With the exponential development of educational technology, SWCF occupies a vital position in ESP learning as a catalyst to improve students’ learning. Besides enhancing writing accuracy (Kim et al., 2020), it affects learning outcomes (Dmitrenko & Budas, 2021) and engagement (Mardian & Nafissi, 2022).

Many applications categorized as LiFT are widely used to deliver SWCF in ESP courses, including Google Docs. Many researchers have highlighted the significance of using Google Docs to offer SWCF. Google Docs supports SWCF delivery, which accommodates engagement (Mohammed & Al-Jaberi, 2021), interaction (Saeed & Al Qunayeer, 2022), and collaboration (Hoang & Hoang, 2022).

Regarding the delivery, this research intends to figure out how SWCF is conveyed using Google Docs. To address this issue, the students’ business correspondence is analyzed.

The researchers disclose the information from the students' letters in Google Docs, divided into two categories: 1) the features used to deliver SWCF, and 2) the various types of SWCF delivered. Table 1 summarizes the findings.

Two features of Google Docs are used to deliver SWCF. The first is the auto-generated feedback feature, also known as suggestion mode. The lecturer frequently urged students to use this feature when they spotted errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation. The students could directly click on the incorrect part. They could manage this independently, but sometimes they did not notice the errors, so the lecturer re-delivered such feedback in the commenting feature. Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 display the use of suggestion mode for correcting spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

The second feature used to deliver SWCF in Google Docs is the commenting feature. It was found that the feature was used to give students suggestions on content, writing style, diction, and letter structure or organization. The lecturer typically provided SWCF by blocking the words, phrases, or sentences and then providing corrections or suggestions for the students. Figure 5 shows an example of how the lecturer gives SWCF to a student for content correction.

Using both auto-generated feedback and the commenting tool in Google Docs for different parts of language can serve as both guidance and an alternative for other ESP lecturers to incorporate the usage of auto-generated feedback with human feedback. The finding corresponds to the previous research findings that human feedback addresses various writing aspects while machine feedback solely revises the fundamental aspects of language (Thi & Nikolov, 2022).

Although combining these two types of feedback has remained a significant challenge (Shum et al., 2023), the findings of the present research have revealed that equalizing the use of automated and human feedback is possible by determining which aspects need to be corrected using auto-generated features and which aspects require more humanized comments. To emphasize, auto-generated feedback is excellent at promoting writing effectiveness, while human feedback positively affects the psychological side of students’ texts (Wang & Han, 2022) and vocabulary acquisition (Li, 2023).

Balancing the use of these two features is significant since the lecturer cannot solely leave the students to learn with the autogenerated feedback without providing more contextual writing guidance. Given the importance of balancing language and topic in ESP teaching (Salmani-Nodoushan, 2020), attention to these aspects cannot be disregarded. Students will be unable to comprehend the essence of learning objectives if these two aspects are not offered proportionally. Another point to consider is the evidence that feedback delivered based on the learning context is more effective (Zhu et al., 2020) in optimizing students' writing performance (Taskiran & Goksel, 2022). Therefore, concerning the learning objectives of equipping the ESP students with written professional communication skills, human feedback should be presented.

In addition to the features for SWCF delivery, the results of the document analysis in Table 1 highlight the types of SWCF received by the students. When working with business letters in Google Docs, the students were exposed to two types of SWCF, namely direct and indirect. The direct SWCF was delivered more frequently due to schedule constraints. The students managed to finish the direct SWCF revision considerably faster. Their business letters also showed good accuracy and were centered on the course objectives. It infers that the lecturer's direct SWCF provides excellent assistance for letter revision. This finding agrees with the study conducted by (Kim et al., 2020) revealing that direct SWCF is useful in helping students produce accurate writing compared to indirect ones. In other words, direct feedback is more effective (Khaki & Tabrizi, 2021).

Besides the issue of learning schedule limitations, the students were given more direct feedback because some failed to notice and locate errors in their letters. Even when the suggestion mode has warned them, they constantly ignored the notification. This result conforms with the fact discovered by (Ganapathy et al., 2020) that in general, learners cannot identify errors and revise them. Considering this fact, direct SWCF can be preferred. Even so, indirect SWCF can be offered with the particular aim of enhancing the students' language awareness.

