Teacher Practices and Students ’ Preferences for Written Corrective Feedback and Their Implications on Writing Instruction

The discrepancy between students’ preferences and teacher practices for feedback on writing has created difficulty on the side of teachers and confusion on the side of the students. What teachers believe and practice as effective feedback for students may not be the one that students perceive as useful and effective feedback for them. This paper investigates the types of written feedback preferred by the students and the types of feedback provided by the teachers on students’ writing. This study employed a survey design which involved 54 students and 22 teachers using convenience sampling technique. The instrument used in collecting data was a questionnaire in the form of Feedback Scale. The results showed that there were some points of compatibility between students’ preferences and teachers’ practices and some other points were incompatible. The data showed that both students and teachers preferred to have or to give direct feedback but the data also indicated that students liked to have more direct feedback than the teacher could provide. It was also found that the teachers provided more indirect feedback than the students expected to have. The students also preferred unfocused feedback to focused feedback. The findings of the study have crucial implications on writing instruction. There is a need to design writing instructions which accommodate both teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for written feddback. Based on the profile of students’ preference and teachers’ practices, a model of feedback provision in teaching writing is proposed. This model is called preference-based feedback on writing instruction.


l. I Backgrounl
It is generally agreed tlrar feedback in language teaching especially in writing plays important roles in developing students' writing skill.Ferris (2006) stated thd feedback helps students in improving their writing.In adclition, Bichener & Knoch (2009) formd fid $e students who were provided with written corrective feedback performed beuer in writing ftan those who did not receive any written corrective feedback.Feedback not only gives reinforcement to maintain good Mlaviors of the students (as we can find in the positive or non-corrective feedback) but also makes students awarc of $e mistakes they make on their uriting (as we can find in negative or corective lirdback).However, it s€ems that feedback on written production is quite complicated because writing covers more aspecs of language performance dran other lalguage skills.Writing as a skill consisting of some aspects of language eperience, requires students to devote their attention io such ftings as organization, conten!styles, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics.Because of the inclusion of a lot of aspects to be assessed in writing, teaclren have made efforts to help leamers develop their writing ability by paying attentioa to drose aspects.The attempts include not only finding appropriate teaching stat€gies but also spendirg time reading students papers and providing necessary and comprehensive feedback, comments and corrections.However, sometimes teachers stitl get frusfated when they find lheir effors in developing students' awareness in order to perform better in wrifing end up with students' disappointment io rcaction to tre comments or feedback 0re students receive on their papen.As a reult, the quality of studarts' papers remains unsatisfactory The teachers still hnd various kinds oferros on students' wriring both in terms ofform flrd content One reason trat migbt underlie the frustration of teachers when giving feedback and the disappointn€,nt of tt2 Acc€pted: December 7, 2016 Online Published: January 12,2017 tjRL: htp://&.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.vTnlpll2 students wh€n receiving feedback is that trere is a mismatch between what types of feedback tachers give and whal types of feedback students like to have on their papers (Cohen & Cavalcanti, l99O).A number of studies have been conducted to identify the type offeedback studefis prefer for dreir paper but the results do not seem to provide a consensus about one specific qrpe of feedback fhat may wort well and be favorable for both studerts and teache$ at dre same time.Cohen & Cavalcanti (1990), for example, found drat studants mostly preferred feedback on content whereas teachers gave feedback more on grammar-Another study reported that teachers gave many comments on content and organization but students paid more attention to mnrments on grammar than any other aspects of their paper (Fenis, 1995).This evid€xrce shows that certain groups of students have their own preference of what type of feedback thay like to receive, regardless r4hat types of feedback the teachers give them on their papers.oll the conrary, teachers sometimes have their own decision ofwhat type of feedback they think effective to promote students' writing ability regardless what type of feedback students like to have.The mismatches between whst students prefer for written corrective feedback and what teachers practice may lead to unsatisfactory writing performance.

