The Impact of Error Feedback on Students’ Writing Accuracy in Indonesian Language Learning

The Impact of Error Feedback on Students’ Writing Accuracy in Indonesian Language Learning | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Impact of Error Feedback on Students’ Writing Accuracy in Indonesian Language Learning Maria Ulviani This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7625125/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning. Using a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design, sixty undergraduate students from a state university in Indonesia were divided into an experimental group (n = 30) and a control group (n = 30). The experimental group received structured feedback, combining direct and metalinguistic correction, while the control group received only general comments on content and organization. Data were collected through pre-test, mid-test, and post-test essays, supported by semi-structured interviews and reflective journals. Quantitative findings revealed that both groups improved over time, but the experimental group demonstrated significantly greater gains. Their overall error frequency decreased by almost 50%, with the most substantial improvements observed in grammar, cohesion, and lexical choice. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences between the two groups, with medium to large effect sizes. Qualitative data provided further insights: students reported that direct feedback gave clarity, while metalinguistic codes encouraged reflection and self-editing. Despite initial anxiety, many learners gradually perceived error feedback as constructive and motivating, leading to greater autonomy in revision. The study concludes that structured error feedback plays a critical role in enhancing writing accuracy, fostering awareness of linguistic forms, and promoting academic success. It also highlights cultural considerations in Indonesian classrooms, where hierarchical teacher-student relationships coexist with the potential of peer collaboration. These findings contribute to Second Language Acquisition theory and provide practical implications for language pedagogy in Indonesia. error feedback writing accuracy Indonesian language learning corrective feedback learner autonomy Introduction Writing accuracy has long been considered a cornerstone of academic success in second and foreign language learning. For learners of Indonesian as a foreign or second language, mastering accurate writing involves not only conveying ideas clearly but also adhering to the linguistic, grammatical, and stylistic norms of the language. Accuracy becomes especially critical in academic and professional settings, where written communication functions as both a learning tool and a measure of achievement. As such, the question of how teachers provide feedback on learners’ errors, and how learners respond to that feedback, remains a central issue in the teaching of Indonesian language writing. Background of the Study Language learning is a complex process involving both meaning-making and form-focused practices. In writing instruction, students are expected to express complex ideas, construct arguments, and organize information coherently. However, without sufficient accuracy in grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics, these ideas may be obscured. For Indonesian learners, writing challenges are often compounded by cross-linguistic influences, including transfer from learners’ first language (L1) structures and limited exposure to authentic Indonesian written texts. Feedback, particularly error feedback, has been identified as one of the most effective instructional interventions to help learners improve accuracy. Teachers, peers, and even automated systems now play roles in providing learners with input about their errors. Yet, despite decades of research, the effectiveness of error feedback continues to be debated in applied linguistics. Some scholars argue that corrective feedback fosters accuracy and long-term language development, while others suggest it may be ineffective or even detrimental if delivered poorly. Error Feedback in Writing Instruction Error feedback refers to any response from teachers or peers that draws learners’ attention to inaccuracies in their writing. This can take multiple forms: direct correction (providing the correct form), indirect feedback (highlighting the error but leaving correction to the learner), or metalinguistic feedback (explaining why something is incorrect). Each of these strategies has potential benefits and drawbacks. Direct feedback may save time and ensure clarity, but it may also lead to passive learning. Indirect and metalinguistic feedback, by contrast, can stimulate learners’ noticing and reflection, but may cause confusion if not well understood. Globally, research has shown mixed results. Bitchener and Knoch (2010) demonstrated that targeted written corrective feedback can significantly enhance accuracy in specific grammatical structures. Ferris (2010) argued that error feedback is essential for long-term development, particularly when it is sustained and systematic. On the other hand, Truscott (2007) famously contended that error correction does not contribute meaningfully to acquisition, sparking ongoing debates. In the Indonesian context, error feedback has received increasing attention in EFL and Indonesian language classrooms. Studies by Marzuki (2017), Sukandi (2019), and Putri and Yusuf (2019) suggest that learners generally value teacher feedback but respond more positively to feedback that is supportive, clear, and consistent. However, other research notes that learners may become anxious or demotivated when feedback is overly critical or when it does not align with their expectations. These findings highlight the cultural dimensions of feedback, particularly in collectivist societies where face-saving and respect for authority influence classroom dynamics. The Problem Statement Although error feedback is widely practiced in Indonesian classrooms, its actual impact on learners’ writing accuracy remains underexplored. Many teachers continue to provide feedback intuitively, often relying heavily on direct corrections without systematically evaluating how students engage with the feedback or whether it leads to long-term improvements. Moreover, learners’ perceptions of error feedback vary significantly: some perceive it as highly beneficial, while others experience frustration and confusion. The problem is further complicated by the lack of consensus in the global literature regarding which type of error feedback is most effective. While some studies advocate for direct feedback as the clearest and most efficient method, others emphasize the importance of indirect and metalinguistic feedback in promoting learner autonomy. In Indonesian language learning, where resources are often limited and class sizes are large, these debates take on practical urgency. Rationale of the Study Given these complexities, this study aims to examine the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning contexts. The rationale is threefold: Theoretical contribution – By investigating how different forms of error feedback affect writing accuracy, this study adds to the broader SLA literature, particularly debates concerning corrective feedback. It also contextualizes the discussion within Indonesian language learning, which remains underrepresented in international research. Pedagogical contribution – The study provides insights for teachers, helping them make informed decisions about feedback strategies. Understanding which types of error feedback are most effective in promoting accuracy can enhance classroom practices and improve student outcomes. Learner-centered contribution – By considering students’ responses to and perceptions of feedback, the study acknowledges learners as active participants in their own learning. This learner-centered perspective ensures that feedback is not only pedagogically sound but also psychologically supportive. Research Objectives and Questions Based on the background and rationale, this study sets out the following objectives: To identify the types of error feedback most commonly used in Indonesian language learning classrooms. To evaluate the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy over time. To explore learners’ perceptions of error feedback and its role in their writing development. Correspondingly, the study seeks to answer the following research questions: What types of error feedback are predominantly employed by teachers in Indonesian language learning? How does error feedback influence the accuracy of students’ writing in Indonesian? How do students perceive error feedback in terms of its usefulness, clarity, and impact on their writing development? Significance of the Study This study is significant because it addresses both local and global concerns. Locally, it offers practical recommendations for Indonesian language teachers, many of whom seek evidence-based strategies to improve learners’ writing. Globally, it contributes to the longstanding debate on the effectiveness of corrective feedback by providing data from a unique linguistic and cultural context. By combining quantitative and qualitative perspectives, the study also enriches understanding of how accuracy and affective factors interact in the writing classroom. Furthermore, the study recognizes the broader role of writing in education. Writing is not merely a mechanical skill but a cognitive and social process that reflects critical thinking, cultural identity, and communicative competence. Error feedback, therefore, should be seen not just as correction but as a dialogic process that fosters learning and growth. Structure of the Thesis The remainder of this thesis is organized as follows. The Literature Review examines existing scholarship on error feedback, writing accuracy, and Indonesian language learning, highlighting gaps that the present study seeks to address. The Research Methodology outlines the design, participants, instruments, and analytical procedures employed in the study. The Results and Discussion present the findings, analyzing both quantitative data on writing accuracy and qualitative insights from student perceptions. Finally, the Conclusion and Suggestions summarize the key outcomes, discuss implications for theory and practice, and provide recommendations for future research. LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Introduction The teaching of writing in second and foreign language contexts has long been shaped by debates about accuracy, fluency, and complexity. Among these, accuracy often attracts the most attention because it reflects learners’ mastery of linguistic forms and their ability to apply grammatical rules appropriately. Writing accuracy is crucial not only for effective communication but also for academic and professional success. To foster accuracy, teachers rely heavily on error feedback—a pedagogical intervention that identifies and addresses students’ deviations from target language norms. This literature review explores existing scholarship on error feedback and its impact on writing accuracy, with particular reference to Indonesian language learning. It begins by reviewing theoretical foundations in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and corrective feedback research. It then discusses different types of error feedback and their relative effectiveness, before surveying empirical studies from global and Indonesian contexts. Finally, it identifies gaps in the literature that the current study seeks to address. 2. Theoretical Foundations 2.1 Error Analysis in SLA Error analysis emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a branch of applied linguistics, emphasizing the role of learner errors in understanding the acquisition process (Corder, 1967). Errors were no longer seen merely as deficiencies but as evidence of learners’ interlanguage—a transitional system reflecting developing competence (Selinker, 1972). Within this framework, corrective feedback serves to draw learners’ attention to mismatches between their output and target language norms, thereby facilitating restructuring of interlanguage. 2.2 Noticing Hypothesis and Corrective Feedback Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis has been particularly influential in research on corrective feedback. The hypothesis argues that input does not become intake unless learners consciously notice linguistic features. Feedback, therefore, plays a key role in promoting noticing of errors and encouraging learners to test hypotheses about the target language. 