Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 14. Number 1 March 2023                                             Pp. 223-231

Full Paper PDF

EFL Student-Directed Feedback for Improving Academic Writing Skills in Thailand 

Sureepong Phothongsunan
Department of Business English,
School of Arts, Assumption University, Thailand


Received:01/04/2023         Accepted:03/07/2023                 Published: 03/24/2023


Exploring how written corrective feedback can help learners optimize their writing skills has always been an interest to teachers in the field of English language teaching. This action research involves a group of 28 intermediate English as Foreign Language students in the English as a Foreign Language Grammar course with an emphasis on academic writing development at an international university in Thailand. The study focuses on two academic essays produced by the learners over a 14-week semester in which students are required to submit two drafts of each of the essays on the assigned topics. Student-Directed Feedback is used to allow the students to choose between various delivery formats for the feedback and ask some specific questions about their work to which the students need answering. With questionnaires also surveying students’ attitudes given at the end of the course, it is revealed that Student-Directed Feedback has had perceived positive effects on most of the students in terms of feedback particularity, personalisation and higher learner autonomy.
Keywords: Student-Directed Feedback, academic writing skills, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners

Cite as: Phothongsunan, S.  (2023). EFL Student-Directed Feedback for Improving Academic Writing Skills
in Thailand. Arab World English Journal, 14 (1) 223-231.


Alkhammash, R., & Gulnaz, F. (2019) Oral Corrective Feedback Techniques: An

Investigation of the EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices at Taif University. Arab World

English Journal, 10 (2). 40 -54. DOI:

Alexander, D., Thomas, H., Cronin, A., Fielding, J., & Moran-Ellis, J. (2008). Mixed Methods. In N. Gilbert (eds.),
Researching Social Life
(pp. 125-144). London: Sage.

Andrade, M. S. (2009). The Effects of English Language Proficiency on Adjustment to

University Life. International Multilingual Research Journal, 3(1), 16-34.

Banditvilai, C. (2016). Enhancing Students’ Language Skills through Blended Learning. E- Journal of e-Learning, 14(3), 220-229.

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol:  Multilingual Matters.

Campbell N., & Schumm-Fauster, J. (2013). ‘Learner-centered feedback on writing:

Feedback, as dialogue. In M. Reiibauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Schumm & R. Vaupertsch (eds.), Feedback Matters.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Chandler, J. (2003). The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in

the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267- 296.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.

El-Sabban, F, (2009). Advantages of utilizing e-mail for communicating with students at

institutions of higher learning. Proceedings of the 1st Kuwait Conference on e-Services and e-Systems, eConf ’09. 16. 10.1145/1836029.1836045.

Eun-ji, B. (2015). Number of Line users to top 700 million this year. The Korea Times.

Retrieved from

Fielding, J., Burningham, K., Thrush, D., & Catt, R. (2007). Public responses to flood

warnings. Environment Agency Science Report SC020116.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ferris, D. (2014). Responding to Student Writing: Teachers’ Philosophies and Practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6-23.

Forman, R. (2014). Becoming an L2 learner (again): How a brief language learning

experience sparked connections with SLA theory. Language Teaching Research, 19, 108-122.

Gedik Bal, N. (2022). EFL students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of corrective feedback on their written tasks.
Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37(3), 1116-1129. doi:


Hart, H. (2011). The Effectiveness of Grammar Correction to Improve Students’ Writing,

Research Gate, 91-103.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research,

77(1), 81-112.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing.

Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.

Lee, I. (2014). Feedback in Writing: Issues and Challenges. Assessing Writing, 1-5.

Monrad, M. (2013). On a scale of one to five, who are you? Mixed methods in identity

research. Acta Sociologica, 56(4) 347–360.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (3rd ed.).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (2002). A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research: Tools and 

Techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In E. Hinkel (eds.), Handbook of Research in
Second Language Teaching and Learning
(pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ:

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in 12 writing classes. Language

Learning, 46(2), 327-69. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Van De Bogart, W., & Wichadee, S. (2015). Exploring Students’ Intention to Use LINE for

Academic Purposes Based on Technology Acceptance Model. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 16
, 65-85.

Received: 01/04/2023
Accepted: 03/07/2023 
Published: 03/24/2023 

Sureepong Phothongsunan works at the School of Arts, Assumption University, Thailand. Having a doctorate in TEFL from the University of Exeter, UK, he has published several books and articles in English Language Teaching and English for Specific Purposes. His recent research interests include enhancing soft skills, creativity, and new teaching approaches in ELT and EFL contexts.  ORCID: