JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING & LEARNING Volume 3, No. 1, January 2018 Rahmah Fithriani is a lecturer at the department of English educa�on, State Islamic University of North Sumatra. She received her doctorate in Language, Literacy, and Sociocultural Studies from University of New Mexico. Her research interests include feedback in L2 wri�ng and the use of L1 in L2 teaching & learning. Cultural Influences on Students’ Perceptions of Written Feedback in L2 Writing 1-13 ABSTRACT The influence of students’ culturally constructed view of the feedback process is a significant topic of discussion in studies about feedback in L2 writing. Research has shown that hierarchical relationship cultures and face-saving strategies have significant influence on students’ perceptions of feedback process in L2 writing, particularly in Asian societies. Aiming to investigate whether these findings resonate in Indonesian EFL context, this qualitative study collected data through writing drafts, reflective journals, question¬naires and interviews with seven students who took an after-class writing course. Findings showed that students found teacher feedback more valuable than peer feedback, which indicated the influence of hierarchical culture. However, they were not concerned about practicing face-saving strategies to maintain group harmony and cohesion, which is quite common to find in other Asian societies. This study suggested that cultural influences, particularly face-saving strategies do not have as much influence on Indonesian EFL students’ perceptions of written feedback in L2 writing as those in other Asian EFL students. Keywords: perception, cultural influence, teacher feedback, peer feedback, L2 writing INTRODUCTION Writing is one of the skills that is considered to have an essential significance in second language (L2) learning because it serves as both a tool for communication and a means of learning, thinking, and organizing knowledge or ideas. Unfortunately, L2 learners have also considered among the most difficult skills to master as it involves problem solving in addition to the deployment of strategies to achieve communicative goals (Graham, 2010; Kurt & Atay, 2007). For L2 learners, the difficulty in L2 writing is doubled because they need to transfer ideas from their first language 2 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 into the target language and organize those ideas into new and different patterns than those in their first language (L1). These challenges that learners encounter in L2 writing call for teachers and researchers to find better ways for instructing writing. Providing feedback is one of the most appropriate ways of instruction to help L2 learners successfully learn a writing skill (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Research has shown that written feedback is a crucial part of the writing process (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990). Many studies investigating the effect of written feedback on students’ L2 writing have also indicated that written feedback process helps students improve the quality of their writings (e.g. Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2006; Jahin, 2012; Kamimura, 2006). However, few exist that focus on how feedback is perceived by students. Ward, Grinstein, and Keim (2015) describe perception as the process of recognizing, organizing, and interpreting sensory information in order to give meaning to the environment. It is sometimes distorted by a number of aspects residing in the perceiver, in the object or target being perceived, or in the context of the situation in which the perception is made. Specifically, Lewis (2011) stated that aspects such as the cultural context have a profound influence on that which is being perceived. Furthermore, Carson and Nelson (1996) emphasize that writing is a socially constructed act, thus the pedagogical practices of writing instruction often reflects the cultural values in which it is being done. Considering the relationship between culture, perception, and writing instruction, it can be assumed that culture may play an important role in shaping students’ perception of the effectiveness of feedback implementation in L2 writing instruction. Research investigating how cultural traits have significant bearing on students’ perceptions of feedback process in L2 writing has reported different findings. Educational practice in cultures of hierarchical relationships places a great emphasis on “maintaining a hierarchical but harmonious relation between teacher and student. Students are expected to respect and not to challenge their teachers” (Hu, 2002, p. 98). Thus, students from these cultures find teacher feedback authoritative and tend to incorporate all teacher comments in their revision (Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006; Tsui & Ng, 2000). As a consequence, these students are also more likely to have negative views of feedback from fellow students and be reluctant to incorporate peer feedback in their writing (Carson & Nelson, 1994; Nelson & Carson, 1998). Interestingly, Miao, Badger, and Zhen (2006) and Tsui and Ng (2000) reported different findings showing that learners from hierarchical cultures value teacher feedback more highly than peer feedback but still recognize the importance of peer feedback. Furthermore, research findings showed that students coming from collectivist cultures which are much practiced in Asian countries generally work toward maintaining group harmony and mutual face-saving to maintain a state of cohesion (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Lee, 2008, Nelson & Carson, 1998). This means that peer feedback may be less successful in a collectivist culture because of students’ unwillingness to criticize others. Given the importance of students’ cultural influences on feedback processes in L2 writing and the inconclusive findings of how cultural traits have significant bearing on students’ perceptions of feedback process in L2 writing, it is necessary to conduct this study to further explore students’ perceptions of written feedback in L2 3 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 writing classrooms in a different context, particularly in Indonesian EFL context. Furthermore, since most of previous studies focusing on cultural influences on L2 writing feedback were conducted in ESL context, it is interesting to find out whether the results as reported in the existing literature will also resonate those in this context. This study may contribute to the growing body of literature and provide more information for ESL writing teachers who want to implement written feedback in their classrooms. LITERATURE REVIEW The influence of culture in L2 writing has been highlighted in many studies (e.g., Lee, 2008; Scollon, 1999; Tsui & Ng, 2000) showing how cultures influence the pedagogical practices in EFL classrooms, particularly in most Asian societies. These studies also emphasize the differentiating characteristics of L2 writing instruction in ESL and EFL contexts. However, some other researchers (e.g., Holliday, 1999; Kubota, 1999, 2001, 2004) have criticized the attempts to essentialize and polarize the cultural differences of ESL/EFL students. In her critics, Kubota (2004) stated that although “cultural difference is an important topic of discussion in second language education, it should not be conceptualized as fixed, objective, and apolitical based on an essentialist and normative understanding of culture” (p. 21). It is especially true when imaging the ESL learners in countries where English is used as the first language such as Australia and the United States where classrooms are usually demographically heterogeneous. ESL learners in those classrooms tend to have the urge to assimilate with the general norms and practices that are functional in class. As explained by Bhowmik (2009), when ESL learners from different socio-cultural backgrounds work together in feedback activities, the issues of culture could be minimized because each student is likely to come out of her comfort zones and participate in class activities more actively. This current study would refer to the research investigating how cultures influence the pedagogical practices in EFL classrooms. It was not aiming to emphasis the cultural differences between students in ESL and EFL contexts, particularly those from Southeast Asian countries with those in English-speaking countries. The reason is because this study was conducted in a demographically homogenous classroom, similar to the following referred studies. Research on cultural influences in feedback process Some research investigating feedback in L2 writing has reported different findings on whether cultural traits had a significant bearing on students’ perceptions of feedback process in L2 writing. Miao, Badger, and Zhen (2006) and Tsui and Ng (2000) investigated how students from hierarchical cultures perceived and incorporated the feedback they received from teachers and peers differently. The studies of Carson and Nelson (1996; 1998) on cultural influences in feedback activities reported that students’ view of cultural values affected the feedback effectiveness in collaborative L2 writing. Tsui and Ng (2000) focused their study on L2 writing revision after peer and teacher feedback. This study was conducted in a Hongkong secondary, in which English was used as the medium of instruction. Twenty-seven students participated in this study. The findings revealed that teacher comments were perceived more effective and useful than peer comment. There are 4 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 two reasons behind these results; firstbecause the students believed that the teacher was more experienced, and second, they also viewed the teacher as a figure of authority whose words should be followed. These findings show how cultural values shape students’ perceptions of the feedback they receive from teacher versus a peer. This is in accordance with the cultural value of traditional Chinese education stating that “students are expected to receive and retain, with an open mind and without preconceptions, the knowledge imparted by their teachers and textbooks” (Hu, 2002, p. 100). The influence of hierarchical culture was also highlighted by Miao, Badger, and Zhen (2006) in their study. They argued that the power distance between teachers and students from hierarchical culture is ‘problematic’ in the feedback process since students are always expected to abide by what the teachers say, and they are not supposed to challenge the teachers and their opinions. They also explained that in Chinese society the Confucian cultures ascribe a lot of respect to teachers which students at all levels usually follow. Another cultural value which has been found to have an impact on feedback activities in L2 writing is face-saving strategy which is much practiced in collectivist societies. Carson and Nelson (1996; 1998) conducted two studies investigating three Chinese ESL students taking an advanced composition class in a US university interacted and reacted in peer response groups. Since Chinese people practice collectivist culture in which the primary goal of the group is to maintain the relationships that constitute the group, they argued that writing groups used in composition classes in the United States might be problematic for Chinese students because of the cultural differences. Furthermore, they stated that students of collectivist culture tend to practice face-saving strategy in a group interaction to maintain cohesion and group harmony among the group members. The findings of both studies affirmed their argument. The analysis in the first study (Carson & Nelson, 1996) showed that the Chinese students’ reluctance in initiating comments during group interactions. When they provided comments to their peers, they monitored themselves carefully to ensure they did not start conflict within the group. These findings supported their hypothesis that the values of collectivist society affected the Chinese students’ interaction style. In the second study, Nelson and Carson (1998) compared Chinese and Spanish students’ perceptions of peer feedback group. Although the analysis indicated that both the Chinese and the Spanish-speaking students preferred the provision of negative comments showing their mistakes, they were found to have different views in terms of the needed amount and kind of talk in identifying the problems. This study also reported contradictory finding from the Chinese students who perceived problem-identification as the goal of peer feedback but were reluctant to identify and recognize them. In conclusion, peer feedback in this study was less successful for students of collectivist cultures because of unwillingness to criticize others. Some general features of Indonesian culture Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) explained that people living in the same social environment at least partly share the same culture, thus it is known as a collective phenomenon. Culture includes some aspects, such as: language, art, and social 5 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 activity, and interaction (Tabalujan, 2008). Since classroom context reflects a social unit within the larger unit of a society (Maulana, Helms-Lorenz, Irnidayanti, & van de Grif, W, 2016), culture, thus plays an important role in pedagogical practices, including in L2 writing classrooms. The influence of culture in L2 writing is also highlighted by Tickoo (1995) who argued that one of the differentiating characteristics of L2 writing instruction in ESL and EFL contexts is how cultures influence the pedagogical practices in classrooms. This is particularly significant in most Asian societies which are heirs to rich and established cultures and traditions. In addition, research also shows that L2 writing pedagogy in EFL context especially that in Asia, is confronted by the issue of culture, which plays a critical role in effective L2 writing instruction (Bhowmik, 2009). Among the issues of culture that influence the effectiveness of L2 writing instruction as reported in some research findings are the hierarchical relationship between teachers and students (e.g., Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006; Scollon, 1999; Tsui & Ng, 2000) and collectivist society that practices face-saving strategy to maintain group harmony (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Lee, 2008, Nelson & Carson, 1998). The two cultural values of hierarchical relationship and collectivist society are also found in Indonesian cultures. Hierarchy is considered very important in Indonesian society, in which ople's status should be respected at all times. The teacher–student relationship in Indonesian classrooms reflects this hierarchical structure suggesting obedience to higher authority figures (Maulana et al, 2016). Teachers are the ones who are responsible for managing order and neatness in classrooms and students are expected to follow their rules : The teacher is seen to be a moral authority and students are expected to defer to all their superiors, including teachers. Teachers are also viewed as the fountain of knowledge – while knowledge is viewed as a more or less fixed set of facts to be transmitted and digested by thirsty learners, later to be regurgitated in test (a deficit model of learning). (Lewis as cited in Novera, 2004, p. 478) One related aspect of hierarchical culture is the concept of power distance, which can be defined as a measure of interpersonal influence between two persons (Hofstede, 1980). An example of a large power distance in educational settings is that between a teacher and a student, which is much found in Indonesian classrooms. Teachers are viewed as the holders of knowledge which is passed on to the students. Thus, it could be assumed that students of large power distance countries like Indonesia tend to have less value on their peers’ opinions than students from countries with a lower power distance do. Indonesia is also known as a collectivist society that put the importance of a group in a higher position than that of an individual (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The interactions within Indonesian society show a high contact among its members who express a substantial amount of interpersonal closeness (Hall, 1966) and emphasize conformity, social harmony, and family interdependence (Chao & Tseng, 2002; Uchida & Ogihara, 2012). For this reason, saving face strategy is a very important practice. Indonesian students tend to be reluctant to ask questions to their teacher during classroom activities, even when they are invited to do so. This is a strategy commonly used to avoid showing an attitude of challenging teacher’s authority or/and demonstrating one’s arrogance or 6 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 ignorance – to risk the possibility of punishment or personal humiliation (loss of social face)” (Lewis as cited in Novera, 2004, p. 478). To maintain class harmony and cohesion, students tend to practice mutual face-saving strategy by avoiding debates and confrontation when interacting with other class members. Thus, peer feedback could be a problem in Indonesian classes since it may be difficult for Indonesian students to provide negative feedback on their peers’ writings. They probably say what they think the writers want to hear rather than what might be helpful. Thus, it is interesting to find out whether the cultures of hierarchical relationship and face-saving strategy in Indonesian society also influence the L2 writing pedagogical practices in Indonesia EFL context, as reported in other EFL contexts in Asian society. METHODS This study applied a qualitative case study approach. Using purposive sampling technique, the researcher recruited seven 6th sixth semester students majoring in English Education at a state university in Medan, Indonesia. Data for this study were collected through a variety of instruments including writing drafts, reflective journals, questionnaires, and interview, to ensure that nuances of students’ perceptions in every stage of written feedback process were captured. Thematic content analysis with three coding stages was used as the main data analysis. In the first stage of coding, significant quotes and passages on the copies of all reflective journals and written feedback surveys were manually coded using color pencils. The initial findings were then recorded in researcher’s note as guidance in preparing the interview questions. In the initial coding stage, the findings from pre-coding stage were transferred to a table sheet in a Microsoft Word file. All significant quotes and passages were labeled as ‘data extract,’ which was further analyzed at the sentence level for coding and temporary categorizing. The findings from this stage of coding were later analyzed again in the final coding stage. This process was iterative before reasonable saturation for categories and sub categories could be reached. The writing course This study was conducted in an after-class writing course consisting of seven meeting in total. Each meeting was divided into two sessions, with one session lasting for one hour (see Table 1). During the course, students completed two writing tasks of argumentative essay; agree &disagree and comparison & contrast. Furthermore, as part of the writing tasks, students completed a sequential series of tasks including writing the first draft of an essay, providing written feedback on peers’ essays, revising the draft after written feedback sessions, and producing the final draft of the essay. In an effort to get the maximum benefits of peer feedback in this study, the first meeting of the writing course was used to introduce peer feedback through the ALA (Academic Literacy for All) Protocol (Mahn & Bruce, 2010) and train the students how to give feedback on an essay 7 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 Meeting 1 2 3 4 5 Session I Introduction Teacher’s presentation (Agree & disagree essay) Session II Peer feedback training Writing 1 (first draft) Revision 1 (second draft) Reflective journal 1 Peer feedback 2 Revision 2 (third draft) Reflective journal 2 Revision 3 (final draft) Reflective journal 3 Teacher’s presentation (Comp. & contrast essay) Writing 2 (first draft) 6 7 Peer feedback 2 Revision 2 (third draft) Revision 3 (final draft) Reflective journal 6 Peer feedback 1 Teacher feedback Written feedback survey 1 Peer feedback 1 (global issues) Revision 1 (second draft) Reflective journal 4 Reflective journal 5 Teacher feedback Written feedback survey 2 Table 1. Writing Course Schedule FINDINGS The results of data analysis showed that the hierarchical culture in Indonesian society played a role in shaping students’ perceptions of the value of written feedback. The students reported to value more teacher feedback than peer feedback. However, the culture of power distance and collectivist society did not seem to have much influence in students’ perceptions because they were not reluctant to voice their disagreements with the teacher and peers and did not hold back when criticizing peers’ drafts. The findings will be presented in two themes, as the following: Theme one: Valuing more teacher feedback than peer feedback Indonesian society considers hierarchy a very important aspect in social life. One principle of hierarchical culture is obedience to higher authority figures. As a result, students from hierarchical cultures where teachers are ascribed the highest power and ultimate source of knowledge in classroom interactions may perceive different values of written feedback provided by teachers and peers (Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006, Scollon, 1999; Tsui & Ng, 2000). The analysis of the data in this study also showed that students valued teacher feedback more than peer feedback, which was reflected from the amount of written feedback incorporated in their writings. As shown in the Figure 1, although the total number of teacher’s suggestions/corrections was smaller than that of peers’, students yet incorporated more teacher than peer feedback in revisions. A closer look at the data from interview revealed that these different values resulted from three reasons: different levels of confidence in teacher and peers as feedback providers, different levels of confirmation of written feedback usefulness, and discrepancy of teacher and peer feedback incorporation. 8 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 Figure 1: Distribution of Written Feedback Received and Used Students showed different levels of confidence to written feedback they received from teacher and peers. When referring to teacher feedback, they used words like “trust,” “believe,” and “sure” of teacher’s competence. In addition, they also showed high confidence in the quality of teacher’s comments by stating that they were “more trustworthy,” “more accurate,” and “more qualified.” In the following excerpt, the student explained why he trusted teacher feedback more than peer feedback. I think teacher feedback is more qualified. I personally trust teacher feedback more than all my peers’ feedback. Because I can also see the result from teacher feedback looks better and fits better in my essay, compared to feedback from my peers. (Excerpt 1, Interview) On the contrary, when talking about peer feedback, students tended to use words showing low confidence like “distrust,” “doubt,” and “uncertain.” Furthermore, they also claimed that peers have lower competence as feedback provider by stating that they “have