindfulness and self-learning, enabling students to discern the imperfections within their work.This represents one of the means through which teachers can aid students in identifying the shortcomings in their own creations.
A prior investigation revealed the potential benefits of students recognizing deficiencies in their writing styles, encompassing aspects of expressiveness and structural coherence (Zhan, 2016).
Nevertheless, the methods employed by teachers to deliver constructive feedback were found to lack the required precision for facilitating students' advancement, as noted by Zhan (2016).
According to the outcomes of Zhan's study, students may not value feedback on their writing style, but they may exhibit a stronger connection to their work when furnished with constructive feedback concerning their content.
The beliefs held by teachers regarding the significance of guiding students in enhancing their writing skills by identifying and rectifying any imperfections in their papers may shape the diverse feedback methodologies they employ (Kharusi & Al-Mekhlafi, 2019).As supported by Lee (2005), who draws upon his own research and other relevant studies, comprehending the underlying beliefs that drive teachers' instructional practices can aid in pinpointing the factors contributing to effective feedback.The exploration of teachers' cognitive processes finds its origins in the realm of cognitive psychology, which investigates how individuals' thoughts and knowledge influence their behaviours (Balachandran, 2017).Within the ESL classroom, providing insightful and noteworthy textual corrections in response to student work is a common practice.Consequently, it becomes imperative to scrutinize how teachers respond to students' writing and the various factors that shape their beliefs, including their perspectives and expertise in offering corrective feedback in specific classroom environments.

Types of Written Corrective Feedback Direct Feedback
Several studies within the broader literature have highlighted two prominent categories of corrective feedback employed by teachers in L2 writing: direct feedback and indirect feedback (Harrasi and Mohammed, 2019;Karim & Endley, 2019;Westmacott, 2017).Direct Corrective Feedback involves comprehensive language correction.This approach has also been explored in a prior study by Jusoh et al (2016); undoubtedly, students benefited from the corrective feedback on their work.Other studies have shown that teachers use direct feedback as a form of written corrective feedback.Direct feedback is a method of providing feedback to students to aid them in rectifying their mistakes by supplying the appropriate linguistic form or structure of the target language (Suerni et al., 2020).A study by Tangkiengsirisin and Kalra (2016) establishes the effectiveness of error correction by demonstrating that those who obtained direct corrective feedback improved considerably and considered that utilizing the teacher's feedback aided in improving their business writing, particularly in terms of grammatical characteristics.The teacher has the opportunity to resolve the issue by illustrating to the students how the correct form should be written, which is made possible through direct corrective feedback.It is a customary practice for educators to rectify any misspelt or omitted words or phrases within a student's written composition.This correction process typically commences with the teacher carefully striking through any superfluous or inaccurately placed words or phrases.Subsequently, the teacher proceeds to meticulously inscribe the accurate form of the word either directly above or close to the initially misplaced or misspelt term.This meticulous approach is undertaken with the overarching objective of guaranteeing the precision and correctness of the student's academic work.

Indirect Feedback
Indirect corrective feedback stands as a prevalent strategy embraced by language teachers, offering valuable assistance to numerous language learners in refining their writing abilities (Jusoh et al., 2016).Particularly beneficial for students exhibiting a higher level of proficiency, this method allows for a more nuanced and constructive approach.Delaying immediate error correction offers students the opportunity to enhance their language skills and develop the capability to independently rectify their mistakes.This is executed through various means, such as highlighting the problematic text, directing an arrow towards the line containing the error, or adding a symbol next to the line without explicitly indicating the correct form.Consequently, this method aids in assessing whether it is necessary to pinpoint the precise location of the issue.Van Beuningen's (2010) study underscores that providing indirect textual feedback is suitable for addressing various types of errors, proving most effective with non-grammatical ones.However, contrasting interpretations arise from post-test findings in alternative research.The overall enhancement in writing skills is notably pronounced when employing indirect feedback.
According to Westmacott's (2017) investigation, participants generally leveraged indirect feedback to enhance their writing prowess.Additionally, some participants expressed that the indirect feedback significantly reinforced their grammatical proficiency.

Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback
Through a pedagogical method termed metalinguistic corrective feedback, educators guide students to identify language errors by offering metalinguistic indications.However, Nassaji (2007) discerns two specific categories within metalinguistic feedback.Metalinguistic cues are labelled as feedback that provides hints without correction, while metalinguistic responses encompass hints accompanied by correction or clarification.In facilitating this process, teachers may employ error codes, employing abbreviated terms tailored to specific issues.As described by Ellis (2008), metalinguistic corrective feedback can be delivered through explicit commentary, entailing explanations about the nature of the error, or by utilizing error codes specific to error types.
While this method may be more time-intensive and potentially lead to miscommunication, teachers must possess sufficient metalinguistic knowledge to provide comprehensive explanations for various error categories (Solhi, 2019).Solhi further clarifies that incorporating spatial intelligence as an alternative form of metalinguistic corrective feedback enhances the feedback process.This involves using different colours when providing feedback on learners' writing, offering a distinct approach to error identification.As defined by Aydin ( 2019), metalinguistic awareness pertains to conscious knowledge of language's formal aspects, particularly grammar.In this approach, the teacher may assign numerical values to words they deem inappropriate and annotate them accordingly.After completing the writing task, the teacher can offer a grammatical analysis based on the cumulative number of identified mistakes.

Focused and Unfocused Feedback
Within the realm of ESL writing classrooms, amidst the diverse forms of written corrective feedback dispensed by instructors, Ellis (2008) delineated a notable distinction between focused and unfocused feedback.It is crucial to recognize that focused or unfocused feedback is not an entirely discrete method of written corrective feedback but rather an application approach for the principal typologies, as highlighted by Nanni & Black (2017).Robust research substantiates that, for specific purposes, such as distinct language uses, focused or selective feedback yields a more pronounced impact than unfocused or comprehensive feedback (Bitchener, 2008;Bitchener & Ferris, 2012;Ellis, 2008).Moreover, focused written corrective feedback embodies teachers' deliberate efforts to identify and address particular error types, especially intricate grammar issues (Akmal et al., 2020).While, theoretically, it is preferable for writing teachers to deploy focused feedback, pragmatic constraints often lead many teachers to provide comprehensive feedback for policy and grading considerations (Lee, 2008).Teachers delivering unfocused and non-targeted feedback address a broad spectrum of student errors, encompassing issues like articles, spelling, and various error types.This approach, as underscored by Nanni & Black (2017), is pivotal for enhancing the writing skills of L2 learners.
Nevertheless, it has the potential to generate conflict between teachers adopting a non-focused feedback approach, addressing a wide range of student errors, and students desiring a specific focus on grammar-related issues.