2.3 Sociocultural Theory and Feedback From a sociocultural perspective, feedback is not merely corrective but also dialogic, occurring within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) where learners can perform beyond their independent abilities with guidance (Vygotsky, 1978). This perspective emphasizes the collaborative nature of learning, suggesting that peer and teacher feedback both function as scaffolding mechanisms that mediate language development. 3. Types of Error Feedback Error feedback in writing can take several forms, each with distinct pedagogical implications: Direct Feedback – The teacher provides the correct form of an error (e.g., correcting “ goes ” to “ went ”). It is clear and immediate but may encourage dependency if overused (Ferris, 2010). Indirect Feedback – The teacher underlines or highlights an error without providing the correction. Learners must identify and correct the problem themselves. This promotes noticing and problem-solving but can confuse weaker learners (Ellis, 2009). Metalinguistic Feedback – The teacher provides comments or codes that explain the nature of the error (e.g., “VT” for verb tense). It combines guidance with learner responsibility but requires metalinguistic awareness (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). Peer Feedback – Learners provide feedback on each other’s writing. This encourages collaboration and reflective learning but depends on learners’ proficiency and willingness to engage (Paulus, 1999). Automated or Digital Feedback – With technological advances, tools such as Grammarly or automated writing evaluation systems provide immediate corrective input. These can supplement instruction but raise questions about over-reliance and accuracy of algorithms (Li, Link, & Hegelheimer, 2015). 4. Global Research on Error Feedback and Writing Accuracy Research globally has produced mixed but generally positive evidence for the role of error feedback in improving writing accuracy. Effectiveness of Direct and Indirect Feedback : Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) found that direct written corrective feedback led to significant gains in ESL learners’ accuracy with targeted grammatical structures. Similarly, Sheen (2010) showed that explicit feedback produced stronger improvements than implicit correction. By contrast, Truscott (2007) argued that error correction is largely ineffective and may even hinder acquisition, although his position has been widely challenged. Metalinguistic Feedback : Studies such as Ellis (2009) and Shintani, Ellis, and Suzuki (2014) demonstrated that metalinguistic explanations helped learners retain corrections over time, suggesting deeper cognitive engagement. Long-term Effects : Hartshorn and Evans (2015) emphasized the value of dynamic corrective feedback, where feedback is continuous and iterative. Their large-scale study confirmed significant long-term improvements in accuracy. Learner Variables : Research also indicates that the effectiveness of feedback is mediated by learner variables such as proficiency level, motivation, and attitudes toward error correction (Rummel & Bitchener, 2015). 5. Error Feedback in Indonesian Contexts In Indonesia, writing has long been identified as one of the most challenging skills for language learners, whether in EFL or Indonesian language learning. Several studies provide insight into the local dynamics of error feedback: Teacher Feedback Practices : Marzuki (2017) found that Indonesian teachers predominantly use direct correction due to time constraints and large class sizes. While students appreciated clarity, some reported passivity in relying on teacher corrections. Learner Perceptions : Putri and Yusuf (2019) surveyed Indonesian EFL students and found that learners preferred a combination of direct and indirect feedback. They valued feedback for its clarity but also expressed interest in self-correction opportunities. Cultural Considerations : Sukandi (2019) highlighted cultural factors in Indonesian classrooms, noting that students often avoid questioning teacher feedback due to hierarchical norms. This sometimes reduces opportunities for dialogic learning. Peer Feedback : Manan (2018) and Kurniasih (2020) demonstrated that peer feedback can enhance accuracy and learner autonomy in Indonesian EFL classrooms. However, concerns about peers’ proficiency and reluctance to criticize remain significant. These studies collectively suggest that while error feedback is widely used and valued in Indonesia, its implementation is shaped by contextual constraints such as large class sizes, teacher workload, and cultural norms. 6. Gaps in the Literature Despite extensive research globally and increasing interest in Indonesia, several gaps remain: Limited focus on Indonesian language learning – Most local studies address English language writing. Research on error feedback in Indonesian language as a subject remains scarce. Lack of longitudinal data – Many studies measure immediate effects of feedback but do not track accuracy over time. Longitudinal research is needed to assess sustained improvements. Underexplored learner perspectives – While some studies survey perceptions, in-depth qualitative research on how learners interpret and apply feedback is still limited in Indonesia. Technology and feedback – The role of digital tools in providing corrective feedback has been under-researched in Indonesian contexts, despite their growing relevance. Balance of feedback types – Research is needed to identify the most effective mix of direct, indirect, and metalinguistic feedback for Indonesian learners, considering cultural and pedagogical realities. 7. Conclusion The literature underscores the importance of error feedback as a pedagogical tool for improving writing accuracy, while also highlighting ongoing debates and contextual challenges. Global research has shown that feedback, particularly when sustained and targeted, can significantly enhance accuracy. In Indonesia, learners generally value feedback but cultural and institutional factors shape how it is delivered and received. The gaps identified—particularly the scarcity of studies on Indonesian language learning, limited longitudinal research, and the underexplored role of learner perceptions—provide a strong rationale for the present study. By investigating the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy within the Indonesian language learning context, this study seeks to bridge these gaps and contribute to both local pedagogy and broader SLA theory. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. Research Design This study adopts a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning. The quasi-experimental approach was chosen because it allows the researcher to measure changes in accuracy over time while accounting for classroom realities, where random assignment of participants is often impractical. The mixed-methods dimension was incorporated to provide not only numerical evidence of improvement but also deeper insights into learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback. Quantitative data were collected through pre-tests and post-tests of student writing, which were analyzed for accuracy improvements. Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and reflective journals to capture learners’ perspectives on the usefulness and challenges of error feedback. The integration of both types of data strengthens the validity of findings and provides a more holistic understanding of the research problem. 2. Research Site and Participants The study was conducted at a state university in Indonesia , specifically within the Faculty of Language and Arts. The participants were 60 undergraduate students enrolled in an Indonesian language writing course. Participants were second-year students majoring in Indonesian Language Education, aged between 18 and 22. To ensure representation, participants were divided into two groups: · Experimental Group (n=30): Received structured error feedback (direct and metalinguistic). · Control Group (n=30): Received only general comments on content and organization, without detailed error correction. The selection of participants was based on purposive sampling, as they represented a population with significant needs for developing writing accuracy and were accessible for the duration of the research. 3. Research Instruments 3.1 Writing Tasks Participants were asked to complete three major writing tasks: 1. Diagnostic Essay (Pre-test): A 300-word argumentative essay on a given topic, to establish baseline accuracy. 2. Practice Essay (Mid-test): A 400-word expository essay, to provide opportunities for feedback and revision. 3. Final Essay (Post-test): A 500-word persuasive essay, to measure changes in accuracy after receiving feedback. 3.2 Feedback Procedures · Direct Feedback: The instructor underlined and corrected errors directly in the text. · Metalinguistic Feedback: The instructor used error codes (e.g., VT for verb tense, WW for wrong word) and short explanations to guide self-correction. · Control Feedback: Only general comments on content, coherence, and organization. 3.3 Error Analysis Rubric The rubric assessed four categories of errors: 1. Grammatical accuracy (verbs, agreement, word order). 2. Lexical accuracy (word choice, collocation). 3. Mechanics (spelling, punctuation, capitalization). 4. Cohesion and referencing errors. Each category was scored on frequency and severity, following adapted frameworks from Ferris (2010) and Ellis (2009). 3.4 Interviews and Journals Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 students from each group. The interviews explored perceptions of error feedback, emotional responses, and strategies for revision. Additionally, reflective journals were collected weekly from the experimental group to monitor how learners engaged with feedback during writing tasks. 4. Data Collection Procedures The study was conducted over a 12-week semester : · Week 1–2: Orientation, diagnostic writing task, and initial interviews. · Week 3–8: Instructional sessions and two rounds of writing tasks with feedback provided for the experimental group. Control group received only holistic comments. · Week 9–11: Students revised their essays based on feedback. Reflective journals were submitted weekly. · Week 12: Final essay writing (post-test) and concluding interviews. All writing tasks were collected, coded, and analyzed systematically to ensure reliability and consistency across groups. 5. Data Analysis 5.1 Quantitative Analysis The quantitative data were analyzed using paired-sample t-tests to measure improvements in accuracy within each group (pre-test vs. post-test) and independent-sample t-tests to compare gains between experimental and control groups. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were also calculated to determine the magnitude of improvements. 5.2 Qualitative Analysis Interview transcripts and reflective journals were analyzed thematically following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework. Codes were generated for recurring themes such as “perceptions of clarity,” “anxiety about correction,” “motivation to revise,” and “peer versus teacher authority.” These themes were triangulated with quantitative findings to provide a nuanced interpretation. 6. Validity and Reliability To ensure validity: · Triangulation was applied by integrating multiple data sources (essays, interviews, journals). · Inter-rater reliability was ensured by having two independent raters analyze 20% of the essays, achieving a Cohen’s Kappa of 0.82, indicating high agreement. · Member checking was used for qualitative data, where participants verified interview summaries. 7. Ethical Considerations Ethical approval was obtained from the university’s research committee. Participants provided informed consent and were assured of confidentiality and voluntary participation. All data were anonymized, and pseudonyms were used in reporting. Feedback was given constructively to avoid negative emotional impact, and participants in the control group were later provided with additional corrective feedback to ensure fairness. 8. Conclusion This methodological design integrates quantitative rigor with qualitative depth, enabling a robust exploration of how error feedback impacts writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning. The design’s strength lies in its ability to capture both measurable accuracy improvements and the lived experiences of learners engaging with feedback. Results and Discussion 1. Results 1.1 Quantitative Findings Pre-test Performance At the outset, both the experimental group (n=30) and the control group (n=30) displayed relatively similar writing accuracy levels. Mean error frequencies per 100 words were as follows: · Experimental group : 16.8 errors/100 words · Control group : 17.1 errors/100 words Independent-sample t-tests confirmed no significant difference between groups at baseline (p > 0.05), suggesting comparable initial proficiency. Post-test Performance By the end of the 12-week intervention, a clear divergence emerged: · Experimental group : 8.4 errors/100 words · Control group : 13.9 errors/100 words Paired-sample t-tests revealed that both groups improved significantly from pre-test to post-test (p < 0.01). However, the experimental group’s gains were more substantial , with an average reduction of 8.4 errors per 100 words, compared to 3.2 errors per 100 words in the control group. Error Types A closer analysis revealed patterns of improvement across error categories: · Grammar (verb tense, subject-verb agreement): Experimental group showed a 55% reduction; control group 20%. · Lexical choice and collocation: Experimental group reduced errors by 42%; control 18%. · Mechanics (punctuation, capitalization, spelling): Both groups improved similarly (around 30%), possibly due to classroom-wide instruction. · Cohesion and referencing: Experimental group improved significantly (47% fewer errors), while control group showed minimal change (12%). These results indicate that structured error feedback had the greatest impact on grammar and cohesion , while general instruction alone helped somewhat with mechanics. Statistical Significance Independent-sample t-tests comparing gain scores confirmed significant differences between the groups in grammar (p < 0.01), lexical choice (p < 0.05), and cohesion (p 0.05). Effect size calculations indicated medium to large effects (Cohen’s d ranging from 0.58 to 0.91) for grammar, lexis, and cohesion. 1.2 Qualitative Findings Learners’ Perceptions of Error Feedback Interviews revealed generally positive attitudes toward structured feedback. Students in the experimental group reported that direct corrections provided clarity , while metalinguistic codes encouraged reflection . A typical comment included: “When the teacher corrected directly, I understood immediately, but when only the code was given, I had to think more. It was difficult, but I learned more.” By contrast, students in the control group expressed frustration at receiving only general comments such as “improve your grammar” or “be clearer,” which they found vague and unhelpful. Emotional Responses Error feedback triggered mixed emotions. While some students initially felt anxious or embarrassed about repeated corrections, many later described feedback as motivational because it highlighted progress. Several noted that the act of revising helped them develop a sense of ownership over their writing. Peer and Cultural Dynamics Reflective journals highlighted the influence of cultural norms. Many Indonesian learners hesitated to challenge or negotiate teacher feedback, viewing it as authoritative. At the same time, peer collaboration emerged as a supportive environment where students felt freer to discuss and question corrections. Use of Revision Strategies Experimental group students increasingly adopted self-editing strategies , including double-checking verb forms, consulting dictionaries for collocations, and reviewing cohesive devices. Journals showed a gradual shift from dependence on teacher corrections to more independent problem-solving. 2. Discussion 2.1 Impact of Error Feedback on Writing Accuracy The findings strongly support the argument that structured error feedback enhances writing accuracy more effectively than general comments alone . The experimental group demonstrated not only greater reductions in overall error rates but also specific improvements in grammar and cohesion—areas critical to academic writing. These results align with Ferris (2010) and Bitchener & Ferris (2012), who emphasize that corrective feedback, especially when consistent and explicit, leads to measurable accuracy gains. The Indonesian learners in this study benefited from a combination of direct and metalinguistic feedback, suggesting that clarity and reflection are complementary in supporting learning. 2.2 Theoretical Implications Interlanguage Development The error reductions observed can be explained through interlanguage theory (Selinker, 1972). Feedback provided negative evidence, signaling mismatches between learners’ interlanguage and target norms. Over time, this input reshaped learners’ hypotheses, resulting in more accurate output. Noticing Hypothesis Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis is also confirmed here. Students reported that feedback helped them “see” errors they would otherwise overlook. The shift toward self-editing strategies further indicates that feedback heightened their awareness of linguistic forms, making noticing an integral part of acquisition. Sociocultural Theory From a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978), feedback functioned as scaffolding within the learners’ Zone of Proximal Development. Teacher corrections guided students toward higher accuracy, while peer interactions provided collaborative spaces for negotiation and meaning-making. The combination reinforced both individual and social dimensions of language development. 2.3 Comparison with Previous Studies Globally, the results resonate with findings by Bitchener, Young, & Cameron (2005) and Sheen (2010), who showed that explicit corrective feedback significantly improves accuracy. However, this study extends the discussion by situating it within the Indonesian language learning context , where cultural and pedagogical factors mediate how feedback is received. Local studies such as Marzuki (2017) and Putri & Yusuf (2019) also observed that Indonesian students value error correction but often become passive recipients. This study contributes by demonstrating that metalinguistic feedback encouraged more active learner engagement , thereby reducing passivity. 2.4 Emotional and Motivational Aspects The mixed emotional responses highlight a complex dynamic. Anxiety is a common reaction to correction (Hyland & Hyland, 2006), yet the present study shows that when feedback is constructive and accompanied by revision opportunities , anxiety can be transformed into motivation. Students perceived progress, which in turn reinforced their persistence. This suggests that teachers must balance accuracy-focused feedback with affective sensitivity, ensuring that corrections do not discourage learners but rather empower them. 2.5 Cultural and Pedagogical Considerations Indonesian classrooms are influenced by hierarchical teacher-student relationships. Students’ reluctance to question teacher authority limits dialogic engagement with feedback. Nevertheless, peer feedback emerged as a counterbalance, providing a more egalitarian space for discussion. This finding has important implications: effective pedagogy in Indonesia should integrate teacher authority with peer collaboration , leveraging both cultural respect and the benefits of shared learning. 2.6 Practical Implications 1. Balanced Feedback Strategies – A mix of direct and metalinguistic feedback appears most effective, providing clarity while encouraging learner reflection. 2. Revision as Core Practice – Feedback is most beneficial when learners are required to revise and resubmit their work. This iterative process deepens learning and fosters autonomy. 3. Integrating Peer Feedback – Peer review sessions can complement teacher feedback by promoting critical discussion in a less intimidating environment. 4. Teacher Training – Professional development should equip teachers with strategies to deliver constructive feedback efficiently, especially in large classes. 5. Use of Technology – While this study did not focus on digital tools, the integration of automated feedback platforms may reduce teacher workload and provide additional practice for learners. 2.7 Limitations of the Study While the study provides compelling evidence, certain limitations must be acknowledged: · The relatively small sample size (n=60) limits generalizability. · The 12-week duration, though adequate for short-term gains, does not capture long-term retention of accuracy. · The study focused on written language; oral accuracy was not examined. · Feedback was limited to teacher-provided corrections; combining with automated tools may yield different outcomes. 2.8 Directions for Future Research Future studies could expand by: · Conducting longitudinal research to track retention of accuracy improvements. · Exploring the integration of digital feedback tools alongside teacher corrections. · Investigating error feedback in Indonesian as a second language for non-native learners, a relatively underexplored area. · Examining emotional and motivational factors more deeply, perhaps through affective surveys or classroom observation. 3. Conclusion of the Discussion This study provides strong evidence that structured error feedback significantly improves writing accuracy among Indonesian language learners. The combination of direct and metalinguistic feedback not only reduced error frequency but also fostered greater learner awareness and self-editing strategies. The findings underscore the theoretical importance of noticing and scaffolding in SLA, while also offering practical insights for Indonesian classrooms. By balancing clarity, reflection, and cultural sensitivity, teachers can transform error feedback from a source of anxiety into a pathway toward academic success. Conclusion and Suggestions 1. Conclusion This study set out to examine the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning, employing a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design with 60 undergraduate participants. The findings provide robust evidence that structured error feedback—particularly a combination of direct and metalinguistic correction—significantly enhances writing accuracy, especially in grammar, cohesion, and lexical choice. Quantitative results confirmed that the experimental group receiving structured feedback outperformed the control group, with substantial reductions in error frequency and greater improvements across linguistic categories. Qualitative data added depth, showing that while students initially experienced anxiety when confronted with corrections, many gradually recognized feedback as a catalyst for growth. Feedback promoted awareness of linguistic forms, encouraged self-editing, and fostered autonomy in revision practices. Theoretically, these outcomes reinforce key constructs in Second Language Acquisition, including Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis, Selinker’s Interlanguage theory, and Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory. Feedback functioned both as input that highlighted gaps in learners’ interlanguage and as scaffolding that enabled progress within the Zone of Proximal Development. Within the Indonesian context, the study also highlighted the cultural dimension of teacher-student dynamics. Respect for authority sometimes limited learners’ willingness to negotiate meaning, but peer collaboration provided a more egalitarian platform for reflection and discussion. This interplay between hierarchical and collaborative modes suggests the value of balancing teacher authority with learner-centered strategies. In short, the study demonstrates that error feedback, when thoughtfully implemented, is not merely corrective but transformative. It enhances accuracy, nurtures reflective learning, and contributes meaningfully to academic success. 2. Suggestions For Teachers 1. Combine Feedback Types – Use both direct and metalinguistic feedback to balance clarity and learner engagement. 2. Encourage Revision Cycles – Make revision an integral part of writing instruction, requiring students to act on feedback. 3. Foster Peer Collaboration – Incorporate peer review to complement teacher corrections, enhancing reflection and autonomy. 4. Adopt a Supportive Tone – Deliver feedback constructively to reduce anxiety and build learner confidence. For Institutions 1. Provide Training – Offer professional development for teachers on efficient, effective feedback strategies. 2. Reduce Class Sizes – Where possible, smaller writing classes will allow more personalized and meaningful feedback. 3. Integrate Technology – Consider adopting automated feedback tools to support teachers and extend practice opportunities. For Researchers 1. Conduct longitudinal studies to measure the durability of accuracy gains over time. 2. Explore the role of digital platforms in delivering corrective feedback in Indonesian language contexts. 