Research Qtesfions
Based on the problem above, the following questions are formulated: l) What tpes of written conective feedback do teachers provide on students' writing?2) What types of*ritten conective fe€dback do students prefer to have on fteir writing? 3) To wfiat extent do the teacher practices for written feedback me€t the students' preferences and expectation?The mismatch between teachers' practices and students' preferences for feedback may bring about discouragement for the students when their papers are retumed wifi red marks ard not€s all over the papers.
Consequently, their writing performance may not get significant improvement.The studies on the mismatch b€tween teachers' practices and shldeots' prderence have revealed that there is a mismatch between what students arc likely to prefer and what teachers actually grve to them.Cohen (1987) noted that there is a mismatch betwe€n the focus of fe€dback that sudents like to receive and lhe focus of feedback dre teachers give to them.
In addition, Cohen & Calvacanti (1990) formd ihat there may be a misrnatch betwcen fie t,?es of feedback the students like to receive and those ftar the teache$ provide on their writing.
Hyland & Hyland (2006) in their study which focused on snrdents' feedback preferences revealed dtat leameE generally prefer teacher written feedback to otrer forms of feedback such as oral and peer feedback.Other researchers like Aridah (2004) found that shrdents liked to have more feedback on grammar than on otler aspects.Ferris (1995) also formd that students chose to pay most attention to trc comments giv€n on gammar of all any odrer aspects oftheir writing although fteir teacher provided many comments on contenl and oryflriztion.
Then, how should teachers give feedback to the students' writing?There have been a lot of suggestions and recommend&tions on what constitutes good and effective written feedback.Brooltart (2008) suggested that good feedback should inctude commen* or information that can be heard, rmderstood and used by the students for furErer improvement She findrer stued thd good feedback should be part of assessment in lhe classroom environment where the students can see the feedback as constructive oiticism and as a good thing so that they can understand that leaming cannot take place without practice.Therefore, providing feedback to students without giving them an oppornmity to make use of the feedback is not fair to ftem.Furthermore, effective feedback is one that can help leamers improve.Gardnel tlarlen, HcywaI4 Stobart, & Montgomery (2010) recommended dlat teacher should give feedback to students in a form thal can help them leam and strould give them a chance in which sh,tdents can use feedback for improving their ask or to show that they understand or not.Jackson (2009) stded thar etrective feedback shoutd be used as a powerful tool of both helping students leam and helping them get improved in leaming.
Other issues of what makes good feedback have been recommended by the research frndings.Fenis (2006) found that error markings had a strong impact on the successful revisions on t e students' drafu of their essays and this kind of feedback was able to reduce lhe number of errors made by students from treir first drafu and last essay assignment.Other earlier researchen such as Fathman & Whaley (1990), Lalande (1982), and Fenis (1995) suppo*ed fhat error correction or feedback on grammatical erors was effective in improving students' writing.gitchener & Knoch (2009) showed evidence that providing selective, focused feedback on certain linguistic errors at a time yielded nrore accuracy gain in studens'writing compared to feedback which was too cornprehensive.
The evidence described above as good feedback comes from the side ofdre teachers or dre researchers.It is also necessary to corsider Phat actuslly students think about good feedback for rhem It is previously ststed fiat good feedback is the one that makes students able to make use of it.The stud€,nts' expectation and preference for certain types of feedbact will influence dreir leaming.This means that if a stud€nt prefers one specific type of feedback and believes that dris type of feedback is usefirl for them, then he or she may pay more attention b the feedback and may use it for leaming.On the contrary, if a snrdent does not like or expect one specific type of feedback and does not believe ig he or she may not get any positive effect from it.
Besides the $udents' expectations and preferences for feedback, it is slso impoiant to consider the understanding ofdle studerts 8bout dle feedback provided for &em.The studenb are able to use $e fe€dback if they understand and leam from it.In order for them to be able to understand and leam from tre feedback they hawe !o favor the feedback given io them When they don't like the feedback, they will not pay anention ro it which in tum drere will be no lesming and using ofdre feedback.Therefore, dle issue of feedback preference by students is also nec€ssary io address.Unfortunately, lhe issues on students' preference for feedbaci are not very much e4rlored compared wift those on teachers'and researchers' practices for feedback.
teki (1991) found that studens preferred to have irdirect ferdback to direct feedback and s1ey wanted the teacher to give correction lo all of their mistakes, including giving comments on content and ideas as well as on their grammar and surface structure.Ferris (1995) agreed thar stud€nts liked to have their errors all corrected with different types offeedback.Then, Lee (2005) fomd that the students wanred their teacher to use eror codes and mrrect all lheir mistakes.In ano0ter study, Le€ (2007) found that studenb preferred wriuen comments, marldgrade, and error feedback on their compositions.She also found ttat shrdents tiked to have more comments onfie content oftheir writing than on the language use such as grammar, vocabulary, and sentence pattem.Tlris is in tine with Semke (1984) whose finding dernonstrated that the students preferred to have commerts on contents and ideas radrer than on grammalical structure and surface errors.
Based on the research findings wtrich address both teachers' practices and the students' preferences for feedback, it is clear drat there is a mismatch between them.For exampte, teachers give focused ieedback but the mrrlents want their mistakes all corrected.The teachers give error correction on gammar but the sh.dents want to have witten comments on content and ideas.This indicared thet students' e(pecations and preferenc€s are not nrt by the teacher actual practices in giving feedback.Hylurd (1998) found that there is a mismatch between studens' sxpectations for feedback and the teacher practices in responding to students' writing.The studen$ in her study wanted to have grammar corrections but $ey also rznted to have praise from their teacher ln this case, the leacier failed to fulfiU the students' expectation for feedback so that it led to confidence loss.The misrnatch between teachers' practices and stud€nts' preferences for feedback which may result in unsdisfactory writing performance can be illusrrated as follows:

+
The discrepancy between students' preferences and teache$' practic.esregarding feedback on writrng as itlustrded in Figure I above has created diffculty on the side of &e teachen and confrsion on the side oi the students.Whal leachers believe and practice as efrective feedback for students may not be the one that students perceive as useful and effective feedback for ftem.This disagreenrent may in{luence negatively students' satisfaction and potentially lesd to loss of confidence, motivation, and to the rr,.grs! tlus leading to the discontinuation of FL leaming It is, drerefore, nec€ssary to sxplore students and teachers' prefereices for feedback in order to bridge the misfit between students' expectations and preferences and teachirs' beliefs and preferences witl help teachers to decide whr particular feedback will be beneficial or influance positively the students' performance in writing.The data may also bridge the discrepancy betwe€It teachers' beliefs and practices for feedbacl drd stud€ats' preferences and expectdions for feedback and how the preferred feedback really contributes to students' writing inpmvemenl L3.2 Different Types of Wdtten Corrective Feedback The classification of teacher fee&ack provision is approached by the scholars in this field in different ways.
Ellis (2009) for example classified tre types of written corrective feedback into 6 lypes thd he called {re typolog of written corrective fecdback.The types include direct fe€dback, direct feedback, metalinguistic feedback, focused/unfocused feedback, elecrodc feedbact and reformulation.For the purpose of $is study, the types of feedback were limited to only 4 typ€s which included dtect feedback, indirect feedback, focused feedback and rmfocused feeoack whidr re pres€nted in two mntrasting types as follow The first contrasing type of wd$en corrective feedback is direct vs. indirect feedback.I)irect feedback is the feedback provided by the teacher by $owing the correct forrn of language while indirect feedback is the feedback given by the teacher by indicating tre errors students make but not correcting them (Ellis, 2009).Direct feedback according to Fenis (2006) may ake tle form of crossing out dre mistakes and then providing the corect form around the erroq while indirect feedback may take the form of "underline, circle, codq or olher mark-iut do€s not provide lhe correct form, leaving the sfudents to solve lhe Problem that has been called to his or her performsnce" (p. 83).The issue whelher feedback should be given direcdy or indirectly has also attracted the aftention ofresearchers in the field.
The research findings otr the issue of direct and indirect feedback slrowed thar studens get b€nefits from the ts,o tpes of feedback.Fenis (2006) found thar stud€nts uiro were provided with eifier direct feedback or indirect ieedback were succcssfirlly revise and correct fieir mistakes.Howwel there are also some findings which showed confliaing resula.tilade (19E2), for exampte formd thd indirea feedback was able to decrease the errors the stud€nts rnade while dired feedbsck was not.Othel findings revealed th&t direct feedback was the least effective method of feedback provision on students' writing (Seurke, 1984).F€rris (2011) ctaimed that direct corecti@ of error by the teaclrer led to morc correct rcvisiofls (8870) than indirect fdba.k (77/o).
The second contrasting type of feedback is focused and unfocused feedback.This contrasting type offeedback is sometring to do with uirither rhe teacher comments on all or most of the stud€nts' writing problems or only chooses icertain aspect of writing to be commented on.According to Etlis (2009) in focused feedback provision, the teacher is selecdve about whu specific elenren(s) of language he or she has to comment on or conect while in unfocused feedback provision, lhe teacher attempE to comment on all sspects of lurguage performance .orcorrect all of noticed students' errors.Unfocused feedback is viewed as "extensive" feedback as it deals with multiple errors l,hile focused feedback deals with specific ermrs !o be correded and ignores odrer enors @lliq Sheen, Murakami, & Tak$him4 2008, p. 356).
Ellis et al. (2@8) fi[rher drfferentiaed between focused and unfocus€d feedback.They stated that unfocused feedback reien m a rnrmal pratice in teaching writing in which the tedrer correct all the errors in students' paper and it is an extasive correction beaause ii responds o variors types of enon raher lhan one type On $e -nt ury, ro"u""a r""oack refers to the selection of certain types of errors and ignores.They also differentiated between highly focused conection and less focused correction, in q,hich dre former focuses on only one type of error and the laner focuses on rnore 8lan one talget elTors but still resficts on limited number of predetermined types of errors.
One of the studies which investigAed the efect of focused and r.urfocused feedbsck is fial of Sheen (2007) uito rnvestigaed the effect of focusei feedback on ESL leamers' acquisition of articles and the resuls revealed that written-corrective feedback wtrich focusod on a siugle linguistic festure improved leamers' accurac, ofarticle use, es?ecially when dre teacher gave metatinguistic feedback.More rec€nt study conducted by sheen, wdght, g f"folar*u (ZOOS, p. 556) rwealed a simitar frnding that unfocused feedback has a limiAtion on pedagogical value while focused feedback can positively alfect grammUical accuracy in writing.They claimed drar $'hen the correction addresses a range of grammdical enors, leamen are rmable o process the feedback effectively' and even iflh€, aseod to the corrections, the,y are unable to work or'rt why [re'y have beur conected 2. Method