Methodology
This paper employs systematic reviews to simply make use of a wide literature search in order to determine the inclusion and exclusion criteria of a review.The purpose of this is to provide a collection of accurate and thorough results.A systematic review is a type of study that follows a predetermined procedure and may be repeated and improved upon through future studies.This article employed the systematic review approach delineated by Khan et al. (2003), implementing five specific stages to execute a thorough review.The analysis began with the formulation of research questions, as detailed in the previous section.It is essential for the research questions to have a clear organisational structure, leaving no room for ambiguity.A well-structured research question serves as the initial cornerstone in developing a robust research methodology.The primary objective of this article was to investigate teachers' beliefs about providing corrective feedback, as well as students' preferences and perceptions regarding the effectiveness of written corrective feedback.
The subsequent step involved identifying a wide range of relevant research studies aligned with the objectives of this article.Khan et al (2003) advocated a comprehensive and thorough search for relevant research.Consequently, multiple databases, both digital and print, were extensively explored, and the process of selecting articles was guided by the predefined review questions.Inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly documented.This phase encompassed defining a specific timeframe and identifying the primary research resources available in the relevant literature.Therefore, establishing a clear timeframe was paramount when planning a systematic literature review.For this article, the timeframe for the analysis spanned from the year 2000 to 2022, as the focus of the investigation needed to be on the most current and up-to-date research.
To access information from research publications, the primary source chosen was the SCOPUS database.Burnham (2006) noted that SCOPUS stands out as the most extensive database encompassing abstracts and citations, which includes a wide range of academic publications, such as journals, books, and conference proceedings.SCOPUS not only offers a comprehensive overview of the field but also provides advanced tools for monitoring, analysing, and visually representing scientific findings.This paper conducted a comprehensive assessment of previous research by searching within a reputable platform like SCOPUS.
Potentially relevant publications on SCOPUS were meticulously screened and analysed to unearth valuable material, resulting in a substantial collection of reliable research.SCOPUS, being a premier resource in the field of academic research, greatly facilitated the search for pertinent literature.
The third phase of Khan's systematic review process involved assessing the quality of the studies through a multi-stage evaluation.This procedure entailed establishing criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of research publications.For this systematic literature review, journals and articles were chosen based on two key specifications: (1) the relevance and academic credibility of the publications within their respective fields, and (2) the journals' focus on research related to the topic of written corrective feedback.Both of these criteria were taken into consideration when selecting the journals and articles.Papers were screened for their quality and relevance by examining specific sections, including the abstract, participants, methodology, and findings, to assess the overall rigour and significance of the studies.The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic review are detailed in Table 1.
Within the PRISMA (2009) framework, distinct eligibility and exclusion criteria are meticulously delineated, as explicated in Table 1.Primarily, the selection criteria revolve around the Subject area, Document type, and Focus of the study, with a deliberate emphasis on written corrective feedback.Secondly, to uphold lucidity and mitigate translation intricacies, publications in languages such as Spanish, French, and Persian are deliberately excluded, concentrating exclusively on articles published in English.Thirdly, particular attention is devoted to the year of publication, spanning from 2000 to 2022, ensuring a judicious timeframe for encapsulating the evolution of research and its associated publications (refer to Table 1).The fourth phase of Khan's five-step systematic review process entailed a comprehensive examination of the existing literature.Similar to the PRISMA guidelines, the systematic review involved distinct stages, including identification, screening, and eligibility.The SCOPUS database served as the primary resource for sourcing scholarly papers, utilizing a predetermined set of search strings or keywords.The initial inquiry utilizing these phrases produced 180 outcomes, which were subsequently filtered according to distinct criteria, including article topic, publication year range, document type, subject area keywords, and language, resulting in a reduced set of 79 documents.A more targeted exploration concentrated on keywords like "students' perceptions and preferences" and "teachers' beliefs," resulting in a total of 14 pertinent articles.Table 2 offers a summary of the search terms employed to identify relevant research papers within the SCOPUS database.

documents
In the fifth phase of Khan's comprehensive five-step systematic review, the process entails the interpretation and analysis of the findings.In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, which constitute the second stage of the screening process, it involves the meticulous filtering and assessment of search results based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Table 1, as previously discussed in this section.A total of 65 articles were deemed ineligible as they did not meet the specified criteria outlined in Table 1.Throughout this thorough analysis of pertinent literature, 14 articles were identified, showcasing both relevance and interconnectedness.Each of these papers was dedicated to exploring students' perceptions and preferences regarding the provision and effectiveness of written corrective feedback in ESL writing classrooms.Furthermore, these articles delved into the examination of teachers' beliefs concerning the dispensation of written corrective feedback.As a result, this systematic article review encompasses the inclusion of the 14 primary research articles detailed in Table 3, along with the SCOPUS-indexed publications from which they were derived.The third phase of PRISMA guidelines pertains to eligibility, during which full articles were meticulously reviewed according to the quality criteria listed in Table 4.

Table 4 Quality Criteria
Quality Criteria 1.The research objectives are specifically cantered on written corrective feedback.
2. The studies encompass both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
3. The literature review explicitly addresses the construct of students' perceptions and preferences regarding written corrective feedback, along with teachers' beliefs in providing written feedback.4. The findings concentrate on students' perceptions, preferences, and/or teachers' beliefs.
Following a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation, a total of 65 articles were excluded due to various reasons.Ultimately, from this meticulous screening process, a refined selection emerged, comprising 14 articles that met the specified criteria.These 14 articles were then utilized for the subsequent in-depth analysis, as illustrated in Figure 2.