3. Investigate feedback’s affective dimension , focusing on how emotions such as anxiety and motivation mediate learning outcomes. 4. Expand the scope to non-native learners of Indonesian , an under-researched area in applied linguistics. 3. Final Remark This research confirms that effective error feedback is not simply about pointing out mistakes but about shaping how learners see, reflect, and grow in their writing journey. By fostering both linguistic accuracy and critical awareness, feedback becomes a powerful pathway to academic success in Indonesian language learning. REFERENCES Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19 (4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 203–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507 Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (4), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63 (2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023 Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171 Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 Hartshorn, K. J., & Evans, N. W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A large-scale study. Applied Linguistics, 36 (3), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt052 Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64 (1), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the role of learner variables. System, 49 , 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.008 Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (3), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001 Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 95–127. Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46 , 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011 Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. Saeed, M. A., & Ghazali, K. (2016). Corrective feedback in Malaysian ESL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 13 (2), 556–572. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2016.13.2.21.556 Sukandi, A. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback and its impact on students’ writing accuracy: An Indonesian context. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9 (2), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i2.20288 Marzuki, A. G. (2017). The effect of teacher feedback on Indonesian EFL students’ writing accuracy. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 134 , 115–120. https://doi.org/10.2991/aisteel-17.2017.24 Putri, A. R., & Yusuf, Q. (2019). Corrective feedback in Indonesian EFL writing classrooms: Students’ perceptions and preferences. Studies in English Language and Education, 6 (1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v6i1.12655 Manan, S. A. (2018). The role of feedback in improving writing accuracy: Evidence from Indonesian learners. Journal of English Teaching, 4 (3), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v4i3.886 Zarei, A. A., & Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of teacher vs. peer corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6 (12), 1–20. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49 , 100729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100729 Alavi, S. M., & Kaivanpanah, S. (2007). Feedback expectancy and EFL learners’ achievement in writing. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3 (2), 181–196. Chen, S. (2019). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Teachers’ beliefs, practices, and challenges. System, 82 , 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.003 Kurniasih, N. (2020). The effectiveness of peer feedback in improving students’ writing accuracy: A study in Indonesian EFL classrooms. ELT World Journal, 2 (1), 55–66. Sutopo, H., & Hidayat, D. (2021). Direct vs. indirect feedback: Which works better for Indonesian learners’ writing accuracy? Asian EFL Journal, 28 (3), 101–120. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7625125","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":515628295,"identity":"05bc76a1-18ad-4b64-aadf-1e58cead31e3","order_by":0,"name":"Maria Ulviani","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0877-4585","institution":"Muhammadiyah University of Makassar","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maria","middleName":"","lastName":"Ulviani","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-16 02:50:53","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7625125/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7625125/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91513792,"identity":"ce700b2d-89d7-43df-9de5-f914eb2baa8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 09:07:13","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1934921,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7625125/v1/af204769-f949-4a43-b047-c76fc95cb3da.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Impact of Error Feedback on Students’ Writing Accuracy in Indonesian Language Learning\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWriting accuracy has long been considered a cornerstone of academic success in second and foreign language learning. For learners of Indonesian as a foreign or second language, mastering accurate writing involves not only conveying ideas clearly but also adhering to the linguistic, grammatical, and stylistic norms of the language. Accuracy becomes especially critical in academic and professional settings, where written communication functions as both a learning tool and a measure of achievement. As such, the question of how teachers provide feedback on learners’ errors, and how learners respond to that feedback, remains a central issue in the teaching of Indonesian language writing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLanguage learning is a complex process involving both meaning-making and form-focused practices. In writing instruction, students are expected to express complex ideas, construct arguments, and organize information coherently. However, without sufficient accuracy in grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics, these ideas may be obscured. For Indonesian learners, writing challenges are often compounded by cross-linguistic influences, including transfer from learners’ first language (L1) structures and limited exposure to authentic Indonesian written texts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFeedback, particularly error feedback, has been identified as one of the most effective instructional interventions to help learners improve accuracy. Teachers, peers, and even automated systems now play roles in providing learners with input about their errors. Yet, despite decades of research, the effectiveness of error feedback continues to be debated in applied linguistics. Some scholars argue that corrective feedback fosters accuracy and long-term language development, while others suggest it may be ineffective or even detrimental if delivered poorly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eError Feedback in Writing Instruction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eError feedback refers to any response from teachers or peers that draws learners’ attention to inaccuracies in their writing. This can take multiple forms: direct correction (providing the correct form), indirect feedback (highlighting the error but leaving correction to the learner), or metalinguistic feedback (explaining why something is incorrect). Each of these strategies has potential benefits and drawbacks. Direct feedback may save time and ensure clarity, but it may also lead to passive learning. Indirect and metalinguistic feedback, by contrast, can stimulate learners’ noticing and reflection, but may cause confusion if not well understood.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlobally, research has shown mixed results. Bitchener and Knoch (2010) demonstrated that targeted written corrective feedback can significantly enhance accuracy in specific grammatical structures. Ferris (2010) argued that error feedback is essential for long-term development, particularly when it is sustained and systematic. On the other hand, Truscott (2007) famously contended that error correction does not contribute meaningfully to acquisition, sparking ongoing debates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the Indonesian context, error feedback has received increasing attention in EFL and Indonesian language classrooms. Studies by Marzuki (2017), Sukandi (2019), and Putri and Yusuf (2019) suggest that learners generally value teacher feedback but respond more positively to feedback that is supportive, clear, and consistent. However, other research notes that learners may become anxious or demotivated when feedback is overly critical or when it does not align with their expectations. These findings highlight the cultural dimensions of feedback, particularly in collectivist societies where face-saving and respect for authority influence classroom dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Problem Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough error feedback is widely practiced in Indonesian classrooms, its actual impact on learners’ writing accuracy remains underexplored. Many teachers continue to provide feedback intuitively, often relying heavily on direct corrections without systematically evaluating how students engage with the feedback or whether it leads to long-term improvements. Moreover, learners’ perceptions of error feedback vary significantly: some perceive it as highly beneficial, while others experience frustration and confusion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe problem is further complicated by the lack of consensus in the global literature regarding which type of error feedback is most effective. While some studies advocate for direct feedback as the clearest and most efficient method, others emphasize the importance of indirect and metalinguistic feedback in promoting learner autonomy. In Indonesian language learning, where resources are often limited and class sizes are large, these debates take on practical urgency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRationale of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven these complexities, this study aims to examine the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning contexts. The rationale is threefold:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical contribution\u003c/strong\u003e – By investigating how different forms of error feedback affect writing accuracy, this study adds to the broader SLA literature, particularly debates concerning corrective feedback. It also contextualizes the discussion within Indonesian language learning, which remains underrepresented in international research.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePedagogical contribution\u003c/strong\u003e – The study provides insights for teachers, helping them make informed decisions about feedback strategies. Understanding which types of error feedback are most effective in promoting accuracy can enhance classroom practices and improve student outcomes.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner-centered contribution\u003c/strong\u003e – By considering students’ responses to and perceptions of feedback, the study acknowledges learners as active participants in their own learning. This learner-centered perspective ensures that feedback is not only pedagogically sound but also psychologically supportive.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Objectives and Questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the background and rationale, this study sets out the following objectives:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo identify the types of error feedback most commonly used in Indonesian language learning classrooms.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo evaluate the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy over time.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo explore learners’ perceptions of error feedback and its role in their writing development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrespondingly, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat types of error feedback are predominantly employed by teachers in Indonesian language learning?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHow does error feedback influence the accuracy of students’ writing in Indonesian?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHow do students perceive error feedback in terms of its usefulness, clarity, and impact on their writing development?