Beyond Error Correction: How Comprehensive Indirect Coded Feedback Enhances EFL Writing Development in Process-Based Instruction

Abstract

Written corrective feedback (WCF) remains central to L2 writing pedagogy, yet comprehensive indirect coded feedback within process-based instruction requires further investigation, particularly in underexplored EFL contexts. Framed within a sociocultural, process-writing perspective, this case study examined how comprehensive indirect coded feedback affected the writing development of 17 Turkish university students over six weeks. Participants completed three academic essay cycles, engaging in recursive drafting and revision guided by comprehensive indirect coded feedback. Quantitative analyses revealed statistically significant improvements in writing proficiency within revision cycles (Cohen's d> 1.4) and across the longitudinal sequence (d= 1.00). Qualitative data from interviews and focus groups indicated enhanced error awareness, improved organizational strategies, and increased learner autonomy. Participants valued the role of feedback in developing metacognitive awareness and self-correction capabilities. Findings further demonstrate that comprehensive indirect coded feedback, when embedded within recursive writing instruction, can simultaneously address accuracy concerns and foster reflective writing practices. The study contributes to WCF debates by providing ecological validity through authentic classroom implementation. Implications suggest comprehensive indirect feedback can effectively support writing development when coupled with structured process-based pedagogy, particularly in EFL contexts where learner autonomy is essential.

Keywords

• L2 writing
• process-based writing
• written corrective feedback
• indirect coded feedback
• learner perception

“Hata Düzeltmenin Ötesinde: Kapsamlı Dolaylı Kodlanmış Geri Bildirimin Süreç Temelli Öğretimde Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Yazma Gelişimine Katkısı”

Abstract

Yazma eylemi yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenimi bağlamında öğrenciler için zorlu bir görevdir çünkü öğrenciler yazma sürecinde hem yazım kurallarıyla hem de dilin yapısal özellikleriyle uğraşmak zorundadır. Yazma süreci boyunca öğretmenlerin öğrencilere rehberlik etmesi beklenir ve yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim, öğrencilere yardımcı olmanın yöntemlerinden biridir. Yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim, çeşitli türleri ve kapsamıyla dil öğretmenleri arasında yaygın bir uygulamadır. Karma bir yöntem benimseyen bu vaka çalışması, belirli bir geri bildirim türünün, kapsamlı dolaylı yazılı düzeltici geri bildirimin, 17 yükseköğretim düzeyindeki öğrencinin yazılarının ikinci taslakları ve daha sonraki yazıları üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Bu amaçla, öğrencilere 3 adet yazı yazdırılmış olup her bir yazıyı dolaylı kodlu yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim aldıktan sonra tekrar yazmaları istenmiştir. Araştırmada süreç odaklı yazma yaklaşımı izlenmiş olup öğrenciler süreç odaklı yazmanın her aşamasına dâhil olmuştur. Yazıların puanlamasının güvenilirliğini artırmak için her bir yazıyı iki değerlendirici puanlamıştır. Nicel veri analizi için tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve eşleştirilmiş örneklem t-test uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin ilk taslaktan ikinci taslağa ve ilk yazıdan son yazıya yazma becerilerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir iyileşme olduğunu göstermiştir. Araştırmanın bir diğer amacı araştırmada uygulanan dolaylı kodlu geribildirim ve süreç temelli yaklaşıma ilişkin öğrencilerin algılarının anlaşılmasıdır ve bu çalışmanın nitel verisini oluşturmuştur. Bu nedenle, öğrencilerin dolaylı kodlanmış geri bildirime ilişkin izlenimlerini derinlemesine incelemek amacıyla 6 öğrenciyle çalışma öncesinde, sırasında ve sonunda bir dizi yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme yapılmıştır. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerin yanı sıra süreç odaklı yazma yaklaşımına ilişkin daha iyi bilgi edinmek amacıyla 8 öğrenciyle odak grup görüşmesi yapılmıştır. Görüşmeler içerik analizi kullanılarak yazıya geçirilmiş ve analiz edilmiştir. Veri analizi sırasında önceden tanımlanmış bir dizi kod kullanılmış, bunlar daha sonra kategorilere ve son olarak da literatürde var olan temalara dönüştürülmüştür. İçerik analizi sonuçları, öğrencilerin dolaylı kodlu geribildirim ve süreç temelli yazma yaklaşımının kullanılmasına karşı olumlu görüşlerinin olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Öğrenciler, dolaylı kodlu geri bildirimin sağladığı motivasyon ve farkındalığın yanı sıra yazılarının belirli yönlerinde iyileşmeler olduğunu belirterek dolaylı kodlu geri bildirimi yazma süreçlerinde yararlı bulduklarını belirtmişlerdir. Odak grup görüşmesinin analizi ise öğrencilerin süreç odaklı yazma yaklaşımı hakkında olumlu görüşlere sahip olduklarını, süreç odaklı yazmanın organizasyon ve verimlilik açısından faydalarına dikkat çektiklerini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışma, dolaylı kodlanmış geri bildirimin yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen öğrencilerin yazılı metinleri üzerindeki etkililiğine dair kanıtlar sunarak literatüre katkıda bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, öğretmenlere ve araştırmacılara sınıf içi uygulamalara yönelik öneriler paylaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim
• yabancı dilde yazma
• dolaylı kodlu yazılı geri bildirim
• öğrenci algıları
• süreç odaklı yazma yaklaşımı

