Enhancing ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written Corrective Feedback Delivery via Google Docs

The present research aims to investigate the practice of real-time or synchronous written corrective feedback (SWCF) delivery via Google Docs as a platform to deliver feedback, known as a linguistic feedback tool (LiFT) in ESP (English for Specific Purposes) classes, students’ preferences and viewpoints of SWCF. The research employed a qualitative case study involving 15 students from an advanced English correspondence course in a non-English department of a private university in Depok, West Java, Indonesia. Open-ended questionnaires, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews were used to gather the data. The findings revealed that auto-generated and human feedback are used to deliver SWCF via Google Docs, inferring that those features can build students' awareness of language aspects, content, and context in composing professional documents. Direct feedback was delivered more frequently, regarding the learning time efficiency and the students’ ability to identify errors. Further, the students preferred frequent SWCF, direct and indirect feedback, and correcting delivery methods. Finally, they considered that SWCF delivered via Google Docs assists them in improving letter accuracy. Their preferences and viewpoints might allow the lecturer to choose appropriate feedback delivery strategies and material reinforcement. The present research implies a balanced use of auto-generated and human feedback from LiFT in SWCF delivery. Evaluating the effectiveness of SWCF delivery via Google Docs for different levels of achievers in ESP classes might be a potential area of future research. Other LiFTs’ infusion into ESP classes is also worth researching to provide language instructors with alternative applications for SWCF delivery.


Introduction
Delivering corrective feedback for students' work is perceived to benefit learning.As an indispensable pedagogical tool (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021), it can be used to give correction, encourage students, and nurture their learning autonomy (Cambridge Papers in ELT, 2020).More specifically, in the context of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), it significantly impacts students' learning outcomes (Dmitrenko & Budas, 2021), accuracy (Kim et al., 2020), and engagement (Mardian & Nafissi, 2022).This type of feedback is even proposed to be effective in ESP teaching (Bui, 2022).
Generally, feedback is viewed as information and a process (Chong, 2022), which linguists believe is necessary for language learning (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021).Feedback as information stresses the usefulness of teacher-provided information, such as comments at the end of an exercise.in con- trast, feedback as a process highlights the different roles of students and teachers (Chong, 2022).Feedback can be presented in two ways: summative (at the end of a course) or formative (during the learning process) (Lee, 2017).In this current research, feedback as information delivered in a formative form will be investigated.
One type of corrective feedback that receives enormous attention is written corrective feedback (WCF).It is perceived as written responses to students' mistakes when composing their texts (Bitchener & Storch, 2016).Some recent studies reported that WCF influences students' writing performance (Wondim et al., 2024), critical language awareness (Seijas & Spino, 2023), and knowledge development (Zhang, 2021).
In the 21st century, information and communications technologies (ICT) have altered every aspect of society, from the way of interaction and work to the educational system (Maghfiroh et al., 2024;Setyaningsih et al., 2022).In the current digital era, technology has facilitated feedback delivery in a remote setting.Conducted in digital or hybrid settings is inherently intertwined with the utilization of digital technology, which is familiar to contemporary students (Febriansyah et al., 2023).New technology for delivering WCF emerges, such as the linguistic feedback tool (LiFT) (Lim & Phua, 2019).LiFT is a platform used to deliver digital feedback, which shares similar characteristics with the tool of automated corrective feedback (ACF) (Shadiev & Feng, 2023).In light of this, LiFT might provide facilities for real-time or synchronous written corrective feedback (SWCF) and delayed or asynchronous written corrective feedback (AWCF) delivery.
Concerning ESP teaching at the university level, lecturers have extensive choices in choosing technology facilities for their clas-ses, intending to provide students with more up-to-date and digitalized language-content learning, including for SWCF delivery.LiFT like Pigai (Huang & Renandya, 2020), Google Docs (Mohammed & Al-Jaberi, 2021), and Grammarly, which has been extensively used (Shadiev & Feng, 2023) and well-received by students (Fahmi & Cahyono, 2021) can be integrated into ESP writing lessons to deliver SWCF.
Several studies have shown that SWCF offered via LiFT facilities can assist students in strengthening their writing skills.A study pointed out that it might enhance students' writing quality and error reduction (Omar & Shamsudin, 2022).SWCF has also aided low achievers in generating their writing (Wei et al., 2023;Yamashita, 2022).Another report admitted that SWCF is more effective in fostering students' writing accuracy (Shintani & Aubrey, 2016).SWCF provided via LiFT also allows interactive feedback, contributing to students' engagement in revising their writing (Saeed & Al Qunayeer, 2022).
SWCF delivery via LiFT is occasionally problematic.Lecturers frequently utilize LiFT to offer the tool's automated feedback without providing their corrective feedback.Meanwhile, it is expected that they use corrective feedback to fit out the writing evaluation (Zhang, 2020).Using target language in providing such feedback can also be challenging, particularly for students whose first or second language is not English.Students tend to misunderstand or misinterpret feedback (Agricola et al., 2020).Furthermore, the feedback forms are usually mystifying for students, mainly when they are presented with a complex context to amend.In this matter, the types of feedback delivered (Khadawardi, 2020) and the lack of interaction between students and lecturers (Vattøy By investigating those questions, the present research is projected to provide practical insight for language lecturers or teachers to appropriately and proportionally employ LiFT features in ESP writing classes, including when to use auto-generated feedback and lecturer feedback.It is further expected that language lecturers or teachers will attentively consider students' preferences and viewpoints of SWCF, i.e., comprehensively notice what aspects should be stressed to enhance student's writing performance.
The significance of this research lies in its contribution to efficient but wise SWCF delivery in the ESP environment, particularly for lecturers who feel constantly burdened with providing feedback on students' writing.Furthermore, this study provides qualitative evidence that the SWCF offered by LiFT has the potential to considerably improve stu-dents' written communication skills by capturing lecturers' active involvement and students' preferences.

