JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies) P-ISSN: 2407-2575 E-ISSN: 2503-2194 https://jurnalfaktarbiyah.iainkediri.ac.id/index.php/jeels “WHAT SHOULD I DO AFTER ALL OF THIS?”: BEHAVIORAL ENGAGEMENT IN WRITING CLASS WITH TEACHER FEEDBACK Siti Mafulah1; *Maftuch Junaidy Mhirda2; Wahyuningsih Usadiati3; Sanwal Haider4 1English Education Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Universitas PGRI Kanjuruhan Malang, East Java, Indonesia; 2,3 Graduate program on English Language Education, Graduate School, Universitas PGRI Kanjuruhan Malang, East Java, Indonesia; 4 English Linguistics, Faculty of Humanity and Social Science, University of Sialkot, Sialkot, Pakistan siti_mafulah@unikama.ac.id; *mr.maftuch@gmail.com wahyuningsih@unikama.ac.id; haidersanwal8541@gmail.com (*) Corresponding Author Abstract: Teacher feedback is one of the alternative ways to help students improve their writing performance. Few studies have confirmed students’ deep exploration of how students engage behaviourally with teacher feedback. Therefore, this study aims to find out the behavioural engagement of the students after receiving feedback as well as what factors influenced it. Case study design was 1 Citation in APA style: Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), 977-1002 DOI: 10.30762/jeels.v12i2.5373 Submission: May 2025, Revision: October 2025, Publication: November 2025 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), applied in this study through delivering questionnaires and interviews. The participants of this study were the third-year university students in Malang, Indonesia. The finding of this study highlights that high-proficiency students tend to ask the teacher when they do not understand the feedback, while moderate- and lowproficiency levels tend to ask their friends. In addition, factors that influenced students’ behavioural engagement are internal factors such as self-efficiency and selfawareness and external factors such as the teacher’s way of teaching and internet connection. It is suggested that teachers should know their student’s behavioural engagement to gain learning outcomes. Keywords: behavioral engagement, engagement, teacher feedback, writing INTRODUCTION Feedback given to the students on their writing improves the quality of the writing product. Some studies show the effectiveness of the teacher feedback to students writing quality improvement (Ahmadian & Yazdani, 2019; Sulistyo et al., 2020). Ahmadian and Yazdani (2019) found that students’ preference feedback facilitates the development of the accuracy in L2 students’ writing. Moreover, Lee, (2020), Liu and Brown, (2015), and Yu et al., (2019) found that feedback is good way to enhance students in writing skills. Although feedback is effective, its success will happen if the students engage with it (Fleckenstein et al., 2024; Mafulah & Cahyono, 2023). Students’ engagement plays an important role in the acceptance of feedback within teacher-students interaction (Ertesvåg et al., 2022; Mafulah et al., 2023; Septiana et al., 2016) Engagement is the key success to gain the learning outcomes (Han, 2019) not only in the classroom setting (Cheng & Liu, 2022; Neupane Bastola, 2020; Yu et al., 2019) but also in online setting (Luan et al., 2025; Luo et al., 2021; Mafulah & Cahyono, 2023; Zhong & Zheng, 2023). Students are expected to improve their writing 978 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), performance through feedback and revision. The respond of the students in receiving feedback is called behavioral engagement (Han & Hyland, 2015). Further, Han and Hyland ( 2015) categorized behavioral engagement into two, revision operation and learning strategies. Revision operation refers to how students revise their errors whether the students revise their writing draft by deleting the errors that they have made, substituting the errors, or doing nothing with the errors that they have made and directly resubmit their draft. On the other hand, learning strategies include the action that the students do after receiving feedback. Asking peers or friends, consulting the teacher when they do not understand with the feedback, reviewing the errors that they have made, and using dictionary whenever they have difficulties in understanding the meaning of the words on the feedback. Regarding the student’s behavior engagement with teacher written corrective feedback, some scholars have conducted research on it. First, Kim and Emeliyanova, (2019) compared students’ classroom feedback behaviors when they worked in pairs and when they worked individually. The finding showed that both groups showed significant improvement in the accuracy of their writing draft. The second study was conducted by Fleckenstein et al. (2024). This study examined the effect of different feedback types on students’ writing performance with behavior engagement as mediator variable. This study focused on the lower level of EFL students on the online platform. The findings showed there was no significant difference effect among different types of feedback. Furthermore, students who received feedback personally spent more time making revision. In their study, behavioral engagement was indicated with the time spent on feedback. The next study was done by Kelly et al. (2024). They investigated student engagement based on the teachers’ point of view. The findings indicated that educators recognize students' behavioral, emotional, or cognitive engagement as a fundamental 979 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), precursor for other forms of engagement. Nonetheless, there is no