ESL teachers employ their beliefs to determine the adequacy and suitability of written corrective feedback techniques
• Teachers believed they should utilise written corrective feedback.
• Direct feedback is preferred by teachers.
• Teachers provided direct corrective feedback based on student needs and preferences.• Teachers marked errors they considered were valuable to language acquisition.5 Wei & Cao (2020) • Teachers believed students would progress if given error feedback.
• Teachers provided direct feedback because they believed that students couldn't independently identify and rectify their own mistakes.• The teachers preferred symbols and circle errors as well as cross out vocabulary with a strikethrough.• Teachers felt direct correction may help students increase writing accuracy, but time restrictions stopped them from spotting all grammar mistakes.14 Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin (2022) • Teachers used feedback mechanisms and monitored written work that contained error-free texts.• Teachers are uncertain which written corrective feedback students prefer.
Table 5 presents a thorough compilation of teachers' viewpoints and beliefs concerning the provision of written corrective feedback.These insights are drawn from an analysis of various research papers.Findings from 14 distinct research papers strongly indicate that teachers have confidence in the positive influence of written corrective feedback on students' writing proficiency, educational experience, and their own teaching methodologies.In their efforts to improve students' essay-writing skills, teachers emphasize the importance of addressing specific errors through feedback.This approach is believed to not only yield individual benefits but also has the potential to enhance writing accuracy, a conviction supported by the research conducted by (Ganapathy et al., 2020a;Maniam & Shah, 2020;Wiboolyasarin, 2021).
Based on the scrutinized literature, teachers are firm in their belief that a purposeful and meticulous approach to delivering written corrective feedback is essential for enhancing student learning.Teachers employ systematic and strategic feedback mechanisms to meticulously review and rectify errors in their student's written work, as evidenced by the research conducted by and Wiboolyasarin, 2022).Consequently, the criteria for evaluation should remain flexible and adaptable, contingent upon the students' acquired skills.Moreover, it is posited that the quality of written feedback significantly influences students' aspirations to write coherently, necessitating the delivery of feedback across varying levels of complexity aligned with their proficiency.Deliberate and systematic administration of written corrective feedback is deemed essential, addressing errors judiciously with tailored corrective measures.Furthermore, consistent and reliable feedback provision is emphasized, as highlighted in studies by (Ganapathy et al., 2020;Lira-Gonzales et al., 2021;Saragih et al., 2021;Soleimani & Rahimi, 2021).
In the context of the examined literature, a notable number of teachers exhibit a preference for direct and indirect feedback, showing a preference for these over alternative forms such as metalinguistic and peer feedback.However, it is essential to acknowledge that a specific article emphasizes teachers' tendency to exclusively utilize indirect corrective feedback methods due to constraints such as time, available markers, and limited resources (Wei & Cao, 2020).Moreover, teachers' perspectives have evolved towards adopting a more positive and encouraging tone when providing either direct or indirect feedback to their students.This approach considers the individual strengths, weaknesses, interests, and learning styles of each student (Ganapathy et al., 2020a).Additionally, teachers perceive the use of codes and symbols in both direct and indirect feedback as highly effective and advantageous.The familiarity of students with these codes and symbols suggests their potential openness to incorporating these refined evaluation techniques into the standards mandated by educational institutions.The utilization of codes and symbols to represent various error types in delivering both common direct and indirect corrective feedback underscores its paramount importance (Lira-Gonzales et al., 2021;Wong, 2021;Wiboolyasarin, 2021).
As evident in the examined literature, teachers believe in the utmost significant emphasis on grammatical structure, often giving priority to the components of grammar when offering written corrective feedback to their students.In parallel, students frequently report a higher frequency of corrections related to grammatical errors in their feedback from teachers.The heightened focus on grammatical aspects in teachers' feedback comments may stem from their perception that addressing such errors is a more expeditious and straightforward process (Nguyen et al., 2021).Nevertheless, teachers universally maintain the belief that it is their duty to identify and rectify any instances of grammatical errors in their students' work.Failing to acknowledge and address these errors would cast uncertainty on the rationale behind teachers' grading practices (Razali et al., 2021).However, despite recognizing the crucial role of feedback in improving writing accuracy, time constraints often impede teachers from detecting all grammatical issues (Wiboolyasarin, 2021).
Students' perceptions of written corrective feedback provided by teachers in ESL classrooms.• Students perceived word choice, ideas and content as significant.
• They believed form-and content-focused feedback is important.9 Soleimani & Rahimi (2021) • Students expect teachers to assist them to comprehend all faults, and seeing some errors may make them think teachers are minimizing their duty.
• They perceived teachers as someone who are accountable for input.10 Razali et al. (2021) • All of the participants in this study are teachers.
11 Saragih et al., 2021 • Students believed input was always required and improved their writing.
• The feedback helped them enhance their writing by showing them what they did wrong and boosted their writing progress.12 Wong (2021) • Students perceived feedback as clear and helpful in pointing out particular places where they might do better in their writing.13 Wiboolyasarin (2021) All of the participants in this study are teachers.