Method
The present research aims to investigate how SWCF is delivered to students via Google Docs in ESP classes.For a thorough portrayal of this topic, the research is further purposed to explore students' preferences and viewpoints of SWCF delivered via Google Docs.To address the aims of depth analysis, the present research employed a qualitative approach.This approach allows researchers to depict a phenomenon's comprehensive understanding in its natural context (Leavy, 2017) and answer the question of why and how (Yin, 2018).
Specifically, this research used a case study as its method.This method enables researchers to focus on one component of a case for a more comprehensive review (Bell & Waters, 2018).In this case, class practices, student's preferences, and viewpoints are projected to build comprehensive and practical exploration for SWCF delivery via Google Docs.
Although most studies in SWCF investigations employed a quantitative approach, such as Ganapathy et al. (2020), Irwin (2017), and Khadawardi (2020), particularly for perspectives and preferences, a qualitative technique of data collection is also applicable.For example, Ene and Upton (2018) and Rasool et al. (2023) used not only quantitative, but also qualitative instruments such as interviews to validate students' perspectives, and document analysis to inspect the students' writing deeply.
This research involved 15 students from an advanced English correspondence course in a non-English department.They were chosen due to their intense interaction with Google Docs (for two semesters, both in hy-Enhancing ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written Corrective Feedback Delivery via Google Docs brid and online learning) and active engagement during classes.On this ground, the researchers reckoned their high potential for in-depth investigation on the use of the tool.This research was carried out in their online class, in the second semester of the academic year 2022-2023, from March to July 2023.
The researchers used document analysis, interviews, and questionnaires to gather the data in this class.The document analysis was performed during the semester, while the questionnaires and interviews were carried out before the course ended.The following is a description of each instrument and the procedure conducted.
Document analysis was conducted by closely scrutinizing the students' letters in Google Docs during the semester; the researchers got permission and a link to access students' work in Google Docs.The letters were collected to check what and how SWCF was delivered to the students.The researchers focused on analyzing 1) the features used to deliver SWCF, and 2) the types of feedback delivered to the students.
The researchers then employed openended questionnaires to gather more revealing data.The questions were adapted from Irwin (2017).The questionnaires were administered via Google Forms before their final test.The indicators of questionnaires include the following: frequency of SWCF, types of errors, feedback delivery, types and forms of feedback, and students' general viewpoints of SWCF delivered via Google Docs.
The interview was conducted in a semistructured way with the representatives of the students.Six students were interviewed in groups and online via the Zoom Meeting application.The online interview was chosen due to the students' tight schedules since most are working students.The interview blueprints refer to the open-ended questionnaires' adapted from Irwin (2017).
All collected data were analyzed using Creswell and Creswell's (2018) data analysis steps, comprising data preparation, analysis, reporting, and interpretation.In the data preparation step, the researchers sorted all the data.The completeness of questionnaires, document analysis, and the interview data transcription was also checked.When analyzing the data, the researchers created simple coding to ensure that all the data from all instruments was grouped into relevant themes.To report the data, the researchers preferred to present the data in narration and tables for easier comprehension.To address the first research question, data from the document analysis was initially shown in tables.To answer questions 1 and 2, data from questionnaires were displayed in tables, followed by interview extracts to support the information gained from the questionnaire.In the last step, the researchers discussed, compared, and interpreted the presented data with the relevant literature and previous studies.
The validity of the present research data is confirmed using data triangulation by Denzin and Lincoln (2018).Data gained from the open-ended questionnaires, semistructured interviews, and document analysis were compared to see the similarities or differences.The results revealed that the data from the three instruments agree with and validate one another.