Design
This research was quantitative in nrure, which employed suwey design' The survey was used to collect data I t5 about the teachers' pBctices and the studens' prefere[ces for feedback.The result of &e surv€y became a rderence to determine whal t T€s of feedback the teachers perceived to practice in response to students'wdting and wha types of feedback rhd tle stud€nts prefened.

Particirynts
The participans of dris study were the student and dle teachers of English Education DeparEnent of Mulawarman University, Ea-st Bom€o, Indonesia There were 54 (46 femaleg 8 mal€s) orn of 94 students of Englistr Education Departrnent who participated in this snrdy.They were sitting in $e third semester and taking Writing Itr c.urse as one of tre corpulsory subjects in the academic year of 20l4l20l5 .They vrere b€twe€n I 8 to 22 yea$ old.In addition, 22 (13 females, 9 males) out of 30 teachers *{ro were teaching writing and sr4ewising studeots' theses also took part in this suwey.The teachers h8d morc than 5 years of teaching experimces.All of the participants were all selected by using convanience sanpling technique.This technique was used because it was quite difficult to collect data ftom all populalion in a relaively short period of time.So, only those wto nrere lohmtarily participaed in lhe survey wsre selected as the sample.Alt of the participants had Bahasa Indonesia as their first language.

Inslfumenl
The instrument used to collect dre dala was a questionnaire in dle form of Feedback Scale.It was constructed by lhe researcher by considering the rheories regarding dre ciaracteristics of certain types of written mnective feedback.The instrument was basically the sanre for bolh teachers and studenb.The differences lied on the wording and ad&ess.The queslionnaire contained lO items, each of which alloui€d fie students and the teachers to ,u" -"-h of the four options which r€presents one type of feedback (Drect Feedback, Indirect Feedback, Focused Feedback and Unfocused Feedback).The scale ranged from I which was the leasl preferred item to 4 wlici was the most preferred item The highest smre was 40 which means ihal il was a perfecl preference for one particular feedback and the lowest score w&s l0 *trich means drd this t,"e of feedback was nol or least preferred.The instrument can be found in the appendix A and appendix B.

Data Arulysis
The data 11rere uralyzed quantirativd by findy scoring individual stud€nts and teaches to find their individual preferences and practices for feedback and then calculating the means scole to determioe the profile of the studenS' preferences and the profile ofteachers' feedback in general.The highest average score on one particular type of feedbact means the ltlost Fefened one for the students and the most fiequendy practiced one for the teachers.
3. Results rod Discu$ions 3. I Atalysis on lrulii<hul 'llps of Feedback The result of dats analysis proved &a there was a misfit betwe€0 t6chets' practices and students' preferenc€s for $ritten feedback, indicaied by tre difierarce in the average scores of each tyP€ of fe€dback.Table I presens he resull of analysis on $e individual type of feedback practiced by the teachen and prefened by the students.
The analysis on individual types of feedback strowed dnt botr teachers srd students preferred to give and to have direct feedback because both had the hig[est mean scor€s on this type of feedback.However, dte data showed dre average score of students' preferenk on direct feedback was higher than 6,,at of the teachers Tlus indicated that stuLnts liked to have more direct feedback than the teacher could provide to them.Chandler tzoojj "rppo* a" finding rhat direct feedback was preferred by studans because ttrey found tha this was $e iilst"i arri'""siesr , ,av to hllp trem correcr their writing &afls.In term of indirect feedback' il seemed that the i*"i"o p-"ia"a -direct feedback alrmst equally to diiect feedback.This type of feedback also showed.higher.*i*tZi.lSl.Bu! if compared to fie score of the st.dens' preferences, this type of feedback was not likely ro be prefLned 6y the students.It means thar the teache* tended to give more indirecl feedback but the students likJd to have more direct feedback instead ofindirect feedback.Another clear misfit was found in dtis case I l6 ijel.ccsenct.org Intemational Joumal of English Linguistics The analysis on focused and ufocused feedback also shoued similar findings in thst both teachers and students prefened unfocused more 0ran focused feedback.The diferqrce lied on the average scores on each type of feedback.The dara on Table I indicated thst students preferred unfocused feedback far rnore than focused feedback urhile the teachers seemed to give almost equal qumtity of focused and unfocused feedback.The table also showed thu the armrmt of tmfocused feedback eryected by lhe shrdents was much larger than the teachers could provide.In terms of focused feedback the difference was snaller compared with tre rmfocused feedback.Again, a mismatch occurred between the teachers' practices and tre stud€nts' expectations.

Arulysis on Combined Tjpes of Feedback
The analysis on individual types of feedback showed that there was a mismatch between teachels' plactices and students' preferences for feedLack.The malysis on the combinUion of nore dnn one Spes of feedback was also conductqi.This analysis was spplied because it is generally urdeFtood ft8r teschers Nually Qply more thur one types offeedback on students writing This analysis is also usefi.rl to identi!dre profile of teadrers' practices and students' preferences for feedback.io gOt the mmbinations of the type of feedback, ote mean score of each type feedbaci was added so dut tre total average score of lhe combination was obtained.The possible *-Uio"tion, of ti,ro types of feedback included Direct-focused Feedback, Direct-Unfocused Feedback, Indirect-Focused Feedback, and Indirect-Unfocused F€€db8ck.Direct-lndirect Feedback and Focused-Unfocused Feedback were not combined becaue these type,s of feedback are two opposite types thal make it impossible to combine.Table 2 presens the results of analysis on the teachers' praclices and students' preferenccs for nrore than one typ€s of written corrective feedback' ThedataonTable2indicaledftdDirect-UnfocusedFeedbackwasttemostfrequentlypractcedbydreteachers *J ttt" ,-"r pr"f"rr"a by the studartsas it had the highest score On the ofier hand Indirect-Focused Feedback was the lesst frequently practicea anjttre least ptefenid by students -Although $ese tw: *'b'"tatg:Tl baueen srudens" expectation and teachers' practices' they were different in terrrs of the arpunt ol lee{IoacK srven bv the teache$ (51.t3) -a UJ-louit ot fiUaci expec-ted bv the students (60 93) ln this case' the It aent "potea -ore tran $e teachers could grve' The real misfits were found in lhe combinations of Direcl-Focused and Indirect-Unfocused feedback.The data show that students put Orrecr-tocusJ ieedback as the second preference while fte teachers put it as the 6ird rank.This means lhat studen6 reslly wanted dleir writing to be drlect!corected without focusing on one p".t"ut., u"pot ",ftile the teachers used more lndirect-Unfocused feedback (Rank 2) Figure 2. The mrrparison betweat he profile of teachers' practices and the profile of students' preferences for written corrective feedback The data on the teadlers' pmctices and students' preferenc€s as displayed on Table 2 made it possible to identi& the profiles of teachers' practices and students' preferences for feedback.The teachers' profile represented the amor.mt of feedback the teacher used acconding b the types of feedback.For example, if the area between direct feedback and focused feedback in the profile chart was wider than the other areas, it means that he teachers used more feedback in this combination-The same way applied to stud€nts' profile of feedback preferences.Figure 2 presents the profile ofteachers' praAices and SudenS' preferances for written corrective feedback.
The figure illusraes tha the discrepancy between whal teachers perceived to practice in providing feedback on studenl'and ufiar studen6 prefered or qeected to have on their rvriting really existed.This finding supports Fathman & Whaley ( I 990) wtro said rhar 6ire was a mismatch baween what type of feedback teachers gave and what types of dback students liked b have on their papers and Hytand (1998) who fomd that fiere was a misfil between bow teacher gave feedback and \riat students fiPected to receive' The profile of the teachers' practices for feedback showed lhat the teachers used a quite balanced amourt of feedback for each combination (49.50 for Direct-Focuse4 5t.13 for Direct Unfocuse4 4887 for Indirect-Focuse4 and 50.52 for Indirect-unfocused). on the odrer hand, the profile of studens' prefermces showed drat the stud€ns prefened one type offeedback combination more lhan olher types.As we can see in dte profile in figue 2, tie most preiened type feedback combination thd fie students e4ected was blrect-Unfoc*eO f"edback.This means that the students liked to have feedback wtrich was explicitly eplained and clearly indicate4 and they also erqected tha all errors were conected without focusing on one panicular aspect of writing only.
The profile also shows ttd tre students did not prefet lo have indirect feedback.This was because this 4pe of feedback did not provide clear conection urd only used symbols in indicating the errors or the problems' ln JOi ior, tr" *a"ins' profile also shows that focused feedback was not really prefened.They u/8nted all a*ects of their writing were commented or conected- Ifthetwoprofilesabovewefeputtogetherinonecha4thenthemisfisbetweenteachers'practicesandtre *J"*; p."r"r"n."s were clearly idenified as we can see in Figure 3.The intersection points foud in the figure showed dre misfib of tlre prac[c€ and prefefence.Direct-Focused and Indirect-Focused types of feedback did noi go in paraltel directioni.It means that ft€ teachers and students put fies€ two combinaions of feedbrk in aff"lm ,-rc ", *" can see in Table 2.This means lhat lhe teachers md rhe sudens did not have an agreernent r"i ur*" ,*" types in terms or the practlces and preferences.on the other hand, Direct-unfocused and Indirect-unfocused types of feedback went in palsllel direcuons; there was no an intersection point This means that both studerts and teachers ngroa a prrt o"se two combinations in the same ranks (Rank I for oir."r-ro"*"4 -d rark 4 for Indirit-Focused).Howeveq dre mismarch was still fomd in temrs of the armunt or r"Ju*t pr*i""a and prefened.Studens wanted more Direct-unfocused feedback (60.93) &an the teschers ;JJ;;,i" (51.13).That i, ,l,v ii+r" 3 shows fiat the rectangle area of the srudeDts' pfeferenc€s for Drect-Unfocused largely went to d" l6*n-t"e' direction compared to the teacher's practices for this type of feedback.

