Türkçenin Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğretiminde Yazılı Düzeltici Geri Bildirimin Yazma Başarısı ve Yazma Kaygısına Etkisi

Year 2026, Volume: 6 Issue: 1 , 219 - 251 , 27.04.2026

Ahmet Gürkan Karataş , Mustafa Yıldız

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19323947

https://izlik.org/JA97GC77KP

Abstract

Bu çalışmada odaklanılmış yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim (YDG), odaklanılmamış yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim ve düzeltici geri bildirim vermemenin (DGV) Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen 67 öğrencinin yazma başarımı ve yazma kaygısı üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Açıklayıcı sıralı karma yöntem deseni kullanılan araştırmada, nicel aşamada dört grupla (odaklanılmış YDG, odaklanılmamış YDG, DGV ve kontrol) karışık desenli ANOVA uygulanmış ve kalıcılığı incelemek amacıyla gecikmeli son test yapılmıştır. Nitel aşamada ise 18 öğrenciyle görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, yazma başarımının odaklanılmış YDG grubunda zaman içinde anlamlı biçimde arttığını (p < ,05); odaklanılmamış YDG grubunda ise daha sınırlı bir genel artış görülmekle birlikte Bonferroni düzeltmeli ikili karşılaştırmalarda bu artışın istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeye ulaşmadığını göstermiştir. DGV ve kontrol grubunda ise anlamlı bir artış saptanmamıştır. Gecikmeli son testte odaklanılmış YDG grubunun kalıcılık düzeyinin daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Yazma kaygısı Wilcoxon ve Kruskal-Wallis testleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Buna göre analiz sonuçları, YDG gruplarında ters kodlanmış ölçek puanlarındaki artışla gösterilen anlamlı bir kaygı azalmasına (p < ,001), E3 (DGV) grubunda kaygı artışına ve kontrol grubunda anlamlı bir değişim olmadığına işaret etmiştir. Dunn post-hoc karşılaştırmaları, YDG alan grupların kaygı düzeylerinin DGV grubuna kıyasla anlamlı biçimde daha düşük olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Nitel bulgular da bu sonuçları destekleyerek YDG’nin öğrencilerin farkındalık ve öz düzenleme becerilerini geliştirdiğini, yazma gelişimini güçlendirdiğini ve değerlendirilme korkusunu azalttığını göstermiştir.

Keywords

Karma yöntem , odaklanılmış geri bildirim , yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretimi , yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim , yazma kaygısı

Ethical Statement

Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma Etik Kurulu, Tarih: 10.06.2022, Numara: 2022/254-07.

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance and Writing Anxiety in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language

https://izlik.org/JA97GC77KP

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of focused written corrective feedback (WCF), unfocused WCF, and no corrective feedback (NCF) on the writing performance and writing anxiety of 67 learners of Turkish as a foreign language. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, the quantitative phase employed a mixed-design ANOVA with four groups (focused WCF, unfocused WCF, NCF, and control), followed by a delayed post-test to examine retention. Qualitative interviews were also conducted with 18 learners. Results showed that writing performance improved significantly in the focused WCF group over time (p < ,05), whereas the unfocused WCF group showed a smaller overall improvement that did not reach statistical significance in Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons. No significant gains were observed in the NCF or control group. The focused WCF group demonstrated superior retention in the delayed post-test. Regarding anxiety, Wilcoxon and Kruskal–Wallis tests indicated significant reductions in anxiety levels (indicated by an increase in reverse-coded WAS scores) in the focused and unfocused WCF groups (p < ,001), an increase in anxiety in the NCF group, and no significant change in the control group. Dunn’s post-hoc comparisons further confirmed that feedback-receiving groups reported significantly lower anxiety than the NCF group. Qualitative findings supported these results, suggesting that WCF enhanced learners’ awareness and self-regulation, strengthened writing development, and mitigated fear of evaluation.

Keywords

Focused feedback , mixed-methods , teaching Turkish as a foreign language , writing anxiety , written corrective feedback

Ethical Statement

Necmettin Erbakan University Social and Human Sciences Scientific Research Ethics Committee, Date: 10.06.2022, Number: 2022/254-07.

