TY - JOUR TT - EFL STUDENTS’ REFLECTIONS ON EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AU - Bozkurt, Sultan AU - Camlıbel Acar, Zeynep PY - 2017 DA - August JF - The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences JO - EPESS PB - ISRES Publishing WT - DergiPark SN - 2587-1730 SP - 98 EP - 102 VL - 7 KW - L2 writing KW - EFL learners KW - explicit feedback KW - implicit feedback N2 - Writtencorrective feedback given by the teacher on students’ essays plays a significantrole in the development of language and writing skills of second language (L2)learners. Whether explicit (direct) feedback or implicit (indirect) feedbackshould be given to students’ errors in essays, and which of these is morebeneficial to learners has been a concern of L2 writing researchers for sometime. However, the issue of learners’ preferences on the types of writtencorrective feedback has been overlooked. This paper aims to investigate Turkishspeaking English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ ideas about explicit andimplicit written corrective feedback. The authors attempt to answer thefollowing questions: 1-      Whatare Turkish secondary school students’ attitudes towards writing in English asa foreign language?2-      Whatare their preferences in relation to two different types of written correctivefeedback (explicit and implicit)? Inorder to shed light on the students’ opinions and preferences in terms ofwritten corrective feedback, a study was conducted at a Turkish state secondaryschool in Istanbul. Seventy (70) seventh-grade female students, whose ages werearound 12, participated in this study. Half of the students received explicit feedback on their essays, whilethe other half received implicit feedback. Students’ opinions were collectedvia a questionnaire comprised of nine Likert-type items and one open-endedquestion during the fall semester of 2016-2017 academic year. The closed itemswere analyzed by conducting descriptive statistics, while qualitative dataanalysis was used for the answers to the open-ended item. Results reveal thatstudents in both groups preferred one type of written corrective feedback morethan the other type. Various factors that might play a role in this result aswell as suggestions for EFL teachers will be discussed. CR - Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,14(3), 191-205. Erel, S. & Bulut, D. (2007). Error treatment in L2 writing: a comparative study of direct and indirect coded feedback in Turkish EFL context. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1), 397-415. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. Hosseini, S. B. (2015).Written corrective feedback and the correct use of definite/indefinite articles. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(4), 98-112. Kahraman, A., &Yalvaç, F. (2015). EFL Turkish university students’ preferences about teacher feedback and its importance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 73-80. Kalra, R., &Tangkiensirisin, S. (2016). Thai students’ perceptions on the direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: A Thai University Context. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 7(3), 161-176. Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1-16. Rotim, I. (2015). Learners’ Attitudes towards Error Correction in EFL writing (Doctoral dissertation, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.). UR - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/epess/issue//332662 L1 - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/337866 ER -