consensus on a specific hierarchy, and the methods employed by some educators are shaped by contextual factors. Moreover, Schiller et al. (2024) compared EFL students in revising their writing draft, decided into two groups (feedback and non-feedback). The students’ work was automatically assessed using a scoring algorithm. The findings showed that there was positive effect of feedback on text revision. Time and edit distance as mediation variable affected the result. But no significant effect of the engagement variable concerning performance in the transfer task. Kim and Emeliyanova, (2019) focused on behavior engagement between the students who work individually or in pairs. This study did not show what factors influenced to do reaction on the feedback given. Therefore, it is needed to do further study in finding out the reasons behind these actions to know why the students engage behaviorally. Fleckenstein et al. (2024) focused on lower-level students, so, it may have different results if the study does not focus on one level. Kelly et al. (2024) focused on the teachers’ point of view. From their study, it can be concluded that three dimensions of engagement are important things to be considered in teaching. This study focused on teachers’ perspective. It can be different on the result if the study focuses on the students’ point of view. Due to the incompleteness of the result scopes, this study aims to explore the student’s behavioral engagement and the factors affecting the behavioral engagement. Therefore, the research questions are as follows: 1. How do EFL students engage behaviorally with teacher corrective feedback across proficiency levels? 2. What factors affect students’ behavioral engagement with teacher corrective feedback across proficiency levels? 980 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), METHOD Research design A qualitative case study research design was applied in this study since in nature it depicted how the EFL students engage behaviorally with teacher written corrective feedback on their writing. A case study approach was chosen since this research includes small scale research, no generalization intended, and natural class setting (Yin, 2018). This study explores more deeply in individual participants, including their opinions, perspectives, and attitudes. Besides, this study aims to find out the reasons why the students across proficiency levels engaged behaviorally with written corrective feedback from teachers. Participants The participants in this study were third-year students. The number of participants was 68 students including 7 students from high proficiency levels, 40 students from moderate proficiency levels, and 21 students from low proficiency levels. All students were asked to fill out the questionnaire and only selected participants from each level that been interviewed. The students who were interviewed were 2 students from high level (coded as A1, B1),13 students from moderate level (coded as C2, D2, E2, F2, G2, H2, I2, J2, K2, L2, L2, M2, and N2), and 7 from low proficiency level (coded as O3, P3, Q3, R3, S3, T3, U3) The proficiency levels of the students was determined by the score of TOEFL like test. Detailed information about participants can be seen in Table 1. Table 1. Participants’ information All Levels Number of students High Moderate Proficiency Proficiency Levels Levels 68 7 (questionnaire) 981 40 Low Proficiency Levels 21 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Number of participants (interview) TOEFL Like Score Average 22 2 13 7 421.76 569.14 432.92 358.48 Maximum Score Minimum Score 630 330 630 503 497 377 370 330 Instruments Instruments used in this study were questionnaire and interview questions. The questionnaire was adapted from Han and Hyland (2015). The questionnaire was delivered to all students through Google form. The questionnaire was about the students’ behavioral engagement including the students’ learning strategies in receiving feedback from the teacher, revision operation, and factors affecting their behavioral engagement. There were four items regarding the students learning strategies (the question is about what you did after receiving feedback and what you did to understand the teacher’s feedback), and five items for revision operation (the question is about what you did in revising the feedback from your teacher). In addition, two questions for factors affecting students’ behavioral engagement (the questions are about what internal and external factors influenced your behavioral engagement in receiving teacher feedback). The second instrument was interview. The interview was delivered to the students to strengthen the data from questionnaire. The interview guide was related to behavioral engagement on teacher feedback including learning strategies, revision operation and the reasons why they did those kinds of activities. To validate the data, interviews were given three times (at the moment the students receive teacher feedback, while revising their draft, and after revising their draft). The interview data, conducted in Indonesian, were translated and cross-checked with a native speaker of English proficient in Indonesian. 