Result and Discussion a. SWCF Delivery via Google Docs
With the exponential development of educational technology, SWCF occupies a vital position in ESP learning as a catalyst to improve students' learning.Besides enhancing writing accuracy (Kim et al., 2020) Regarding the delivery, this research intends to figure out how SWCF is conveyed using Google Docs.To address this issue, the students' business correspondence is analyzed.
The researchers disclose the information from the students' letters in Google Docs, divided into two categories: 1) the features used to deliver SWCF, and 2) the various types of SWCF delivered.Table 1 summarizes the findings.Two features of Google Docs are used to deliver SWCF.The first is the autogenerated feedback feature, also known as suggestion mode.The lecturer frequently urged students to use this feature when they spotted errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation.The students could directly click on the incorrect part.They could manage this independently, but sometimes they did not notice the errors, so the lecturer re-delivered such feedback in the commenting feature.Figures 1, 2, and 3 display the use of suggestion mode for correcting spelling, grammar, and punctuation.The second feature used to deliver SWCF in Google Docs is the commenting feature.It was found that the feature was used to give students suggestions on content, writing style, diction, and letter structure or organization.The lecturer typically provided SWCF by blocking the words, phrases, or sentences and then providing corrections or suggestions for the students.Figure 5 shows  Using both auto-generated feedback and the commenting tool in Google Docs for different parts of language can serve as both guidance and an alternative for other ESP lecturers to incorporate the usage of autogenerated feedback with human feedback.The finding corresponds to the previous research findings that human feedback addresses various writing aspects while machine feedback solely revises the fundamental aspects of language (Thi & Nikolov, 2022).
Although combining these two types of feedback has remained a significant challenge (Shum et al., 2023), the findings of the present research have revealed that equalizing the use of automated and human feedback is possible by determining which aspects need to be corrected using autogenerated features and which aspects require more humanized comments.To emphasize, auto-generated feedback is excellent at promoting writing effectiveness, while human feedback positively affects the psychological side of students' texts (Wang & Han, 2022) and vocabulary acquisition (Li, 2023).
Balancing the use of these two features is significant since the lecturer cannot solely leave the students to learn with the autogenerated feedback without providing more contextual writing guidance.Given the importance of balancing language and topic in ESP teaching (Salmani-Nodoushan, 2020), attention to these aspects cannot be disregarded.Students will be unable to comprehend the essence of learning objectives if these two aspects are not offered proportionally.Another point to consider is the evidence that feedback delivered based on the learning context is more effective (Zhu et al., 2020) in optimizing students' writing performance (Taskiran & Goksel, 2022).Therefore, concerning the learning objectives of equipping the ESP students with written professional communication skills, human feedback should be presented.
In addition to the features for SWCF delivery, the results of the document analysis in Table 1 highlight the types of SWCF received by the students.When working with business letters in Google Docs, the students were exposed to two types of SWCF, namely direct and indirect.The direct SWCF was delivered more frequently due to schedule constraints.The students managed to finish the direct SWCF revision considerably faster.Their business letters also showed good accuracy and were centered on the course objectives.It infers that the lecturer's direct SWCF provides excellent assistance for letter revision.This finding agrees with the study conducted by Kim et al. (2020) revealing that direct SWCF is useful in helping students produce accurate writing compared to indirect ones.In other words, direct feedback is more effective (Khaki & Tabrizi, 2021).
Besides the issue of learning schedule limitations, the students were given more direct feedback because some failed to notice and locate errors in their letters.Even when the suggestion mode has warned them, they constantly ignored the notification.This result conforms with the fact discovered by Ganapathy et al. (2020) that in general, learners cannot identify errors and revise them.Considering this fact, direct SWCF can be preferred.Even so, indirect SWCF can be offered with the particular aim of enhancing the students' language awareness.
To summarize, automatic and human feedback aids the lecturer in focusing on feedback for content and context, while automated feedback tackles the rest.Deciding to provide more direct feedback will also affect learning efficiency.