I l8
Figure 4. Proposed model for preference-based feedback on writing instructlon In this instructional model of writing, ftree mains elemens of the activity are included: writing, feedbaclq and rwision.What mates il diferent ftom olher convqrtional writing instruction which also incorporates feedback into its design is thd in this design lhe feedback provision is the result of teacher-students' mnsensus.Teacher and students should make an agreem€'nt on wtrat types of feedback they like to have, which, of couse, need to be in line wilh what teacher wans o provide.In additioq this design involves rEreated activities in which the types of feedback provided in one particular tex will be different from o$er texts depending on the agre€rnent between teacller 8nd students.

Conclusion
Despite the teachers' beliefs 8bolrt whd constitutes effective feedback to improve studants' writing, it is considered fair to also accommodate Bfiat students Expect and prefer to have on dreir r.rritingSome research fiadings have proven dtal paflicular typ€s of feedback do not uDrk well in improving studmts' writing while some other studies found that the use of the same types of feedback is able to improve the quality of students' paper One of$e reasons uihy research findings do not yield lhe same conclusion about the efrcacy offeedback is lhat there may be a mismatch between wha students expect and what teachers apply and believe about dre types of fe€dback dral can imprcve students' writing.A model of writing instructional design is then proposed to accommodde the students' preferences.This model is called preference-based feedback in teaching writing.
However, tle effectiveness of this nrodel still needs to be investigded.Experimenal research can b" ore of research designs to prove its effectiveoess.

Achowlcdgmats
Special gratitude goes b &e Govemnent ofEast Katimantan Province 6at granted the au6or scholarship for the accomplishment of $is study.Thanks are also orpressed to Dr. Faizah Sai, Surya University, Irdonesi4 for her inputs and suggestions in improving the draft ofthis article

Figure l .
Figure l.The misfit between teachers' practices and studens' preferences for feedback

Table l .
The comparison of &e &versge scores between teadrers' practicrs and shldsnts' prefer€nces for individual types of written feedback

Table 2 .
The comparison oftota!scores between teachers' practices and stud€trts' prefelences for combined types