equal knowledge,” or “have no or little experience.” I think that my word is correct, it doesn’t need revising. But she thinks that my word is wrong. Well, it was happened because we have a different understanding about it. I don’t know which the correct one is. Therefore, it is one of the lack of getting feedback from the peer because we have the same level in knowledge. That is why I cannot believe 100% the feedback from peer. (Excerpt 2, Reflective Essay) In the reflective essay, the student expressed her disagreement with her peer’s correction. She also stated that one of the drawbacks of peer feedback was because the feedback provider and the feedback receiver were at the same level in knowledge thus peer feedback cannot be totally trusted. Different values of teacher and peer feedback were also indicated by how students perceived the usefulness of written feedback in their revisions. In terms of the usefulness of written feedback in the revision, all students responded positively. However, when referring to teacher feed 9 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 back, they confirmed its usefulness in absolute but the usefulness of peer feedback with reservations. In the students’ words, teacher feedback was ‘very,” “definitely,” or “totally” useful while peer feedback was ‘‘basically,’’ ‘‘sometimes’’ or “less” useful. This different acceptance of written feedback can be seen in the excerpt below: I think teacher feedback is worthier than peer feedback. It was really helpful and very detailed in all aspects from grammar, idea, to the conclusion were commented by the instructor. (Excerpt 3, Interview) The student quoted in excerpt 3 explained the usefulness of teacher feedback by using the word “very” to intensify the degree of how helpful and detailed the teacher’s comments she received. Furthermore, she praised teacher feedback on all aspects of writing which shows her trust in teacher’s knowledge and competence. Meanwhile another student (quoted in excerpt 4) used the word “enough’ which is a lower degree of intensifier when talking about the quality of peer feedback that she received. She also only praised one particular aspect of writing, in this case grammar where she thought her peer was competent to comment about. About 50% [of peer feedback was used in revisions], because I think my friend’s suggestions are good enough, especially about grammar. (Excerpt 4, Written Feedback Survey) The last indication that students valued teacher feedback more than peer feedback is the different amount of teacher and peer feedback incorporation. As seen in figure 1, students incorporated higher percentage of teacher feedback (86%) in their revisions, meanwhile for peer feedback, only 69% was used in revisions. This discrepancy of feedback incorporation was also admitted by students as highlighted in the following excerpts: I took 50% of comments from my peer because I think [only] 50% of the comments are right and useful for my essay… Most of the comment I have from teacher feedback, 90% of comments I took because I think the comments from teacher’s feedback is really helpful. (Excerpt 5, Written Feedback Survey) I used 40% of my peer feedback in my revision. I do that because I think the correction is wrong… I used 80% (of teacher feedback) in my essay because I think my teacher has more knowledge than me. (Excerpt 6, Written Feedback Survey) Both students quoted in excerpts 5 and 6 admitted of using much higher teacher feedback than peer feedback in their revisions. Despite their different reasons for doing so, the fact that they incorporated more teacher than peer feedback also indicated that they value teacher feedback more. In summary, students gave more credits to teacher comments more than peer comments. In this case, students have higher confidence in teacher feedback which resulted in higher percentage of teacher feedback incorporation in revisions. However, it should be noted that student valued both teacher and peer feedback although with different levels of confirmation Theme two: Claiming authority as feedback providers and receivers. Another principle in hierarchical culture is the high-power distance between teachers and students. Thus, educational practice in cultures of hierarchical relationships places a great emphasis on “maintaining a hierarchical 10 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 but harmonious relation between teacher and student. Students are expected to respect and not to challenge their teachers” (Hu, 2002, p. 98). In addition, Indonesians as collectivist society also practice face-saving strategy to maintain cohesion and group harmony among the group members. However, the data analysis demonstrated that despite the high-power distance between teachers and students and the practice of face-saving strategy in Indonesian society, the students in this study were not hesitant to claim their authority as feedback receivers and feedback providers. When receiving feedback from teacher and peers, students were not reluctant to voice their disagreement and reject the feedback for personal reasons such as “I don’t think the comments are correct,” I dissatisfied with the feedback provided,”. In addition, as the writers, they were also aware that they were the decision makers in deciding what comments to incorporate or ignore in their revisions. They rejected the feedback using some reasons such as “the original draft is better,” “suggestions/revisions changed the intended meaning,” and “feedback interfered with writer’s voice and style. In the interaction below (Excerpt 7), the student showed how he claimed his authority as the writer of the essay. Although he confirmed the quality of the feedback, he rejected to use it in his revision because he saw this contribution as intrusive. It can be said that students valued teacher feedback and confirmed its quality, but it was not necessarily for them to agreewith