b. Student Preferences for SWCF via Google Docs
To collect data on students' preferences for SWCF delivery via Google Docs, the open-ended questionnaires were administered.The data were completed by semistructured interviews.The questionnaire results are presented in tables, while the interview excerpts are displayed throughout the discussion.The findings are discussed in the following points.

1) Preferred Frequency of Eeceiving SWCF
The first point to highlight from the open-ended questionnaire is the student's preference for the frequency of receiving SWCF from their lecturer.Here, the students were given two statements.Their answers are presented in Table 2.The students agreed that they wished to receive SWCF from their lecturer during the course to correct their mistakes when writing business letters.From 15 participants, 10 students (66.7%) mentioned that they expected to always receive SWCF from their lecturer, while 5 students (33.3%) agreed to expect very frequent feedback from their lecturer.Proving this preference, they also admitted that they read the SWCF delivered by their lecturer.10 students (66.7%) revealed that they always read the feedback sent to them, while 3 students (20.0%) said very often, and the other 2 students (13.3%) mentioned they sometimes read the feedback from their lecturer.
Such preferences are validated by the students in the semi-structured interview.They mentioned that they wished to receive much feedback during the course, and they expected their lecturer to give corrections for their mistakes.
"Of course, we want."(S1, S2, S3, S4, S5) "Very much."(S6) When being asked whether they checked the lecturer's SWCF, they admitted, "Yes, I always do." (S1, S3, S4, S5, S6) "Always, if I do not read it, I do not know which part I get wrong."(S2) The fact that most students prefer to receive frequent SWCF from their lecturer and read it suggests that they value SWCF for their letters.They might be informed of their errors in many language aspects.In the end, the student's awareness of locating mistakes will contribute to their writing skills improvement.The finding verifies claims from Enhancing ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written Corrective Feedback Delivery via Google Docs many studies about the benefits of written corrective feedback for students, such as enhancing writing clarity and scores (Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin, 2022) and understanding more errors in their writing (Ganapathy et al., 2020).Written corrective feedback is also asserted to influence students' lexical knowledge and content acquisition (Luquin & Mayo, 2021).
The students' preference for receiving feedback represents their positive attitude towards SWCF offered by their lecturer.This attitude, known as feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) (Ashford et al., 2003), has the potential to be linked to writing achievement (Leenknecht & Carless, 2023).In research conducted by Larsari (2020), FSB is proven to have a significant impact on students' writing improvement.This positive behavior is also associated with selfregulated learning, which finally has a positive influence on students' writing (Yang et al., 2022).Conversely, students who do not have such an orientation tend to be less competent in writing.For example, students at the beginner level might see feedback as something embarrassing regarding the issue of self-confidence (Wiboolyasarin et al., 2022).