To summarize, automatic and human feedback aids the lecturer in focusing on feedback for content and context, while automated feedback tackles the rest. Deciding to provide more direct feedback will also affect learning efficiency.

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

The first point to highlight from the open-ended questionnaire is the student’s preference for the frequency of receiving SWCF from their lecturer. Here, the students were given two statements. Their answers are presented in Table 2.

The students agreed that they wished to receive SWCF from their lecturer during the course to correct their mistakes when writing business letters. From 15 participants, 10 students (66.7%) mentioned that they expected to always receive SWCF from their lecturer, while 5 students (33.3%) agreed to expect very frequent feedback from their lecturer. Proving this preference, they also admitted that they read the SWCF delivered by their lecturer. 10 students (66.7%) revealed that they always read the feedback sent to them, while 3 students (20.0%) said very often, and the other 2 students (13.3%) mentioned they sometimes read the feedback from their lecturer.

Such preferences are validated by the students in the semi-structured interview. They mentioned that they wished to receive much feedback during the course, and they expected their lecturer to give corrections for their mistakes.

“Of course, we want.” (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5)

“Very much.” (S6)

When being asked whether they checked the lecturer’s SWCF, they admitted,

“Yes, I always do.” (S1, S3, S4, S5, S6)

“Always, if I do not read it, I do not know which part I get wrong.” (S2)

The fact that most students prefer to receive frequent SWCF from their lecturer and read it suggests that they value SWCF for their letters. They might be informed of their errors in many language aspects. In the end, the student's awareness of locating mistakes will contribute to their writing skills improvement. The finding verifies claims from many studies about the benefits of written corrective feedback for students, such as enhancing writing clarity and scores (Jinowat & Wiboolyasarin, 2022) and understanding more errors in their writing (Ganapathy et al., 2020). Written corrective feedback is also asserted to influence students' lexical knowledge and content acquisition (Luquin & García Mayo, 2021).

The students' preference for receiving feedback represents their positive attitude towards SWCF offered by their lecturer. This attitude, known as feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) (Ashford et al., 2003), has the potential to be linked to writing achievement (Leenknecht & Carless, 2023). In research conducted by (Larsari, 2020), FSB is proven to have a significant impact on students' writing improvement. This positive behavior is also associated with selfregulated learning, which finally has a positive influence on students' writing (Yang et al., 2022). Conversely, students who do not have such an orientation tend to be less competent in writing. For example, students at the beginner level might see feedback as something embarrassing regarding the issue of self-confidence (Wiboolyasarin et al., 2022).

The second point to inquire about is the students’ preference for types of errors to be rectified by their lecturer. They only received one question; the answers are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3 indicates that the students preferred being corrected for structural and lexical errors, the content, and the organization of ideas. 6 students (40%) preferred vocabulary and expressions. 5 students (33.3%) would somewhat be corrected for sentence structure and language style. 3 students (20%) agreed with content and idea correction, and the rest (6.7%) did not provide any answers. In the interview, they emphasized,

“Language style, content, vocabulary, and grammar.” (S1, S4, S5, S6)

“All aspects, except grammar.” (S2)

“Language style, content.” (S3)

The findings denote that fundamentally, the students have been aware of the mistakes they frequently make in composing their business documents. Each of them is alarmed that they make errors in those mentioned elements. For this reason, they reckon the lecturer needs to correct them when they commit such errors. In conformity with their preferences, it is evident that students favorably respond when they receive SWCF from their lecturer. The result is under the conclusion made by (Saragih et al., 2021) and (Aziz & Jayaputri, 2023) that the participant students shared favorable feedback viewpoints. They also consider the process of receiving feedback and revising texts advantageous (Rasool et al., 2023).

The third point asked of the students is their preference for the SWCF delivery method. In this facet, they were given one question. Their responses are recorded in Table 4.

Table 4 shows 9 students (60%) perceived the error correction. While 3 of the students (20%) preferred gaining scores or grades from their lecturer, the rest (20%) liked being commented on by their lecturer. Comments here refer to appreciation or praise, such as “good job” or “well done.”