and incorporate it in their writings. Interviewer: In your reflective journal, you wrote that you took only 50% of teacher feedback. Why? Student: The teacher gave me only two sug- gestions. I took one but ignored the other because I think the suggestion [which was ignored] was not applicable in my writing. The other I think was acceptable although a little bit difficult to make it flow with my sentences, with my idea. I admitted the first comment was good, but if I kept using it in my revision…what can I say…the idea didn’t flow so I had to rewrite everything. (Excerpt 7, Interview) When serving as feedback provider, students did also not hesitate to give comments on her peers’ drafts which was shown in their statements like, “I provided as much feedback as necessary, “I gave feedback based on one’s understanding,” “I gave feedback to help improve peer’s essay,” “I did not hold back when giving criticism,” and “I believe that the writers will not be offended with my feedback.” Those statements indicate that students realized that being a feedback provider allowed them to speak as a teacher might. They also knew that the purpose of their giving comments on peers’ drafts was to state their opinions on what peers needed to do to improve their writings. When providing criticism, they also did not hold back just because of not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings. As a result, students in this study were not concerned with maintaining group harmony and practicing face-saving strategies. As long as I think it is necessary, I will give feedback on my peers’ drafts. Because I believe that my friends know that I had no intention to insult or offend them. I personally also expected that my friends be honest to me when giving feedback. When they think it’s good, they can praise it. When they think it’s not good, they can criticize it. Even when they think my essay was good, I still expected them to provide me much feedback. (Excerpt 8, Interview) 11 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 The interview excerpt above clearly illustrates that the student’s only intention was to help her peers improve their writing by not holding anything back when providing feedback. She furthermore explained that she expected the same treatment from her peers. This indicated that she was not concerned about practicing face-saving strategies to maintain harmony with her peers by subordinating honesty to politeness. DISCUSSION The finding showing that the students valued teacher feedback more than peer feedback is in line with those of Miao, Badger, and Zhen’s (2006) and Tsui and Ng’s (2000). Miao, Badger, and Zhen (2006) reported that the students in their study “value teacher feedback more highly than peer feedback but recognize the importance of peer feedback” (p. 193). Similar to this, Tsui and Ng (2000) found out that their students favored teacher comments. They furthermore explained that the reasons were because the students thought that “the teacher was more experienced and a figure of authority and that teacher's comments guaranteed quality” (p. 160). Two among the reasons, namely: “the teacher was more experienced” and” the teacher's comments guaranteed quality” were also mentioned by the students in this study to explain why they valued more teacher feedback. Interestingly, the other reason saying that the teacher was a figure of authority whose words should be followed did not seem to be a reason. Although hierarchical societies tend to accept more power distance, including the distance between a teacher and a student, the students did not hesitate to disregard teacher’s suggestions and to voice their disagreement with them. This indicates that power distance did not have any significant influence in students’ perceptions of written feedback. The second finding showing students’ willingness to criticize peers’ writings and to voice their disagreement with peers’ comments is quite the contrary of Carson and Nelson’s (1996). The results of their study showed that that “the Chinese students’ primary goal for the groups was social-to maintain group harmony-and that this goal affected the nature and types of interaction they allowed themselves in group discussions” (p. 1). They furthermore described some characteristics of the Chinese students’ interactions: (1) reluctance to criticize drafts because they thought might be hurtful to other group members; (2) reluctance to disagree with peers because it would create conflicts within the group. It can be assumed that such different findings between this study and that of Carson and Nelson (1996) may lie in three reasons; (1) students’ understanding of the written feedback purpose; and (2) the nature of feedback interactions. In the beginning of this study, the students were introduced to the concept of written feedback through the ALA protocol. Through this activity, students got a very good understanding of the purpose of peer feedback throughout the composing process that is to help improve the quality of the writing and develop writing skills of both feedback receivers and providers. They characterized their interactions in the peer feedback activities as task oriented. They focused on providing comments that helped improve their peers’ essays and viewed the social dimension of maintaining the state of cohesion as subordinate to the task dimension. Thus, although Indonesians belong to a collectivist society which 12 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 practices face-saving strategies to maintain cohesion and group harmony among the group members, the students’ mutual understanding of the written feedback purpose in this study seemed successful to prevent them practicing those strategies which may not work toward the fulfillment of the purpose. Another speculation to explain the contrast findings is that the nature of interactions between students in Carson and Nelson’s (1996) study was different from that in this study. In the former, students provided feedback through discussions in groups of three or four consisting of speakers of different mother tongues. In the latter, students worked in pairs or groups to provide written feedback on drafts. This means that students in this study did not involve in face-to-face interactions where the feedback provider would look at the face of the writer when giving suggestions or criticism. Furthermore, face-to-face interactions would also allow the feedback provider to read the feedback receiver’s emotions through verbal and nonverbal cues, such as facial expression, which perhaps could be a factor that made students of collectivist society practice face saving strategies in peer feedback to maintain group harmony. Thus, the nature of interactions in this study might make it easier for students to be as honest as possible when providing feedback. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION The findings of this study may contribute to the existing literature showing how cultures influence the pedagogical practices in EFL classrooms, particularly in most Asian societies. Some cultural influences, particularly hierarchical culture still plays a role in shaping students’ perceptions of the different values of written feedback they received from teacher and peers. However, providing students with a fundamental understanding of the purpose of feedback activities through the ALA protocol seemed successful in minimizing those influences. With some adjustment to accommodate the different contexts of where it is implemented, teachers who would like to incorporate peer feedback in their teaching practice could also make use the ALA protocol to introduce the students with the concept of peer feedback. This study might lead to similar research studies that may collectively provide a more extensive framework for understanding cultural influences on Indonesian EFL students’ perceptions of written feedback in L2 writing. The replication of this study in a formal classroom setting with a larger size of participants could be conducted to increase the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, since this study involved written feedback only, it might be interesting to investigate whether there are similarities or differences in terms of cultural influences in the combination of written and oral feedback in L2 writing. REFERENCES Bhowmik, S. K. (2009). L2 writing pedagogy in EFL contexts: An exploration of salient practices in teaching and learning. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(3), 351-373. Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer feedback group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19. Chao, R. K., & Tseng, V. (2002). Asian and American parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (pp. 59–94). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Graham, S. (2010). Facilitating writing development. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & 13 Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning Vol.3 No. 1, January 2018 J-Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English language, and literacy teaching (pp. 125–136). New York, NY: Routledge. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Double Day. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237–264. Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9–35. Kubota, R. (2001). Discursive Construction of the Images of U.S. Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 9-38. Kubota, R. (2004). The politics of cultural difference in second language education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 1(1), 21–39 Kurt, G., & Atay, D. (2007). The effects of peer feedback on the writing anxiety of prospective Turkish teachers of EFL. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(1), 12-23. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. Lewis, A. (2001). The issue of perception: some educational implications. Educare, 30(1), 272-288. Mahn, H., & Bruce, M. (2010). The Academic Literacy for All project: A professional development model meeting the professional development needs. In C. J. Casteel & K. G. Ballantyne (Eds.), Professional development in action: Improving teaching for English learners (pp. 39-41). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Available at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/PD_in_Action.pdf. Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Irnidayanti, Y., & van de Grif, W. (2016). Autonomous motivation in the Indonesian Classroom: Relationship with Teacher Support through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(3), 441–451. Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200 Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113–131. Novera, I. A. (2004). Indonesian post graduate students studying in Australia: An examination of their academic, social, and cultural experiences. International Education Journal, 5(4), 475-487. Scollon, S. (1999). Not to waste words or students: Confucian and Socratic discourse in the tertiary classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 13–27). Cambridge: CUP. Tabalujan, B. (2008). Culture and ethics in Asian business. The Melbourne Review, l4(1), 13-19. Tickoo, M. L. (1995). Reading-writing research and Asian TEFL classroom: Providing for differences. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.). Reading and writing theory and practice, (pp. 259-279). Singapore: RELC. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. Uchida, Y., & Ogihara, Y. (2012). Personal or interpersonal construal of happiness: A cultural psychological perspective. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2, 354–369. Ward, M., Grinstein, G., & Keim, D. (2015). Interactive data visualization: Foundations, techniques, and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: CRC Press.