14 Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin (2022) • The study's participants perceived direct feedback as advantage because they wanted higher final grades.• Students wanted teachers to help them eliminate mistakes.
The summarised data from all the scrutinised research publications in Table 6 sheds light on the perspectives of ESL students regarding the receipt of written corrective feedback from their educators.Insights from the literature evaluation of these published works reveal that integrating written feedback into students' pedagogical approaches is well received and is viewed as valuable and advantageous by the students.They perceive the written feedback they receive as a catalyst for achieving their learning objectives and as a tool to enhance their writing skills (Ganapathy et al., 2020a;Ganapathy et al., 2020b).Students consider feedback as a beneficial resource that helps them identify specific areas of improvement, and it assists them in refining their work after making necessary revisions (Saragih et al., 2021).Through insightful feedback highlighting their weaknesses, students can pinpoint areas where they can strengthen their writing.Those who receive constructive feedback on their writing projects not only report it increases confidence in their writing abilities but also heightens their motivation to explore ways to enhance their work (Maniam & Shah, 2020;Wei & Cao, 2020;German & Mahmud, 2021;Wong, 2021).
As indicated by the reviewed publications, students place great importance on the written corrective feedback they receive, perceiving it as an indispensable and valuable resource.According to their accounts, they consider written feedback to be not only beneficial but also profoundly meaningful, motivating them to make corrections based on the provided feedback promptly.Given that many students often struggle to pinpoint their own mistakes, they highly regard written feedback, believing it plays a pivotal role in enhancing their writing skills (Ganapathy et al., 2020a;Ganapathy et al., 2020b;Susanti, 2020).Additionally, students believe it is part of a teacher's role to help them understand their errors and expect teachers to guide them in rectifying their mistakes.They perceive teachers as being accountable for providing guidance and are eager for their assistance in eliminating errors (Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin, 2022;Soleimani & Rahimi, 2021).
Nevertheless, within the pool of reviewed articles, it is evident that certain students hold less favourable perceptions of the written feedback and remarks provided by their teachers.In these studies, participants express that while they appreciate the caring and supportive aspect of teachers' feedback, they remain dissatisfied with the written corrective feedback offered.Even though teachers make efforts to provide feedback, some students still struggle to comprehend the issues (Maniam & Shah, 2020;Ganapathy et al., 2020b).Students, as suggested in the reviewed articles, view teachers as responsible for delivering guidance, and therefore, they perceive and anticipate that their teachers will clarify any unclear aspects.In situations where their teachers cannot resolve specific common errors, students may infer that their teachers are attempting to evade further responsibilities (Soleimani & Rahimi, 2021).
Students' preferences on written corrective feedback provided by teachers in ESL classrooms.• Students preferred indirect and unfocused written feedback that highlights all errors.13 Wiboolyasarin (2021) All of the participants in this study are teachers.
• Participants valued grammatical comments from teachers.
• Thai EFL students appreciate direct feedback on written draft.
• L2 students wanted teachers to correct and explain faults.
Table 7 provides an overview of ESL students' preferences when it comes to receiving written corrective feedback from their teachers.The data for this table have been collated from all the research articles that underwent review.Direct feedback, which entails students receiving immediate, personalised commentary from their teachers on their errors, has proven to be the most preferred feedback modality among students (Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin, 2022;Ganapathy et al., 2020b;Wei & Cao, 2020).What holds the utmost importance for students is the swift and specific responses addressing their writing errors, emphasising immediate grammar corrections (Susanti, 2020).Instantaneous feedback is highly preferred, and it results in increased performance.
Students accord special attention to the more technical aspects of their writing, such as grammar, paragraph structure, topic sentences, and the precision with which they articulate their thoughts (Wei & Cao, 2020).Receiving immediate responses from teachers is seen as highly conducive to learning and better retention.The students also express a preference for grammatical error corrections since they consider themselves less knowledgeable in grammar.Moreover, they value detailed feedback on both content and grammar, as it aids in error reflection (German & Mahmud, 2021;Wei & Cao, 2020).In addition to their inclination for grammatical feedback and comments, students greatly appreciate and prefer prompt feedback on their drafts (Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin, 2022).
As discussed in the preceding section, students readily acknowledge the significance of receiving written corrective feedback and the potential for grammatical error correction to enhance their writing capabilities.Nevertheless, in one of the reviewed articles, the participants expressed a preference for guidance concerning their written work rather than focusing on vocabulary and content (Maniam & Shah, 2020).Furthermore, other articles in the review illuminate students' inclinations for feedback related to paragraph organisation, content quality, clarity of ideas, concept development, and writing style.In these reviewed articles, students prefer more comprehensive feedback and reformulation strategies (Ganapathy et al., 2020b;Nguyen et al., 2021;Saragih et al., 2021).