982 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Data Analysis The results of the questionnaire were served on a table then figured out the students’ behavioral engagement. The data from interview was coding as in Figure 1. Figure 1. The process of data analysis The data was analyzed using NVivo. Each statement of the students was classified into some codes that related to the research questions. Behavioral engagement and the factors affecting students’ behavioral engagement. While for the coding analysis of the data adapted Hand and Hyland (2015). An example of coding process can be seen in Table 2. Matrix Coding Query analysis was done by comparing the code references with the proficiency level of the students. Table 2. Example of data coding analysis Behavior engagement Students’ statement Code reference 983 Reasons Code reference Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Learning strategies Sub-categories: 1. Asking peer 2. Asking teacher 3. Reviewing the errors 4. Using dictionary Revision operations Sub- categories: 1. Correct revision 2. Incorrect revision 3. Deletion 4. Substitution 5. No revision “However, if I feel there is something I don't understand, I will immediately ask my teacher” Asking teacher “I ask to teacher because I want to undertand what should I do after receiving feedback, my teacher is nice person” nice teacher = external factor “Sometimes, I correct but sometimes I delete” coding as correct revision and deletion “When my sentence cannot be understood, I delete it. So, no need to revise” internal factor: know what to do/ selfefficacy FINDINGS Students’ behavior engagement after receiving teacher corrective feedback Regarding how the students engage behaviorally with teacher written corrective feedback, Matrix Coding Query analysis was done by comparing the code references with the proficiency level of the students. The result of students’ behavior engagement towards teacher corrective feedback across proficiency levels (see Figure 2). 984 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Behavior Engagement Across Proficiency Levels High Proficiency Level Average Proficiency Level Low Proficiency Level Figure 2. Students’ behavioral engagement with teacher written corrective feedback across proficiency levels From Figure 2 above, based on Han and Hyland (2015) behavioral engagement is divided into two categories, learning strategy and revision operation. Students with different proficiency levels have different numbers of preferences on which kind of behavioral engagement. High proficiency level got 19 data, moderate proficiency level got 85 data, and low proficiency level got 28 data. From these findings, it can be stated that moderate proficiency level students dominated the behavior engagement. Learning strategy From the questionnaire, it can be figured out the pattern of students' behavioral engagement, as in Table 3. Table 3. Pattern of students’ learning strategy Proficiency level High Proficiency level students Behavioral Engagement They tend to ask the teacher when they do not understand with the feedback. Asking peers, reviewing the errors, and using 985 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Moderate Proficiency level students Low Proficiency level students dictionary are done after asking teacher They tend to ask friends when they do not understand with feedback followed by reviewing the errors and using dictionary. They rarely ask the teacher. Tend to ask friends when they do not understand with the feedback followed by reviewing the errors and using dictionary. No one asked the teacher when they do not understand with the feedback. Based on Table 3, when high proficiency level students do not understand with the feedback, they tend to ask the teacher. This can be seen from the following example of their statement: “I usually ask Mrs. xxx more than I ask my partner. I always revise, Ma'am, I never resubmit my writing without any revisions” (A1) “First, because at that time it was the title that was to be revised, the lecturer said, "oh, when it comes to the title, it should be written like this, miss, like this, like this..." and then after that, the lecturer looked at the introduction and said "oh this is enough… it's ok. Perhaps it should be augmented with this…, add this,…." Then we looked at the next paragraph, then the next, and the next, and in the next paragraph, it was like this…” (B1) From the excerpt above, it can be inferred that A1 always asked her teacher when she did not understand the feedback given, while how the way they interact with the teacher B1 explained how the teacher clarified the feedback. Learning strategy for moderate level students. There are 14 references in asking peers or friends when they do not understand with the feedback given, 12 references in using dictionary, 11 references in reviewing the errors and asking teacher when they do not understand with the feedback given. Moderate level students prefer to ask peers or friends. It can be seen from the following statements: “If I find that I cannot understand it, I ask my friends. The one thing is, at the times when Mrs. Erma’s feedback was clear, there was no need for 986 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), me to ask my friends, because I could already understand it on my own”. (D2) “When it came to understanding the feedback, I opened the previous materials and then consulted to 1-2 friends, but since we were all students, we were all confused, and it was hard to improve. So, I opened the previous material on Google. Google knows everything, even though Google and Mrs. Umi don’t always agree, you know? “(C2) From the statements above, it can be inferred that asking friends is likely more convenience than asking teacher as C2’s statement “I opened the previous materials and then consulted to 1-2 friends …… Google knows everything, even though Google and Mrs. Umi don’t always agree” this statement seems that C2 really does not want to consult to the teacher when she got difficulties in understanding