In the interview, all students agreed that they preferred correction. And one of them added, "Correction and scores, I think." (S4)

“Correction and scores, I think.” (S4)

From the above data, correction is the most favored one. The students might choose this correction category (Alharbi, 2022) due to their tenacity in composing acceptable and well-organized business letters. They should get corrected on how properly and accurately their letters are written before proceeding with their following learning tasks, such as submitting the business letters. As underlined by (Hattie et al., 2021) and (Mandouit, 2020), students tend to choose feedback that directs them to the next learning phase. The fact that more students prefer correction reflects the degree to which they value the opportunity to learn to write acceptable, accurate letters. Students who have an intense desire to be good at using language will certainly treasure the feedback they receive (Zhan et al., 2022).

The following form of SWCF selected by students is scores or grades. Giving grades to students remains debatable or problematic (ELT, 2020) due to the possibility of impeding their learning motivation. Nonetheless, the student participant in this research sees grades as an encouragement for her. The grades they received indicate how much the lecturer values their effort. According to (Guskey, 2022), grades can become one of the most effective feedback forms when they are delivered along with sufficient explanation. To avoid the ineffectiveness of solely giving scores or grades directly to the students, combining SWCF and grading functions would result in an acceptable feedback delivery system.

The last one chosen by the students is to receive praising comments. They expect positive appraisals for the letters they write. They will feel encouraged affectively by reading complimentary remarks from their lecturer. Following (Hattie et al., 2021), praising the students is a positive evaluation, which indicates the lecturer's agreement or acceptance.

The following preference to investigate is the types of feedback the students choose when learning online. They received one question to express their preference. Table 5 summarizes their answers.

Table 5 indicates that the students chose direct and indirect SWCF. 5 students (33.3%) expected to receive direct SWCF; in this way, the lecturer underlined their errors and directly wrote the correction. While another 5 students (33.3%) preferred their lecturer to underline their errors, code the errors, and let them correct the mistakes by themselves, 3 students (20%) preferred the lecturer to underline their errors, and they fixed the errors. The other 2 (13.3%) students wished that their lecturer used a symbol to sign their errors, let them think of errors to be corrected, and then the students corrected them.

During the interview, all interviewees mentioned that they opted for direct SWCF. They stated,

“Direct, of course.” (S1, S3, S4, S5, S6)

“Direct, of course, makes our time more efficient, especially in online classes. In offline sessions, indirect feedback is possible as we can confirm our revision to the lecturer directly.” (S2)

The students prefer direct SWCF, as it helps them work considerably faster or more efficiently. Aside from being concerned about misinterpreting the lecturer's SWCF that they cannot clarify directly, they also have a retarding factor, namely their inconvenient class schedule.

During the interview, they admitted,

“Sometimes I feel panicked when working on the task because I need to also go to an offline class after this class.” (S1)

“The learning time and my work schedule are very tight for me. I should go to campus after this course. I cannot focus on finishing the task. Sometimes I tell myself that I will do the task after returning from campus, but I feel tired already. If I do it the next day, my work schedule will be chaotic.” (S2)

“Busy class schedule.” (S3, S4, S6)

“I am in a hurry to finish the letter because I should go to campus for an offline class after this class; it is inconvenient.” (S5)

Having finished the online class of the English advanced correspondence course, they should leave for campus in a hurry to attend an offline course. Such a timetable prevents them from comfortably working on their letters, leaving them with little opportunity to think much longer and deeper if they receive indirect feedback. They need time to interpret the lecturer’s feedback, identify the precise areas in which they make mistakes, and afterward, they should confirm their answers to their lecturer. Such activities are undoubtedly time-consuming on a tight schedule.

Apart from the external issue, the direct SWCF preferred by the students is beneficial. Direct written corrective feedback is mentioned to accommodate writing proficiency and language knowledge (Rasool et al., 2023). This type of feedback benefits both low-and high-proficiency learners in the writing process (Budianto et al., 2020). Another study exhibits a positive effect of direct feedback on students' ability to revise texts (Karim & Nassaji, 2018).