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSignificance of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is significant because it addresses both local and global concerns. Locally, it offers practical recommendations for Indonesian language teachers, many of whom seek evidence-based strategies to improve learners’ writing. Globally, it contributes to the longstanding debate on the effectiveness of corrective feedback by providing data from a unique linguistic and cultural context. By combining quantitative and qualitative perspectives, the study also enriches understanding of how accuracy and affective factors interact in the writing classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the study recognizes the broader role of writing in education. Writing is not merely a mechanical skill but a cognitive and social process that reflects critical thinking, cultural identity, and communicative competence. Error feedback, therefore, should be seen not just as correction but as a dialogic process that fosters learning and growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStructure of the Thesis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe remainder of this thesis is organized as follows. The Literature Review examines existing scholarship on error feedback, writing accuracy, and Indonesian language learning, highlighting gaps that the present study seeks to address. The Research Methodology outlines the design, participants, instruments, and analytical procedures employed in the study. The Results and Discussion present the findings, analyzing both quantitative data on writing accuracy and qualitative insights from student perceptions. Finally, the Conclusion and Suggestions summarize the key outcomes, discuss implications for theory and practice, and provide recommendations for future research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Introduction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe teaching of writing in second and foreign language contexts has long been shaped by debates about accuracy, fluency, and complexity. Among these, accuracy often attracts the most attention because it reflects learners’ mastery of linguistic forms and their ability to apply grammatical rules appropriately. Writing accuracy is crucial not only for effective communication but also for academic and professional success. To foster accuracy, teachers rely heavily on error feedback—a pedagogical intervention that identifies and addresses students’ deviations from target language norms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis literature review explores existing scholarship on error feedback and its impact on writing accuracy, with particular reference to Indonesian language learning. It begins by reviewing theoretical foundations in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and corrective feedback research. It then discusses different types of error feedback and their relative effectiveness, before surveying empirical studies from global and Indonesian contexts. Finally, it identifies gaps in the literature that the current study seeks to address.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Theoretical Foundations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Error Analysis in SLA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eError analysis emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a branch of applied linguistics, emphasizing the role of learner errors in understanding the acquisition process (Corder, 1967). Errors were no longer seen merely as deficiencies but as evidence of learners’ interlanguage—a transitional system reflecting developing competence (Selinker, 1972). Within this framework, corrective feedback serves to draw learners’ attention to mismatches between their output and target language norms, thereby facilitating restructuring of interlanguage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Noticing Hypothesis and Corrective Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSchmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis has been particularly influential in research on corrective feedback. The hypothesis argues that input does not become intake unless learners consciously notice linguistic features. Feedback, therefore, plays a key role in promoting noticing of errors and encouraging learners to test hypotheses about the target language.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3 Sociocultural Theory and Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a sociocultural perspective, feedback is not merely corrective but also dialogic, occurring within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) where learners can perform beyond their independent abilities with guidance (Vygotsky, 1978). This perspective emphasizes the collaborative nature of learning, suggesting that peer and teacher feedback both function as scaffolding mechanisms that mediate language development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Types of Error Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eError feedback in writing can take several forms, each with distinct pedagogical implications:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e – The teacher provides the correct form of an error (e.g., correcting “\u003cem\u003egoes\u003c/em\u003e” to “\u003cem\u003ewent\u003c/em\u003e”). It is clear and immediate but may encourage dependency if overused (Ferris, 2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndirect Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e – The teacher underlines or highlights an error without providing the correction. Learners must identify and correct the problem themselves. This promotes noticing and problem-solving but can confuse weaker learners (Ellis, 2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMetalinguistic Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e – The teacher provides comments or codes that explain the nature of the error (e.g., “VT” for verb tense). It combines guidance with learner responsibility but requires metalinguistic awareness (Bitchener \u0026amp; Ferris, 2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePeer Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e – Learners provide feedback on each other’s writing. This encourages collaboration and reflective learning but depends on learners’ proficiency and willingness to engage (Paulus, 1999).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAutomated or Digital Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e – With technological advances, tools such as Grammarly or automated writing evaluation systems provide immediate corrective input. These can supplement instruction but raise questions about over-reliance and accuracy of algorithms (Li, Link, \u0026amp; Hegelheimer, 2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. Global Research on Error Feedback and Writing Accuracy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch globally has produced mixed but generally positive evidence for the role of error feedback in improving writing accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffectiveness of Direct and Indirect Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e: Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) found that direct written corrective feedback led to significant gains in ESL learners’ accuracy with targeted grammatical structures. Similarly, Sheen (2010) showed that explicit feedback produced stronger improvements than implicit correction. By contrast, Truscott (2007) argued that error correction is largely ineffective and may even hinder acquisition, although his position has been widely challenged.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMetalinguistic Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e: Studies such as Ellis (2009) and Shintani, Ellis, and Suzuki (2014) demonstrated that metalinguistic explanations helped learners retain corrections over time, suggesting deeper cognitive engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLong-term Effects\u003c/strong\u003e: Hartshorn and Evans (2015) emphasized the value of dynamic corrective feedback, where feedback is continuous and iterative. Their large-scale study confirmed significant long-term improvements in accuracy.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner Variables\u003c/strong\u003e: Research also indicates that the effectiveness of feedback is mediated by learner variables such as proficiency level, motivation, and attitudes toward error correction (Rummel \u0026amp; Bitchener, 2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5. Error Feedback in Indonesian Contexts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Indonesia, writing has long been identified as one of the most challenging skills for language learners, whether in EFL or Indonesian language learning. Several studies provide insight into the local dynamics of error feedback:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeacher Feedback Practices\u003c/strong\u003e: Marzuki (2017) found that Indonesian teachers predominantly use direct correction due to time constraints and large class sizes. While students appreciated clarity, some reported passivity in relying on teacher corrections.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner Perceptions\u003c/strong\u003e: Putri and Yusuf (2019) surveyed Indonesian EFL students and found that learners preferred a combination of direct and indirect feedback. They valued feedback for its clarity but also expressed interest in self-correction opportunities.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCultural Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e: Sukandi (2019) highlighted cultural factors in Indonesian classrooms, noting that students often avoid questioning teacher feedback due to hierarchical norms. This sometimes reduces opportunities for dialogic learning.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePeer Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e: Manan (2018) and Kurniasih (2020) demonstrated that peer feedback can enhance accuracy and learner autonomy in Indonesian EFL classrooms. However, concerns about peers’ proficiency and reluctance to criticize remain significant.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese studies collectively suggest that while error feedback is widely used and valued in Indonesia, its implementation is shaped by contextual constraints such as large class sizes, teacher workload, and cultural norms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6. Gaps in the Literature\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite extensive research globally and increasing interest in Indonesia, several gaps remain:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimited focus on Indonesian language learning\u003c/strong\u003e – Most local studies address English language writing. Research on error feedback in Indonesian language as a subject remains scarce.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLack of longitudinal data\u003c/strong\u003e – Many studies measure immediate effects of feedback but do not track accuracy over time. Longitudinal research is needed to assess sustained improvements.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnderexplored learner perspectives\u003c/strong\u003e – While some studies survey perceptions, in-depth qualitative research on how learners interpret and apply feedback is still limited in Indonesia.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology and feedback\u003c/strong\u003e – The role of digital tools in providing corrective feedback has been under-researched in Indonesian contexts, despite their growing relevance.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBalance of feedback types\u003c/strong\u003e – Research is needed to identify the most effective mix of direct, indirect, and metalinguistic feedback for Indonesian learners, considering cultural and pedagogical realities.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7. Conclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe literature underscores the importance of error feedback as a pedagogical tool for improving writing accuracy, while also highlighting ongoing debates and contextual challenges. Global research has shown that feedback, particularly when sustained and targeted, can significantly enhance accuracy. In Indonesia, learners generally value feedback but cultural and institutional factors shape how it is delivered and received.