the feedback given by the teacher. She prefers to ask her friends, and if she does not find the answer, she tries to find the solution on Google. Students with low proficiency level tend to use the following learning strategy: 8 references in asking peers or friends when they do not understand with the feedback given, 3 references in using dictionary, 2 references in reviewing the errors and asking teacher when they do not understand with the feedback given. It means that asking peers or friends to be the highest preference choice. This strategy got 8 reference codes while only 2 references started asking the teacher, it means that students in this level prefer to ask friend than ask to the teacher when they got feedback from the teacher. “I preferred to ask my friends, rather than the lecturer”. (P3) “I prefer to ask friends for help rather than the lecturer, because I don't have the strength to ask her, so, I always ask my friends when I don’t understand with the feedback given”. (Q3) From Q3’s statement, it can be seen that the reason why she preferred to ask her friends is because she has no strength to ask the teacher, so that she likes to ask her friends. While for other learning strategies reviewing their draft got only 3 code references and using dictionary only got 2 references. 987 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Revision operations From the questionnaire, it can be figured out the pattern of students' behavioral engagement on revision operation, as in Table 4. Table 4. Students’ revision operation Proficiency level High Proficiency level students Moderate Proficiency level students Low Proficiency level students Behavioral engagement They tend to do correct revision, deleting the errors and substituting the errors with the correct one They tend to correct revision, followed by deleting the errors and substituting the errors with the correct one, re-submitting their writing draft with no revision, and no one does incorrect revision. They tend to correct revision, deletion, substitution, and there is one student who does not revise his writing draft and directly resubmits the manuscript to the teacher. Based on Table 4 in revision operation, high proficiency levels students tend to do correct revision, deleting the errors, and substituting the errors with correct one, as the following example of student’s statement: “I usually pay more attention to the diction used. Where diction is so important to determine from the point of view of writing the argument as My lectures comment” (A1) Based on A1’s statement, she pays attention to the teacher’s feedback because she thinks that feedback is important for her. Furthermore, she stated that she made mistakes on diction or the vocabulary use, so that she always pays attention to the teacher’s feedback. For never ignoring feedback and revising feedback based on the teacher’s feedback can be seen from the following statement: “Yes. I always revise my writing draft following the feedback. If my draft has been given feedback, it's rare to ask again, Ma'am. Usually, I just remember the feedback because the feedback on my errors 988 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), is not a lot, or almost all errors are revised. Maybe from my experience, only the title or the order of paragraphs has to be changed. So, I can remember it. I have never resubmitted before doing revisions. That sort of thing, I've never done, Ma’am’. (B2) From B2, it can be inferred that high proficient students always revise their draft based on the teacher’s feedback. High proficient students need tools in order to minimize the errors and reduce their anxiety when receiving feedback. In revision operation, high level proficiency students tend to do correct revision, deleting the errors and substituting the errors with the correct one. Moderate proficiency level students have the highest code references for each category of behavior engagement. In revision operation, there are 14 code references in doing correct revision, 11 references for deleting the errors and substituting the errors with the correct one, 3 references on re-submitting their writing draft with no revision, and no code reference do incorrect revision. “I usually did revision correctly based on the feedback”. (M2) “Better do it as soon as possible, so we can revise our writing immediately. Of course, I revised based on the feedback. There was no chance that without revisions my paper would be resubmitted again”. (D2) From D2’s statement, it can be known that she does correct revision because she always revises the writing based on the feedback given by the students. In addition, the engagement of low-level proficiency students with feedback in revision operation is not too good since there are little references coded at this level. Correct revision (5), deletion (4), substitution (4), and surprisingly, there is one student who does not revise his writing draft and directly resubmits the manuscript to the teacher. “I won't change because lecturers have trouble feedback correctly”. (O3) O3 stated that although there is feedback from the teacher, he will not change his draft. He thought that the teacher’s feedback that has been written is wrong. From the findings, students with low 989 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), proficiency prefer to ask his/her friend in understanding feedback given by teacher. In addition, they do not engage well behaviorally since in revision operation, they tend not to make much effort in doing revision. Moreover, one of the students blaming the teacher that the feedback given is not correct, so that he does not want to revise it and directly resubmit his draft. Students’ behavioral engagement on the learning strategy, high level proficiency students tend to ask to the teacher than asking to their friends, differently, moderate and low-level proficient students tend to ask their peers or friends when they do not understand with the teacher feedback. Factors influence students’ behavior engagement on teacher corrective feedback Regarding the factors that influence students’ behavioral engagement, the results can be seen in Table 5. Table 5. Factors affecting students’ behavioral engagement Proficiency Levels High proficency levels Internal Factors External Factors 1. 2. 3. High motivation Self-efficacy Self-awareness 1. Moderate proficency levels 1. 2. self-assessment Afraid of making mistake Low proficency levels 1. Low motivation 2. Lack of knowledge 3. Afraid of making mistakes Teacher Students tend to like teacher’s personality and the way of teaching. 1. Teacher Students tend to like teacher’s personality and the way of teaching. 1. Teacher Being scared of the teacher ‘s personality Being scared of teacher’s way of teaching. 2. Internet connection Live in a remote area and cannot attend the class well 990 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Internal factors Internal factors that are found in high proficiency level students are high motivation, high self-efficacy and self-awareness. After getting corrections from the teacher, B1 usually revises the writing draft immediately as the following statement: “I usually revise errors immediately. For reference, I look for examples of essay models that follow the correct rules. For instance, examples of essays whose arguments are reversed are usually compared with correct essays. I see my mistakes by searching on Google myself or asking friends a bit. I tend to make self-correction “. (B1) Furthermore, B1 also explained how she revised the writing draft. She found references for the correct rules of argumentative essays by comparing the correct and the errors that she had made so that she could realize the errors made and be able to make draft. In addition, high proficiency level students have more selfawareness. Self-assessment is dominantly done by moderate proficiency level students in revising their draft after receiving feedback from the teacher. Besides, being afraid of making mistakes is also reason why they engage behaviorally. The following is the evidence of this factor. “For me, how was it? When I got feedback. I tried to understand my mistakes, the writing errors that I made. I didn’t revise it directly. I waited for my mood to improve to do it. The steps that I always took in revising my writing draft were like this: first, I looked at the errors that I made, analyzed it, and tried to understand why my lecturer gave feedback on that part. Second, I tried to understand the content and context of the feedback from my lecturer. Third, I looked at the grammar”. (H2) Based on H2’s statement, after receiving feedback, instead of doing the revision immediately, H2 did self-awareness by taking several steps like analyzing the error, trying to understand the context, and focusing on grammar. Another evidence is given by D2. “When I got assignments from Mrs. xxx, I understand it first then I 991 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), looked for examples by Googling some argumentative essay, how it looks like. For example, if I got particular topic, I looked for the sub-theme and I understood it again. In the writing process, I wrote it in English then I submitted it. The most exciting thing was waiting for the feedback. I was afraid there's a lot of feedback, but it was good to make my writing better. (D2) D2 explained how she engaged in writing class by effort like understanding the assignment given, finding good references and finally she did the assignment, although D2 got a lot of feedback but D2 though that feedback is important for her to make her writing better. In addition, Low proficiency students, students revise their draft because they want it, they are aware that as students, and they have to do it. Besides, some students have low motivation in joining the course, having lack of knowledge, and being afraid of the teacher. As S3’s statement that he has to revise his writing draft immediately after he receives feedback from the teacher. “I've already received feedback, there's no reason why I didn’t immediately make it right, I fixed it right away. I always felt worried if there was some homework. I didn't comment much to all my lecturers, I mostly found out from the internet to revise my draft, to get an idea, so that I could do my assignments easily. If I find errors in my writing, I read it again and again before submitting it. Usually, I ask my brother about the vocab. I didn’t use any tool to check my grammar”. (S3) As the statement above, S3 stated that “there's no reason why I didn’t immediately make it right, I fixed it right away”. It means that S3 directly revised directly when he got correction from his teacher. Further, S3 explains that he always felt worried if there was some homework. From this explanation, it can be said that he is aware that he is a student, and he has to do the assignment given by the teacher. External factor From the result of the interview, it is found that highly proficient students tend to ask the teacher when they do not understand with feedback. From the previously mentioned in the 992 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), findings of first research question, it can be concluded that teachers are factors that influence students’ engagement. The following is evidence that teachers are one of the factors that influence students of this level engage with written corrective feedback from teachers. “So far, so good. No change is needed because I like how my lecturer gives feedback. So far, no problem has to be introduced or addressed, Ma'am”. (A1) This A1’s statement is the answer when she was asked about what the teachers should do to improve or to make better teaching learning processes, especially in giving feedback. From A1’s statement can be seen that the way of teaching is good so, no need to be changed. The teacher’s ways of teaching then can be categorized as a factor that influences students’ engagement with teacher written corrective feedback The external factor that raised from moderate proficient students is teacher; it is about teacher personality and the way of teaching. The following is the evidence of teacher personality can affect the students’ engagement. “For me personally, actually, Mrs. Umi was a detailed person. She checked students’ writing one by one from the introduction to the contents and then to the conclusion…… it's very helpful for me because in argumentative writing, we have to use English words appropriately, and consider which ones are appropriate and which ones are not”. (C2) C2 argued that her writing teacher is a detailed person. From teacher’s personality C2 continued the explanation that because of detailed person, the teacher checked students’ writing individually from the first to the last paragraph. According to this teacher’s feedback, C2 stated that it was helpful for her in improving the quality of writing For low proficiency level students, it was found that external factors that dominated the engagement are teacher (including teacher personality and the way of teaching) and the learning setting/internet connection. The first factor is the teacher. Teacher personality affects 993 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), the students’ engagement like Q3’s statement below: “How was it for me to take Mrs. Umi’s class? You know how she is. Sometimes I feel happy to meet her, sometimes I feel scared. When she talks, she’s always to the point. Besides, she is very disciplined and detailed, so I have to submit my tasks punctually. As a result, I have to do things on time, and I have to know what I should revise”. (Q3) Q3 stated that when the teacher talks, she talks to the point, she is disciplined, and she is detailed. Therefore, Q3 did not want to make a late submission of the assignment given by the teacher. Further, Q3 argued that the teacher was ever angry in the class. DISCUSSION In terms of learning strategy, highly proficient students tend to ask the teacher when they do not understand the feedback. This strategy was done by the students in order to understand the feedback from the teacher. Not all students were brave to ask the teacher when they did not understand the feedback. This finding relates to Cheng and Liu (2022) that different levels of students have different braveness in taking action in revising draft. Furthermore (Han & Hyland, 2015) argued that different individuals have different ways of receiving feedback. This phenomenon can be caused by the confidence of highly proficient students. This finding is related to Hitches et al., (2022) stated students who are confident will not be shy to ask her/his teacher. Although the course was held online, the teacher provided synchronous and asynchronous meetings, so that students still have time to do conference, but the confidence of the students to ask the teacher may be influenced by the writing ability, let’s say, high proficient students tend to receive less feedback from the teacher so that they feel confident to ask (Zhang & Hyland, 2022). In other the side, both moderate and low proficient students tend to ask peers or friend when they do not understand with the feedback given by the teacher. These findings strengthen (Zheng & Yu, 2018) result study that focus on the lower proficient students, it shows that 994 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), students’ behavioral engagement gives impact on the understanding of written corrective feedback. Furthermore, little assistance and superficial strategies in processing the feedback and revising the writing draft affected the confusion. The confusion in understanding the feedback makes the students cannot solve the errors that they have made. These findings support Ertesvåg et al. (2022) that interaction between student and teacher can foster achievement. Furthermore, interaction helps students’ comprehension of the feedback as Mafulah et al. (2023) and need support from the teacher (Olivier et al., 2020). In addition, students who acknowledge the opportunities given to them to clear their intentions and clarify misunderstanding of feedback make it easy for the students to revise their writing draft (Saeed et al., 2021). When the students’ gratitude with the feedback given, they will enjoy doing revision. The second category of behavior engagement is revision operation. In revision operation, Han and Hyland (2015) categorized revision operation into doing correct revision, deleting the errors, doing incorrect revision, no revision, and substituting the errors. High proficiency level students tend to do correct revision, delete the errors that they have made, and substitute them. Interestingly, there are three students from moderate proficiency level (C2, H2, and L2) and one student from low proficiency level (O3) that stated they did no revision and simply resubmit their draft. From this statement, it can be inferred that the students do not appreciate the feedback given by the teacher. They thought that the feedback was wrong. Based on his opinion, he believed what he has written is the best argument and grammar. This phenomenon can be caused by the limited knowledge of the low proficiency level students, and they find it difficult to receive critics or feedback. This finding supports Zhang (2017) that found students believe about written corrective feedback is interceding with students’ engagement as they accumulated more experience in processing and using the feedback from the teacher. 995 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Regarding factors that influence students’ behavioral engagement. Teachers cause the students’ behavior engagement in the classroom. These findings confirm Lee (2008) conclusion that some factors are influential to students’ engagement with teacher written corrective feedback including the instructional context, teacher factors, such as personality, pedagogical approach, and activities. Students with high proficient levels and most of the mediate level students tend to like discipline teachers, on the other hand, students with low level of proficiency tend to feel scared of this situation. All students need support to do their task as Olivier et al. (2025). Teacher interpersonal affect students’ achievement as in the finding of Ding and Wang (2024). Besides, student internal factors, such as student proficiency, and self-assessment are also the factors that influenced. This finding relates to Parker and Winstone (2016) that stated Students with different levels having different self-assessment of their task. In addition, feeling in receiving feedback also affecting the behavior engagement as stated by Wu (2024). To sum up, students’ behavior engagement among different proficiency levels has different patterns, since high proficient students tend to ask the teacher when they do not understand with the feedback, while moderate and low proficiency levels tend to ask their friends. This is because of students’ confidence in asking the teacher and it can be caused by limited knowledge in writing. For strategy used, high proficiency level students tend to do correct revision, but for moderate and low proficiency level students, there are students who did not engage well since they did no revision on the errors that they have made. Furthermore, students’ behavior engagement plays an important role in revising their writing as in Kelly et al. (2024)’s findings. CONCLUSION Behaviorally, students from all different proficiency levels have the different way of engaging themselves with feedback. 996 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Learning strategy tends to be their consideration before doing revision. The most specific one is in learning strategies; high proficiency level students tend to ask the teacher when they do not understand with the feedback while for moderate and low-level proficiency students tend to ask peers or friends in comprehending teacher feedback. It is suggested for the teachers and lecturers to consistently provide the students with written corrective feedback in the writing class by ensuring that their students are actively engaged with the written corrective feedback behaviorally. DECLARATION OF AI AND AI-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES During the preparation of this work the authors used Grammarly for optimizing language and readability. The authors have reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication after the use of this tool/service. REFERENCES Ahmadian, M., & Yazdani, H. (2019). The effectiveness of learners’ preferred and unpreferred written corrective feedback: A thinkaloud study. Asia Tefl, 16(2), 448–467. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.2.1.448 Cheng, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). Student engagement with teacher written feedback: Insights from low-proficiency and highproficiency L2 learners. System, 109(October). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102880 Ding, N., & Wang, Y. (2024). Towards the implications of positive teacher interpersonal behaviors for Spanish learners’ academic engagement: Voices from Chinese SFL learners. Heliyon, 10(10), e31078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31078 Ertesvåg, S. K., Vaaland, G. S., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2022). Enhancing upper secondary students’ engagement and learning through the INTERACT online, video-based 997 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), teacher coaching intervention: Protocol for a mixedmethods cluster randomized controlled trial and process evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, 102013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102013 Fleckenstein, J., Jansen, T., Meyer, J., Trüb, R., Raubach, E. E., & Keller, S. D. (2024). How am I going? Behavioral engagement mediates the effect of individual feedback on writing performance. Learning and Instruction, 93(July), 101977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101977 Han, Y. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80, 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.009 Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002 Hitches, E., Woodcock, S., & Ehrich, J. (2022). Building self-efficacy without letting stress knock it down: Stress and academic selfefficacy of university students. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3(January), 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100124 Jin, G., & Wang, Y. (2019). The influence of gratitude on learning engagement among adolescents: The multiple mediating effects of teachers’ emotional support and students’ basic psychological needs. Journal of Adolescence, 77(October 2018), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.006 Kelly, M. L., Yeigh, T., & Hudson, S. (2024). Secondary teachers’ beliefs about the importance of teaching strategies that support behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement in the classroom. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 9(March), 100891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100891 Kim, Y. J., & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: 998 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406 Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001 Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49(May), 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734 Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011 Luan, Lin;Jing, Bowen;Hong, Jon-Chao;Lin, P.-H. (2025). The mediating effects of online learning engagement on the relationship between Chinese university students’ L2 grit and their English language achievement. System, 131(103689). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.10389 Luo, N., Li, H., Zhao, L., Wu, Z., & Zhang, J. (2021). Promoting student engagement in online learning through harmonious classroom environment. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00606-5 Mafulah, S., Basthomi, Y., Cahyono, B. Y., & Suryati, N. (2023). Exploring Indonesian EFL teacher- student interactions in online learning. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(2), 686–703. https://jurnal.usk.ac.id/SiELE/article/view/23804/18040 Mafulah, S., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2023). Indonesian students’ engagement in online EFL writing class and their perceptions on teacher feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v13i1.58279 999 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129– 132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747 Neupane Bastola, M. (2020). Engagement and Challenges in Supervisory Feedback: Supervisors’ and Students’ Perceptions. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220912547 Olivier, E., Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2020). Do needs for competence and relatedness mediate the risk of low engagement of students with behavior and social problem profiles? Learning and Individual Differences, 78(January), 101842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101842 Olivier, E, Galand, B., Bélanger, J., & Morin, A. J. S. (2025). Multilevel student-perceived teaching practices profiles: Associations with competence beliefs, task value, behavioral engagement, and academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 118(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102631 Parker, M., & Winstone, N. (2016). Students’ perceptions of interventions for supporting their engagement with feedback. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 10(1), 53– 64. Saeed, M. A., Al Qunayeer, H. S., & AL-Jaberi, M. A. (2021). Exploring supervisory feedback formulation on academic writing of research proposals and postgraduates’ responses to feedback: A case study. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211007125 Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Mertens, U., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2024). Understanding the effectiveness of automated feedback: Using process data to uncover the role of behavioral engagement. Computers & Education, 223(February), 105163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105163 Septiana, A. R., Sulistyo, G. H., & Kadarisman, A. E. (2016). Corrective feedback and writing accuracy of students across different levels of grammatical sensitivity. Ndonesian Journal 1000 Mafulah, S., Mhirda, M. J., Usadiati, W., & Haider, S. (2025). What should I do after all of this?”: Behavioural engagement in writing class with teacher feedback. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 12(2), of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i1.2642 Sulistyo, T., Eltris, K. P. N., Mafulah, S., Budianto, S., Saiful, S., & Heriyawati, D. F. (2020). Portfolio assessment: Learning outcomes and students’ attitudes. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(1), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i1.15169 Wu, L. (2024). L2 motivational self-system, foreign language enjoyment as predictors of motivated behavior. Acta Psychologica, 251(October), 104585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104585 Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2019). Investigating what feedback practices contribute to students’ writing motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context: A large scale study. Assessing Writing, 44(October 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100451 Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing, 51, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586 Zhang, Z. V. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71(3), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw089 Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37(November 2017), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001 Zhong, J., & Zheng, Y. (2023). “What It Means to be a Digital Citizen”: Using concept mapping and an educational game to explore children’s conceptualization of digital citizenship. Heliyon, 9(9), e19291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19291 1001