2) Preferred Types of Errors Corrected by Lecturers
The second point to inquire about is the students' preference for types of errors to be rectified by their lecturer.They only received one question; the answers are displayed in Table 3. Table 3 indicates that the students preferred being corrected for structural and lexical errors, the content, and the organization of ideas.6 students (40%) preferred vocabulary and expressions.5 students (33.3%) would somewhat be corrected for sentence structure and language style.3 students (20%) agreed with content and idea correction, and the rest (6.7%) did not provide any answers.In the interview, they emphasized, "Language style, content, vocabulary, and grammar."(S1, S4, S5, S6) "All aspects, except grammar."(S2) "Language style, content."(S3) The findings denote that fundamentally, the students have been aware of the mistakes they frequently make in composing their business documents.Each of them is alarmed that they make errors in those mentioned elements.For this reason, they reckon the lecturer needs to correct them when they commit such errors.In conformity with their preferences, it is evident that students favorably respond when they receive SWCF from their lecturer.The result is under the conclusion made by Saragih et al. (2021) and Aziz and Jayaputri (2023) that the participant students shared favorable feedback viewpoints.They also consider the process of receiving feedback and revising texts advantageous (Rasool et al., 2023).

3) Preferred Forms of SWCF
The third point asked of the students is their preference for the SWCF delivery  Table 4 shows 9 students (60%) perceived the error correction.While 3 of the students (20%) preferred gaining scores or grades from their lecturer, the rest (20%) liked being commented on by their lecturer.Comments here refer to appreciation or praise, such as "good job" or "well done." In the interview, all students agreed that they preferred correction.And one of them added, "Correction and scores, I think."(S4) From the above data, correction is the most favored one.The students might choose this correction category (Alharbi, 2022) due to their tenacity in composing acceptable and well-organized business letters.They should get corrected on how properly and accurately their letters are written before proceeding with their following learning tasks, such as submitting the business letters.As underlined by Hattie et al. (2021) and Mandouit (2020), students tend to choose feedback that directs them to the next learning phase.The fact that more students prefer correction reflects the degree to which they value the opportunity to learn to write acceptable, accurate letters.Students who have an intense desire to be good at using language will certainly treasure the feedback they receive (Zhan et al., 2022).
The following form of SWCF selected by students is scores or grades.Giving grades to students remains debatable or problematic (Cambridge Papers in ELT, 2020) due to the possibility of impeding their learning motivation.Nonetheless, the student participant in this research sees grades as an encouragement for her.The grades they received indicate how much the lecturer values their effort.According to Guskey (2022), grades can become one of the most effective feedback forms when they are delivered along with sufficient explanation.To avoid the ineffectiveness of solely giving scores or grades directly to the students, combining SWCF and grading functions would result in an acceptable feedback delivery system.
The last one chosen by the students is to receive praising comments.They expect positive appraisals for the letters they write.They will feel encouraged affectively by reading complimentary remarks from their lecturer.Following Hattie et al. (2021), praising the students is a positive evaluation, which indicates the lecturer's agreement or acceptance.