Conclusion
In conclusion, this systematic review encompasses a total of 14 studies conducted between 2020 and 2022, intending to explore teachers' beliefs and students' perceptions and preferences regarding written corrective feedback.The comprehensive analysis of various research papers yields valuable insights into teachers' perspectives, revealing a consistent belief in the positive impact of providing feedback on students' writing.Moreover, the reviewed publications underscore teachers' commitment to delivering written corrective feedback deliberately and attentively, acknowledging its pivotal role in enhancing student learning.Teachers express a preference for direct and indirect feedback over other alternative forms, demonstrating their flexibility in adopting either approach depending on individual constraints and students' proficiency levels.Notably, their practice is characterised by a positive and encouraging belief in providing constructive feedback.
The comprehensive review of the 14 research articles also shed light on ESL students' perceptions of receiving written corrective feedback.Students consider this feedback to be a valuable tool for enhancing their writing skills, recognising it as a beneficial resource that helps them identify specific areas for improvement but also assists in refining their writing.Furthermore, the reviewed publications consistently indicate that students highly appreciate the written feedback, considering it as a meaningful and essential element in their journey to improve their writing skills.Nevertheless, it is worth noting that within the pool of reviewed articles, some students exhibit less favourable perceptions of the written feedback.These students suggest that teachers play a significant role in providing guidance, and, as a result, they expect their teachers to clarify any unclear aspects, as teachers are recognised as valuable sources of guidance and assistance.
The in-depth analysis of 14 research articles yields valuable insights into the feedback preferences of ESL students.Direct, immediate feedback, focusing on prompt grammar corrections, emerges as their top choice, valued for its positive impact on performance.Students emphasise technical aspects like grammar, paragraph structure, and topic sentences and greatly appreciate swift teacher responses, which they find conducive to learning and retention.They also favour grammatical error corrections, recognise their need for improvement, and value detailed feedback on content and grammar for error reflection.Additionally, students express a strong preference for prompt feedback on their drafts.While students acknowledge the significance of written corrective feedback, some prefer guidance over a sole focus on vocabulary and content, with other preferences leaning towards comprehensive feedback encompassing like paragraph organisation, content quality, clarity of ideas, concept development, and writing style.
The scope of this study is somewhat constrained as it relies exclusively on research publications sourced from the SCOPUS database, thereby exposing it to several methodological limitations.It is important to note that other databases, such as Google Scholar and Web of Science, are not considered for this review, potentially containing journal articles and publications pertinent to the subject under investigation.Moreover, this analysis overlooks various thesis databases that might contain current research on written corrective feedback.Hence, for forthcoming studies involving systematic literature reviews, it is advisable to also consider the inclusion of both primary and secondary sources, including ProQuest and JSTOR, which have not been addressed in this study.Zhan, L. (2016).Written teacher feedback: Student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and actual teacher performance.English Language Teaching, 9(8), 73.https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p73

Context
(n = 101 ) Studies that only contain the word 'written corrective feedback', publication year from 2020-2022, document types limit to articles, subject area social studies and only English articlescontain the exact keywords 'written corrective feedback', 'students perceptions and preferences' and 'teachers belief', publication year from 2020-2022, document types limit to articles, subject area social studies and only English articles.Studies included in review(n = 14)

Table 1
The inclusion and exclusion criteria

Table 5
ESL Teachers' Beliefs and Preferences on Written Corrective Feedback.

Table 6
Students' Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback.

Table 7
Students' Preferences of Written Corrective Feedback.