Abstract
Academic writing is essential for success in higher education, yet many tertiary English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students face persistent difficulties with organization, coherence and cohesion, academic vocabulary, and referencing conventions. Although feedback is widely recognized as important for writing development, less is known about how integrated feedback practices operate across real classroom contexts over time. This study examined the relationship between structured feedback practices based on feed-up, feedback, and feed-forward and tertiary EFL students’ academic writing development in English composition courses at a private higher education institution in Oman. Using a descriptive‑comparative classroom‑based design, the study drew on data from 200 students enrolled in ENG 101 and ENG 102 during the 2024–2025 academic year. Students were grouped according to the feedback approach used in their classes: conventional end‑point feedback or structured feedback applied across the semester. Data were collected through pre‑semester and post‑semester feedback questionnaires and group‑level academic writing performance records, including continuous assessment, final writing examination scores, and analytic writing sub‑skills. The findings showed clear descriptive differences between the two groups. Students exposed to structured feedback reported more positive feedback perceptions and displayed stronger overall patterns of writing development across both holistic and analytic measures than those who received conventional feedback. Although the study does not establish causality, it provides classroom‑based evidence that structured feedback may offer a more development‑oriented alternative to conventional feedback practices in tertiary EFL writing contexts.