4) Preferred Types of SWCF
The following preference to investigate is the types of feedback the students choose when learning online.They received one question to express their preference.Table 5 indicates that the students chose direct and indirect SWCF. 5 students (33.3%) expected to receive direct SWCF; in this way, the lecturer underlined their errors and directly wrote the correction.While another 5 students (33.3%) preferred their lecturer to underline their errors, code the errors, and let them correct the mistakes by themselves, 3 students (20%) preferred the lecturer to underline their errors, and they fixed the errors.The other 2 (13.3%) students wished that their lecturer used a symbol to sign their errors, let them think of errors to be corrected, and then the students corrected them.
During the interview, all interviewees mentioned that they opted for direct SWCF.They stated, "Direct, of course."(S1, S3, S4, S5, S6) "Direct, of course, makes our time more efficient, especially in online classes.In offline sessions, indirect feedback is possible as we can confirm our revision to the lecturer directly."(S2) The students prefer direct SWCF, as it helps them work considerably faster or more efficiently.Aside from being concerned about misinterpreting the lecturer's SWCF that they cannot clarify directly, they also have a retarding factor, namely their inconvenient class schedule.
During the interview, they admitted, "Sometimes I feel panicked when working on the task because I need to also go to an offline class after this class."(S1) "The learning time and my work schedule are very tight for me.I should go to campus after this course.I cannot focus on finishing the task.Sometimes I tell myself that I will do the task after returning from campus, but I feel tired already.If I do it the next day, my work schedule will be chaotic."(S2) "Busy class schedule."(S3, S4, S6) "I am in a hurry to finish the letter because I should go to campus for an offline class after this class; it is inconvenient."(S5) Having finished the online class of the English advanced correspondence course, they should leave for campus in a hurry to attend an offline course.Such a timetable prevents them from comfortably working on their letters, leaving them with little opportunity to think much longer and deeper if they receive indirect feedback.They need time to interpret the lecturer's feedback, identify the precise areas in which they make mistakes, and afterward, they should confirm their answers to their lecturer.Such activities are undoubtedly time-consuming on a tight schedule.
Apart from the external issue, the direct SWCF preferred by the students is beneficial.Direct written corrective feedback is mentioned to accommodate writing proficiency and language knowledge (Rasool et al., 2023).This type of feedback benefits both low-and high-proficiency learners in the writing process (Budianto et al., 2020).
Another study exhibits a positive effect of direct feedback on students' ability to revise texts (Karim & Nassaji, 2018).On the other hand, another student's preference for indirect SWCF points out the students' intense eagerness to learn or analyze the errors they made.They will require extra time to work on the indirect SWCF.As reported by Park et al. (2015), teachers' practices in marking students' mistakes and requesting them to do self-correction can assist their learning.The practice of feedback delivery also enables students to minimize errors in more language aspects, such as tenses (Pham, 2021).The students themselves should develop specific strategies to deal with the lecturer's indirect SWCF.Revision of the text demands more analytical abilities and time investment.The students will inevitably involve themselves more in editing their letters.Consequently, the students might exhibit appreciative engagement when working on indirect feedback (Russa, 2021).
Furthermore, when delivering the SWCF, the lecturer used simple language; therefore, the students were assumed to comprehend the SWCF doubtlessly and appropriately.It was proven that they could finish the revision in one or two edits with reasonable accuracy.Here, the lecturer attempts to apply engaging strategies to have the students revise their letters.According to Mandouit and Hattie (2023), as they cited from O' Donovan et al. (2016), feedback must comply with the criteria of being comprehensible and operating.Using simple English to provide easy-to-execute revisions would be very helpful for students, especially those with lower language levels and limited time for task completion.Moreover, as revealed by Ene and Yaos (2021), students prefer for receiving intricate feedback but not sophisticated corrections.
To conclude, the student's preferences are an indispensable component for planning and implementing future ESP instruction.Their preferences then can be expanded into a need analysis.The need analysis would be efficacious for gathering significant information about what the students need and want of different aspects of language, such as materials, teaching techniques, and obstacles (Song & Zhou, 2022).