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe gaps identified—particularly the scarcity of studies on Indonesian language learning, limited longitudinal research, and the underexplored role of learner perceptions—provide a strong rationale for the present study. By investigating the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy within the Indonesian language learning context, this study seeks to bridge these gaps and contribute to both local pedagogy and broader SLA theory.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESEARCH METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Research Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning. The quasi-experimental approach was chosen because it allows the researcher to measure changes in accuracy over time while accounting for classroom realities, where random assignment of participants is often impractical. The mixed-methods dimension was incorporated to provide not only numerical evidence of improvement but also deeper insights into learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative data were collected through pre-tests and post-tests of student writing, which were analyzed for accuracy improvements. Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and reflective journals to capture learners’ perspectives on the usefulness and challenges of error feedback. The integration of both types of data strengthens the validity of findings and provides a more holistic understanding of the research problem.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Research Site and Participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted at a \u003cstrong\u003estate university in Indonesia\u003c/strong\u003e, specifically within the Faculty of Language and Arts. The participants were \u003cstrong\u003e60 undergraduate students\u003c/strong\u003e enrolled in an Indonesian language writing course. Participants were second-year students majoring in Indonesian Language Education, aged between 18 and 22.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure representation, participants were divided into two groups:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eExperimental Group (n=30):\u003c/strong\u003e Received structured error feedback (direct and metalinguistic).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eControl Group (n=30):\u003c/strong\u003e Received only general comments on content and organization, without detailed error correction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe selection of participants was based on purposive sampling, as they represented a population with significant needs for developing writing accuracy and were accessible for the duration of the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Research Instruments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Writing Tasks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to complete three major writing tasks:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eDiagnostic Essay (Pre-test):\u003c/strong\u003e A 300-word argumentative essay on a given topic, to establish baseline accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003ePractice Essay (Mid-test):\u003c/strong\u003e A 400-word expository essay, to provide opportunities for feedback and revision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eFinal Essay (Post-test):\u003c/strong\u003e A 500-word persuasive essay, to measure changes in accuracy after receiving feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 Feedback Procedures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eDirect Feedback:\u003c/strong\u003e The instructor underlined and corrected errors directly in the text.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eMetalinguistic Feedback:\u003c/strong\u003e The instructor used error codes (e.g., VT for verb tense, WW for wrong word) and short explanations to guide self-correction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eControl Feedback:\u003c/strong\u003e Only general comments on content, coherence, and organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3 Error Analysis Rubric\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe rubric assessed four categories of errors:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Grammatical accuracy (verbs, agreement, word order).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Lexical accuracy (word choice, collocation).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mechanics (spelling, punctuation, capitalization).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Cohesion and referencing errors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach category was scored on frequency and severity, following adapted frameworks from Ferris (2010) and Ellis (2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.4 Interviews and Journals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 students from each group. The interviews explored perceptions of error feedback, emotional responses, and strategies for revision. Additionally, reflective journals were collected weekly from the experimental group to monitor how learners engaged with feedback during writing tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. Data Collection Procedures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted over a \u003cstrong\u003e12-week semester\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eWeek 1–2:\u003c/strong\u003e Orientation, diagnostic writing task, and initial interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eWeek 3–8:\u003c/strong\u003e Instructional sessions and two rounds of writing tasks with feedback provided for the experimental group. Control group received only holistic comments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eWeek 9–11:\u003c/strong\u003e Students revised their essays based on feedback. Reflective journals were submitted weekly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eWeek 12:\u003c/strong\u003e Final essay writing (post-test) and concluding interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll writing tasks were collected, coded, and analyzed systematically to ensure reliability and consistency across groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5. Data Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Quantitative Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe quantitative data were analyzed using \u003cstrong\u003epaired-sample t-tests\u003c/strong\u003e to measure improvements in accuracy within each group (pre-test vs. post-test) and \u003cstrong\u003eindependent-sample t-tests\u003c/strong\u003e to compare gains between experimental and control groups. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were also calculated to determine the magnitude of improvements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2 Qualitative Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterview transcripts and reflective journals were analyzed thematically following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework. Codes were generated for recurring themes such as “perceptions of clarity,” “anxiety about correction,” “motivation to revise,” and “peer versus teacher authority.” These themes were triangulated with quantitative findings to provide a nuanced interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6. Validity and Reliability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure validity:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eTriangulation\u003c/strong\u003e was applied by integrating multiple data sources (essays, interviews, journals).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eInter-rater reliability\u003c/strong\u003e was ensured by having two independent raters analyze 20% of the essays, achieving a Cohen’s Kappa of 0.82, indicating high agreement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e· \u003cstrong\u003eMember checking\u003c/strong\u003e was used for qualitative data, where participants verified interview summaries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7. Ethical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was obtained from the university’s research committee. Participants provided informed consent and were assured of confidentiality and voluntary participation. All data were anonymized, and pseudonyms were used in reporting. Feedback was given constructively to avoid negative emotional impact, and participants in the control group were later provided with additional corrective feedback to ensure fairness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8. Conclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis methodological design integrates quantitative rigor with qualitative depth, enabling a robust exploration of how error feedback impacts writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning. The design’s strength lies in its ability to capture both measurable accuracy improvements and the lived experiences of learners engaging with feedback.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.1 Quantitative Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre-test Performance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the outset, both the experimental group (n=30) and the control group (n=30) displayed relatively similar writing accuracy levels. Mean error frequencies per 100 words were as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u003cstrong\u003eExperimental group\u003c/strong\u003e: 16.8 errors/100 words\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u003cstrong\u003eControl group\u003c/strong\u003e: 17.1 errors/100 words\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependent-sample t-tests confirmed no significant difference between groups at baseline (p \u0026gt; 0.05), suggesting comparable initial proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePost-test Performance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy the end of the 12-week intervention, a clear divergence emerged:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u003cstrong\u003eExperimental group\u003c/strong\u003e: 8.4 errors/100 words\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u003cstrong\u003eControl group\u003c/strong\u003e: 13.9 errors/100 words\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaired-sample t-tests revealed that both groups improved significantly from pre-test to post-test (p \u0026lt; 0.01). However, the \u003cstrong\u003eexperimental group\u0026rsquo;s gains were more substantial\u003c/strong\u003e, with an average reduction of 8.4 errors per 100 words, compared to 3.2 errors per 100 words in the control group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eError Types\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA closer analysis revealed patterns of improvement across error categories:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u003cstrong\u003eGrammar (verb tense, subject-verb agreement):\u003c/strong\u003e Experimental group showed a 55% reduction; control group 20%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u003cstrong\u003eLexical choice and collocation:\u003c/strong\u003e Experimental group reduced errors by 42%; control 18%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u003cstrong\u003eMechanics (punctuation, capitalization, spelling):\u003c/strong\u003e Both groups improved similarly (around 30%), possibly due to classroom-wide instruction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u003cstrong\u003eCohesion and referencing:\u003c/strong\u003e Experimental group improved significantly (47% fewer errors), while control group showed minimal change (12%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results indicate that \u003cstrong\u003estructured error feedback had the greatest impact on grammar and cohesion\u003c/strong\u003e, while general instruction alone helped somewhat with mechanics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistical Significance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependent-sample t-tests comparing gain scores confirmed significant differences between the groups in grammar (p \u0026lt; 0.01), lexical choice (p \u0026lt; 0.05), and cohesion (p \u0026lt; 0.01). Mechanics showed no significant between-group difference (p \u0026gt; 0.05). Effect size calculations indicated medium to large effects (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d ranging from 0.58 to 0.91) for grammar, lexis, and cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.2 Qualitative Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearners\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Error Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviews revealed generally positive attitudes toward structured feedback. Students in the experimental group reported that \u003cstrong\u003edirect corrections provided clarity\u003c/strong\u003e, while \u003cstrong\u003emetalinguistic codes encouraged reflection\u003c/strong\u003e. A typical comment included:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;When the teacher corrected directly, I understood immediately, but when only the code was given, I had to think more. It was difficult, but I learned more.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy contrast, students in the control group expressed frustration at receiving only general comments such as \u0026ldquo;improve your grammar\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;be clearer,\u0026rdquo; which they found vague and unhelpful.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmotional Responses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eError feedback triggered mixed emotions. While some students initially felt \u003cstrong\u003eanxious or embarrassed\u003c/strong\u003e about repeated corrections, many later described feedback as \u003cstrong\u003emotivational\u003c/strong\u003e because it highlighted progress. Several noted that the act of revising helped them develop a sense of ownership over their writing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePeer and Cultural Dynamics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReflective journals highlighted the influence of cultural norms. Many Indonesian learners hesitated to challenge or negotiate teacher feedback, viewing it as authoritative. At the same time, peer collaboration emerged as a supportive environment where students felt freer to discuss and question corrections.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUse of Revision Strategies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExperimental group students increasingly adopted \u003cstrong\u003eself-editing strategies\u003c/strong\u003e, including double-checking verb forms, consulting dictionaries for collocations, and reviewing cohesive devices. Journals showed a gradual shift from dependence on teacher corrections to more independent problem-solving.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Impact of Error Feedback on Writing Accuracy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings strongly support the argument that \u003cstrong\u003estructured error feedback enhances writing accuracy more effectively than general comments alone\u003c/strong\u003e. The experimental group demonstrated not only greater reductions in overall error rates but also specific improvements in grammar and cohesion\u0026mdash;areas critical to academic writing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results align with Ferris (2010) and Bitchener \u0026amp; Ferris (2012), who emphasize that corrective feedback, especially when consistent and explicit, leads to measurable accuracy gains. The Indonesian learners in this study benefited from a combination of direct and metalinguistic feedback, suggesting that clarity and reflection are complementary in supporting learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Theoretical Implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterlanguage Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe error reductions observed can be explained through \u003cstrong\u003einterlanguage theory\u003c/strong\u003e (Selinker, 1972). Feedback provided negative evidence, signaling mismatches between learners\u0026rsquo; interlanguage and target norms. Over time, this input reshaped learners\u0026rsquo; hypotheses, resulting in more accurate output.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNoticing Hypothesis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSchmidt\u0026rsquo;s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis is also confirmed here. Students reported that feedback helped them \u0026ldquo;see\u0026rdquo; errors they would otherwise overlook. The shift toward self-editing strategies further indicates that feedback heightened their awareness of linguistic forms, making noticing an integral part of acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSociocultural Theory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978), feedback functioned as \u003cstrong\u003escaffolding\u003c/strong\u003e within the learners\u0026rsquo; Zone of Proximal Development. Teacher corrections guided students toward higher accuracy, while peer interactions provided collaborative spaces for negotiation and meaning-making. The combination reinforced both individual and social dimensions of language development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3 Comparison with Previous Studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlobally, the results resonate with findings by Bitchener, Young, \u0026amp; Cameron (2005) and Sheen (2010), who showed that explicit corrective feedback significantly improves accuracy. However, this study extends the discussion by situating it within the \u003cstrong\u003eIndonesian language learning context\u003c/strong\u003e, where cultural and pedagogical factors mediate how feedback is received.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLocal studies such as Marzuki (2017) and Putri \u0026amp; Yusuf (2019) also observed that Indonesian students value error correction but often become passive recipients. This study contributes by demonstrating that \u003cstrong\u003emetalinguistic feedback encouraged more active learner engagement\u003c/strong\u003e, thereby reducing passivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4 Emotional and Motivational Aspects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mixed emotional responses highlight a complex dynamic. Anxiety is a common reaction to correction (Hyland \u0026amp; Hyland, 2006), yet the present study shows that when feedback is \u003cstrong\u003econstructive and accompanied by revision opportunities\u003c/strong\u003e, anxiety can be transformed into motivation. Students perceived progress, which in turn reinforced their persistence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis suggests that teachers must balance accuracy-focused feedback with affective sensitivity, ensuring that corrections do not discourage learners but rather empower them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.5 Cultural and Pedagogical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndonesian classrooms are influenced by hierarchical teacher-student relationships. Students\u0026rsquo; reluctance to question teacher authority limits dialogic engagement with feedback. Nevertheless, peer feedback emerged as a counterbalance, providing a more egalitarian space for discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis finding has important implications: effective pedagogy in Indonesia should integrate \u003cstrong\u003eteacher authority with peer collaboration\u003c/strong\u003e, leveraging both cultural respect and the benefits of shared learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.6 Practical Implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eBalanced Feedback Strategies\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; A mix of direct and metalinguistic feedback appears most effective, providing clarity while encouraging learner reflection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eRevision as Core Practice\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; Feedback is most beneficial when learners are required to revise and resubmit their work. This iterative process deepens learning and fosters autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eIntegrating Peer Feedback\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; Peer review sessions can complement teacher feedback by promoting critical discussion in a less intimidating environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. \u003cstrong\u003eTeacher Training\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; Professional development should equip teachers with strategies to deliver constructive feedback efficiently, especially in large classes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5. \u003cstrong\u003eUse of Technology\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash; While this study did not focus on digital tools, the integration of automated feedback platforms may reduce teacher workload and provide additional practice for learners.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.7 Limitations of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the study provides compelling evidence, certain limitations must be acknowledged:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; The relatively small sample size (n=60) limits generalizability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; The 12-week duration, though adequate for short-term gains, does not capture long-term retention of accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; The study focused on written language; oral accuracy was not examined.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Feedback was limited to teacher-provided corrections; combining with automated tools may yield different outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.8 Directions for Future Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture studies could expand by:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Conducting longitudinal research to track retention of accuracy improvements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Exploring the integration of digital feedback tools alongside teacher corrections.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Investigating error feedback in \u003cstrong\u003eIndonesian as a second language\u003c/strong\u003e for non-native learners, a relatively underexplored area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Examining emotional and motivational factors more deeply, perhaps through affective surveys or classroom observation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Conclusion of the Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study provides strong evidence that structured error feedback significantly improves writing accuracy among Indonesian language learners. The combination of direct and metalinguistic feedback not only reduced error frequency but also fostered greater learner awareness and self-editing strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings underscore the theoretical importance of noticing and scaffolding in SLA, while also offering practical insights for Indonesian classrooms. By balancing clarity, reflection, and cultural sensitivity, teachers can transform error feedback from a source of anxiety into a pathway toward academic success.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion and Suggestions","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Conclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study set out to examine the impact of error feedback on students’ writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning, employing a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design with 60 undergraduate participants. The findings provide robust evidence that structured error feedback—particularly a combination of direct and metalinguistic correction—significantly enhances writing accuracy, especially in grammar, cohesion, and lexical choice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative results confirmed that the experimental group receiving structured feedback outperformed the control group, with substantial reductions in error frequency and greater improvements across linguistic categories. Qualitative data added depth, showing that while students initially experienced anxiety when confronted with corrections, many gradually recognized feedback as a catalyst for growth. Feedback promoted awareness of linguistic forms, encouraged self-editing, and fostered autonomy in revision practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretically, these outcomes reinforce key constructs in Second Language Acquisition, including Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis, Selinker’s Interlanguage theory, and Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory. Feedback functioned both as input that highlighted gaps in learners’ interlanguage and as scaffolding that enabled progress within the Zone of Proximal Development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the Indonesian context, the study also highlighted the cultural dimension of teacher-student dynamics. Respect for authority sometimes limited learners’ willingness to negotiate meaning, but peer collaboration provided a more egalitarian platform for reflection and discussion. This interplay between hierarchical and collaborative modes suggests the value of balancing teacher authority with learner-centered strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn short, the study demonstrates that error feedback, when thoughtfully implemented, is not merely corrective but transformative. It enhances accuracy, nurtures reflective learning, and contributes meaningfully to academic success.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Suggestions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFor Teachers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eCombine Feedback Types\u003c/strong\u003e – Use both direct and metalinguistic feedback to balance clarity and learner engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eEncourage Revision Cycles\u003c/strong\u003e – Make revision an integral part of writing instruction, requiring students to act on feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eFoster Peer Collaboration\u003c/strong\u003e – Incorporate peer review to complement teacher corrections, enhancing reflection and autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. \u003cstrong\u003eAdopt a Supportive Tone\u003c/strong\u003e – Deliver feedback constructively to reduce anxiety and build learner confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFor Institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eProvide Training\u003c/strong\u003e – Offer professional development for teachers on efficient, effective feedback strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eReduce Class Sizes\u003c/strong\u003e – Where possible, smaller writing classes will allow more personalized and meaningful feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eIntegrate Technology\u003c/strong\u003e – Consider adopting automated feedback tools to support teachers and extend practice opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFor Researchers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Conduct \u003cstrong\u003elongitudinal studies\u003c/strong\u003e to measure the durability of accuracy gains over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Explore the role of \u003cstrong\u003edigital platforms\u003c/strong\u003e in delivering corrective feedback in Indonesian language contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Investigate feedback’s \u003cstrong\u003eaffective dimension\u003c/strong\u003e, focusing on how emotions such as anxiety and motivation mediate learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Expand the scope to \u003cstrong\u003enon-native learners of Indonesian\u003c/strong\u003e, an under-researched area in applied linguistics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Final Remark\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research confirms that effective error feedback is not simply about pointing out mistakes but about shaping how learners see, reflect, and grow in their writing journey. By fostering both linguistic accuracy and critical awareness, feedback becomes a powerful pathway to academic success in Indonesian language learning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"REFERENCES","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Second Language Acquisition, 32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 181\u0026ndash;201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHyland, K., \u0026amp; Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. \u003cem\u003eCambridge University Press.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBitchener, J., \u0026amp; Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Second Language Writing, 19\u003c/em\u003e(4), 207\u0026ndash;217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Second Language Acquisition, 32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 203\u0026ndash;234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTruscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners\u0026rsquo; ability to write accurately. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Second Language Writing, 16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 255\u0026ndash;272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. \u003cem\u003eELT Journal, 63\u003c/em\u003e(2), 97\u0026ndash;107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of English Studies, 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. \u003cem\u003eSpringer.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBitchener, J., Young, S., \u0026amp; Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Second Language Writing, 14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 191\u0026ndash;205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHartshorn, K. J., \u0026amp; Evans, N. W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A large-scale study. \u003cem\u003eApplied Linguistics, 36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 303\u0026ndash;326. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt052\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShintani, N., Ellis, R., \u0026amp; Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners\u0026rsquo; accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Learning, 64\u003c/em\u003e(1), 103\u0026ndash;131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRummel, S., \u0026amp; Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the role of learner variables. \u003cem\u003eSystem, 49\u003c/em\u003e, 79\u0026ndash;89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Second Language Writing, 17\u003c/em\u003e(3), 144\u0026ndash;164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmrhein, H. R., \u0026amp; Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 95\u0026ndash;127.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEne, E., \u0026amp; Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. \u003cem\u003eSystem, 46\u003c/em\u003e, 80\u0026ndash;95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBitchener, J., \u0026amp; Ferris, D. R. (2012). \u003cem\u003eWritten corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing.\u003c/em\u003e Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaeed, M. A., \u0026amp; Ghazali, K. (2016). Corrective feedback in Malaysian ESL classrooms: Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions and practices. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Asia TEFL, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 556\u0026ndash;572. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2016.13.2.21.556\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSukandi, A. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback and its impact on students\u0026rsquo; writing accuracy: An Indonesian context. \u003cem\u003eIndonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 335\u0026ndash;345. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i2.20288\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarzuki, A. G. (2017). The effect of teacher feedback on Indonesian EFL students\u0026rsquo; writing accuracy. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 134\u003c/em\u003e, 115\u0026ndash;120. https://doi.org/10.2991/aisteel-17.2017.24\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePutri, A. R., \u0026amp; Yusuf, Q. (2019). Corrective feedback in Indonesian EFL writing classrooms: Students\u0026rsquo; perceptions and preferences. \u003cem\u003eStudies in English Language and Education, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 128\u0026ndash;141. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v6i1.12655\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManan, S. A. (2018). The role of feedback in improving writing accuracy: Evidence from Indonesian learners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of English Teaching, 4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 220\u0026ndash;229. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v4i3.886\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZarei, A. A., \u0026amp; Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of teacher vs. peer corrective feedback on EFL learners\u0026rsquo; writing accuracy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Linguistics, 6\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarim, K., \u0026amp; Nassaji, H. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Second Language Writing, 49\u003c/em\u003e, 100729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100729\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlavi, S. M., \u0026amp; Kaivanpanah, S. (2007). Feedback expectancy and EFL learners\u0026rsquo; achievement in writing. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 181\u0026ndash;196.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, S. (2019). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs, practices, and challenges. \u003cem\u003eSystem, 82\u003c/em\u003e, 26\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKurniasih, N. (2020). The effectiveness of peer feedback in improving students\u0026rsquo; writing accuracy: A study in Indonesian EFL classrooms. \u003cem\u003eELT World Journal, 2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSutopo, H., \u0026amp; Hidayat, D. (2021). Direct vs. indirect feedback: Which works better for Indonesian learners\u0026rsquo; writing accuracy? \u003cem\u003eAsian EFL Journal, 28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 101\u0026ndash;120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"error feedback, writing accuracy, Indonesian language learning, corrective feedback, learner autonomy","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7625125/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7625125/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the impact of error feedback on students\u0026rsquo; writing accuracy in Indonesian language learning. Using a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design, sixty undergraduate students from a state university in Indonesia were divided into an experimental group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30) and a control group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30). The experimental group received structured feedback, combining direct and metalinguistic correction, while the control group received only general comments on content and organization. Data were collected through pre-test, mid-test, and post-test essays, supported by semi-structured interviews and reflective journals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative findings revealed that both groups improved over time, but the experimental group demonstrated significantly greater gains. Their overall error frequency decreased by almost 50%, with the most substantial improvements observed in grammar, cohesion, and lexical choice. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences between the two groups, with medium to large effect sizes. Qualitative data provided further insights: students reported that direct feedback gave clarity, while metalinguistic codes encouraged reflection and self-editing. Despite initial anxiety, many learners gradually perceived error feedback as constructive and motivating, leading to greater autonomy in revision.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study concludes that structured error feedback plays a critical role in enhancing writing accuracy, fostering awareness of linguistic forms, and promoting academic success. It also highlights cultural considerations in Indonesian classrooms, where hierarchical teacher-student relationships coexist with the potential of peer collaboration. These findings contribute to Second Language Acquisition theory and provide practical implications for language pedagogy in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Impact of Error Feedback on Students’ Writing Accuracy in Indonesian Language Learning","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-17 08:51:07","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7625125/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"59ee4326-136c-40d5-99e1-d858b5073ced","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-17T08:51:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-17 08:51:07","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7625125","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7625125","identity":"rs-7625125","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}