References

1. Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ944129
2. Ataman, D. S., & Mirici, I. H. (2017). Contribution of corrective feedback to English language learners' writing skills development through workfolio based tasks. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 9(1), 1-30. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1207250
3. Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1117969
4. Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1133–1141. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.3.1720
5. Beşkardeşler, S. (2018). The effects of written corrective feedback types on the prepositions of time and place and students’ perceptions on written corrective feedback in EFL context in Turkey. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr
6. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
7. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 62(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043

9. Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching writing skills. London: Longman.
10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9
11. Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, C. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
12. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
13. Cumming A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00592.x
14. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.294
15. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
16. Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21(2), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(93)90041-E
17. Ergünay, O. (2008). The effects of WCF on Turkish EFL learners’ use of state verbs: An experimental study. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr
18. Eylenen, S. (2008). The effect of three different types of corrective feedback on writing performances of English language learners. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr
19. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
20. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes, a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
21. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
22. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.008
23. Ferris, D.R. (2010). Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
24. Ferris, D.R., & Hedgcock, J.S. (2023). Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003004943
25. Ferris, D. R. & Kurzer, K. (2018). Does error feedback help L2 writers? Latest evidence on the efficacy of written corrective feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.008
26. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00039-x
27. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Hyams, N., Amberber, M., Cox, F., & Thornton, R. (2021). An introduction to language (10th ed.). Boston: Cengage.
28. Goldstein, A. A. ve Carr, P. G. (1996). Can students benefit from process writing? NCES Report, 3(1), 96-845. https://doi.org/10.1037/e314642005-001
29. Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
30. Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-109. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781
31. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University.
32. Ho, B. (2006). Using the process approach to teach writing in 6 Hong Kong primary classrooms. New Horizons in Education, 53, 22-41. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ847597
33. Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
34. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.003
35. Kahyalar, E. (2013). The impact of comprehensive indirect coded feedback on EFL learners’ writing performance. (Master’s thesis).Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr
36. Kroll, B. (1990). Second language writing (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551
37. Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
38. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm027
39. Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84
40. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
41. Leki, I. (2006). “You cannot ignore”: L2 graduate students' response to discipline-based written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Authors), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 266-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524742.016
42. Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching, 15, 65-79. Retrieved from https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jslat/article/id/229/
43. Mackey, A., & Gass, S.M. (2021). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003188414
44. Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing, 1, 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.004
45. Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: An introduction. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740553
46. Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.https://doi.org/10.2307/3586978
47. Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm002
48. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986, March). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
49. Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the students’ perceptions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.38.1.04rum
50. Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing. System, 40(4), 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.001
51. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
52. Seker, M., & Dincer, A. (2014). An insight to students’ perceptions on teacher feedback in second language writing classes. English Language Teaching, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p73
53. Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x
54. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700-38
55. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
56. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
57. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
58. Valizadeh, M. (2019).Comprehensive written corrective feedback: effects on L2 syntactic accuracy and complexity in writing. (Master's thesis). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr
59. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 155–177.https://doi.org/10.2143/itl.156.0.2034439
60. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.5
62. Weigle, S. C. (2009) Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
63. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
64. Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly 10, 67-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/3585940
65. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586647
66. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773