c. Students' concluding viewpoints of SWCF delivery via LiFT
After being questioned about their detailed preferences for SWCF, the students were also asked about the general views of SWCF they received from their lecturer.Here the students were given 5 questions about their comprehension of SWCF, their correcting ability, times for correcting their mistakes, Google Docs, and SWCF assistance for their writing.Their answers are provided in Table 6.Table 6 reveals that the students could comprehend the lecturer's feedback on their letters.10 of them (66.7%)stated that they understood the comments excellently, 4 students (26.7%) said they had good comprehension, and 1 student (6.7%) admitted to having sufficient understanding of their lecturer's feedback.Therefore, in the next point, all of them (100%) agreed to be able to revise works based on the SWCF they received.About the frequency of successfully revising their letters, 6 students (40.0%) admitted that they needed one time to revise, and 9 students (60%) mentioned that they needed two times to finish revising their letters after receiving the SWCF.In short, the students agreed that SWCF delivered via Google Docs had assisted them in composing their writing.When asked whether they agreed that SWCF improved their writing skills, 10 students (66.7%) agreed that SWCF has always been helpful for them to improve their correspondence skills.4 of them (26.7%)admitted that SWCF frequently has helped them with the improvement of their writing skills.Only 1 student (6.7%) felt less than frequent.
During the interview, all interviewees confirmed the answers.They admitted to understanding the SWCF and revising their letters based on the feedback.They needed 1-2 times to revise the letters, and they felt that all SWCF was very helpful for them.Finally, they saw that the SWCF delivered via Google Docs enhanced their writing skills.Exhaustively, the aspects of lexical, structural, content, and idea organization are promoted by using SWCF delivered via Google Docs.
The findings support previous relevant research that SWCF accommodates students' writing accuracy (Kim et al., 2020), linguistic aspects (Cho et al., 2022), and writing intricacy (Khezrlou, 2022).Moreover, on the subject of L2 learning, including ESP context, this type of feedback is perceived to promote students' motivation and engagement (Mardian & Nafissi, 2022).Its accessibility (Alshumaimmeri & Alqarni, 2022) allows learners to work more effectively.The students' answers illustrate that ESP learning, which focuses on language and content, has been met.The balance between those aspects is critical regarding the ESP's final objective to equip students with proficiency when facing target needs (Dou et al., 2023), in this case, writing professional documents in business correspondence.
To summarize, SWCF delivered via Google Docs has aided the students to improve their writing competence.They can comprehend the feedback and make revisions based on the SWCF they receive.It alludes to their positive viewpoints of SWCF delivered via LiFT.

Conclusion
The current research has shown a balanced use of LiFT, discovering that the autogenerated feature in Google Docs can be used to provide corrections on language aspects.In contrast, the commenting feature can be used to deliver lecturer feedback on content and context.The current research also specifies that students demand correction and would prefer to receive more frequent SWCF-direct and indirect-that underscore all aspects of language.Likewise, the students agree that receiving SWCF via Google Docs has helped them become more proficient in writing business correspondence.
The findings imply the significance of equalizing the use of auto-generated and human-delivered feedback.Lecturers or teachers can employ the auto-generated feature in Google Docs to increase students' awareness of lexical and structural errors, while the human feedback delivered via the commenting feature can be applied to build students' apprehension of content and context.Since the fundamental goal of ESP learning is to balance language and content, it is pivotal to strike a balance while utilizing these two features.Moreover, the student preferences and viewpoints might serve as a need analysis for ESP lecturers to select appropriate feedback delivery strategies and material reinforcement, i.e., which areas of language and content deserve more profound attention.
Future research in ESP areas might address concerns about the statistical effectiveness of SWCF provided by Google Docs, whether for low-or high-achieving ESP students.Other LiFT applications that suit the ESP learning context, such as the "Write and Improve" application, might be investigated to offer alternatives for ESP lecturers in delivering SWCF and creating a more interactive, synchronous environment.

Indonesian
Journal on Learning and Advanced Education http://journals.ums.ac.id/index.php/ijolaeEnhancing ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written Corrective Feedback Delivery via Google Docs

Figure
Figure 1.The Example of SWCF Delivery Via Suggestion Mode for Correcting Spelling

Enhancing
ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written Corrective Feedback Delivery via Google Docs an example of how the lecturer gives SWCF to a student for content correction.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5.The Example of SWCF Delivery Via Commenting Feature for Content Correction Enhancing ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written CorrectiveFeedback Delivery via Google Docs

Enhancing ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written Corrective Feedback Delivery via Google Docs
, it affects learning outcomes (Dmitrenko &

Table 1 . The Results of Document Analysis Aspect analyzed Results
LiFT Features in Google DocsAuto-generated feedback (suggestion mode)

Enhancing ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written Corrective Feedback Delivery via Google Docs method
. In this facet, they were given one question.Their responses are recorded in

ESP Learning: Investigating Students' Perspectives on Real-Time Written Corrective Feedback Delivery via Google Docs Table 5. The Students' Preference for Types of SWCF
Table 5 summarizes their answers.