On the other hand, another student's preference for indirect SWCF points out the students' intense eagerness to learn or analyze the errors they made. They will require extra time to work on the indirect SWCF. As reported by (Park et al., 2015), teachers' practices in marking students' mistakes and requesting them to do selfcorrection can assist their learning. The practice of feedback delivery also enables students to minimize errors in more language aspects, such as tenses (Pham, 2021). The students themselves should develop specific strategies to deal with the lecturer's indirect SWCF. Revision of the text demands more analytical abilities and time investment. The students will inevitably involve themselves more in editing their letters. Consequently, the students might exhibit appreciative engagement when working on indirect feedback (Russa, 2021).

Furthermore, when delivering the SWCF, the lecturer used simple language; therefore, the students were assumed to comprehend the SWCF doubtlessly and appropriately. It was proven that they could finish the revision in one or two edits with reasonable accuracy. Here, the lecturer attempts to apply engaging strategies to have the students revise their letters. According to (Mandouit & Hattie, 2023), as they cited from (O’Donovan et al., 2016), feedback must comply with the criteria of being comprehensible and operating. Using simple English to provide easy-to-execute revisions would be very helpful for students, especially those with lower language levels and limited time for task completion. Moreover, as revealed by Ene and Yaos (2021), students prefer for receiving intricate feedback but not sophisticated corrections.

To conclude, the student's preferences are an indispensable component for planning and implementing future ESP instruction. Their preferences then can be expanded into a need analysis. The need analysis would be efficacious for gathering significant information about what the students need and want of different aspects of language, such as materials, teaching techniques, and obstacles (Song & Zhou, 2022).

After being questioned about their detailed preferences for SWCF, the students were also asked about the general views of SWCF they received from their lecturer. Here the students were given 5 questions about their comprehension of SWCF, their correcting ability, times for correcting their mistakes, Google Docs, and SWCF assistance for their writing. Their answers are provided in Table 6.

Table 6 reveals that the students could comprehend the lecturer’s feedback on their letters. 10 of them (66.7%) stated that they understood the comments excellently, 4 students (26.7%) said they had good comprehension, and 1 student (6.7%) admitted to having sufficient understanding of their lecturer’s feedback. Therefore, in the next point, all of them (100%) agreed to be able to revise works based on the SWCF they received. About the frequency of successfully revising their letters, 6 students (40.0%) admitted that they needed one time to revise, and 9 students (60%) mentioned that they needed two times to finish revising their letters after receiving the SWCF. In short, the students agreed that SWCF delivered via Google Docs had assisted them in composing their writing. When asked whether they agreed that SWCF improved their writing skills, 10 students (66.7%) agreed that SWCF has always been helpful for them to improve their correspondence skills. 4 of them (26.7%) admitted that SWCF frequently has helped them with the improvement of their writing skills. Only 1 student (6.7%) felt less than frequent.

During the interview, all interviewees confirmed the answers. They admitted to understanding the SWCF and revising their letters based on the feedback. They needed 1-2 times to revise the letters, and they felt that all SWCF was very helpful for them. Finally, they saw that the SWCF delivered via Google Docs enhanced their writing skills. Exhaustively, the aspects of lexical, structural, content, and idea organization are promoted by using SWCF delivered via Google Docs.

The findings support previous relevant research that SWCF accommodates students' writing accuracy (Kim et al., 2020), linguistic aspects (Cho et al., 2022), and writing intricacy (Khezrlou, 2022). Moreover, on the subject of L2 learning, including ESP context, this type of feedback is perceived to promote students' motivation and engagement (Mardian & Nafissi, 2022). Its accessibility (Alshumaimmeri & Alqarni, 2022) allows learners to work more effectively. The students' answers illustrate that ESP learning, which focuses on language and content, has been met. The balance between those aspects is critical regarding the ESP's final objective to equip students with proficiency when facing target needs (Dou et al., 2023), in this case, writing professional documents in business correspondence.

To summarize, SWCF delivered via Google Docs has aided the students to improve their writing competence. They can comprehend the feedback and make revisions based on the SWCF they receive. It alludes to their positive viewpoints of SWCF delivered via LiFT.