References

• Abdullah, H., & Sidek, H. M. (2012). L2 writing feedback: Alignment of instructional planning and implementation. Journal of Language Studies, 15, 15-17.
• Akbulut, S. (2016). Attitude and apprehension of people learning Turkish as a foreign language towards writing [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Pamukkale University.
• Aydın, S., & Zengin, B. (2008). Yabancı dil öğreniminde kaygı: Bir literatür özeti. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4(1), 81-94. https://izlik.org/JA77NA66HL
• Balcı, A. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler (12. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
• Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
• Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. Prentice Hall.
• Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38(3), 491-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001
• Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Deneysel desenler (5.baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• Çelebi, S. (2017). The effect of teaching prosody through visual feedback activities on oral reading skills in teaching Turkish as foreign language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Atatürk University.
• Cen, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2024). The motivational aspect of feedback: A meta-analysis on the effect of different feedback practices on L2 learners’ writing motivation. Assessing Writing, 59, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100802
• 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, 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
• Cheng, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.07.001
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
• Demir, A. (2019). The effect of technology supported teaching and traditional teaching method on the feedback of Turkish-language teacher candidates [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Hatay Mustafa Kemal University.
• Durmuş, A. O. (2022). The effect of feedback based on analytic scoring rubric to improve writing skills in Turkish as a foreign language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
• Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback styles. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
• 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
• Erol, N. (2024). The effect of direct and indirect feedback on the written success of students learning Turkish as a foreign language [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bartın University.
• Ferris, D. (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
• Ferris, D. R. (1995). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal 8, 41–62.
• 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, 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
• Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers/new evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In Hyland, K., Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007
• Ferris, D., & 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
• Ferris, D.R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31, 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
• Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2023). How to design and evaluate research in education (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993a). On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43(2), 157-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00714.x
• Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993b). A student’s contributions to second-language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26(1), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800000045
• Göçer, A., & Şentürk, R. (2019). Types of feedback for the development of writing skills in Turkish education. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (43), 123-149.
• Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. Longman.
• Hamzadayı, E. (2015). Written peer feedback apperances of c1 level Turkish learning foreign students. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 7(2), 287-298.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
• Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x
• Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
• İltar, L., & Karataş, A. G. (2022). Writing rubric for narrative/demonstrative text in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Okuma Yazma Eğitimi Araştırmaları, 10(2), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.35233/oyea.1177730
• İşcan, A. & Karagöz, B. (2016). A study on speech anxiety of Turkish language teacher candidates (Example of Gaziosmanpaşa University). Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 193-206. https://izlik.org/JA62DF28JS
• Işık, Ö. F. (2015). An applied study about improving writing skills in teaching Turkish as a second language by using the online feedback technique [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
• İskender, M. E. (2021). Examining students’ classroom anxiety from beginner to proficiency level in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. In F. Nayır (Ed.), Proceedings of the VIIIth International Eurasian Educational Research Congress (pp. 729–741). Anı Publishing.
• Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
• Kaptı, M. (2018). The evaluation of the student’ views about feedback in teaching of turkish as a foreign language [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
• Karakaya, I., & Ülper, H. (2011). Developing a writing anxiety scale and examining writing anxiety based on various variables. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 703-707.
• Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler (35. baskı). Nobel Yayınları.
• Kardaş, D. M. (2021). The effect of feedback on the development of four basic language skills in teaching Turkish to foreigners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
• Kardaş, D. M., & Cömert, Ö. B. (2021). A research on the effect of feedback on student achievement in teaching turkish grammar to foreigners. Turkish Studies, 16(1), 423-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.47423/TurkishStudies.47818
• Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
• Kılıç, İ. (2017). The effect of direct and indirect feedback on possessive and positional suffixes in Turkish at Sakarya University language center (TÖMER) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sakarya University.
• Kim, J. H. (2019). Relative effects of direct focused and unfocused WCF on the accuracy development of two language forms. English Teaching, 74(4), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.4.201912.29
• Kırmızı, Ö., & Kırmızı, G. D. (2015). An investigation of L2 learners’ writing self-efficacy, writing anxiety and its causes at higher education in Turkey. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p57
• Kocaman, O., & Maral, B. N. (2022). Effects of explicit corrective feedback on writing skill: A private middle school example. The Literacy Trek, 8(1), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.1121256
• Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
• Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 66, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
• Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer Nature.
• Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
• Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2021). How languages are learned (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
• MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01103.x
• Maden, S., Dincel, Ö., & Maden, A. (2015). Writing anxieties of people who learn Turkish as a foreign language. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 3(2), 748–763. https://doi.org/10.7884/teke.488
• Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57, 449-477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000393
• Masrul, M., Erliana, S., Rasyidah, U., & Wicaksono, B. H. (2024). The effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on accuracy and fluency of university students’ English writing. World Journal of English Language, 14(2), 388-399. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n2p388
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
• Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counselling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
• Moser, A. (2020). Written corrective feedback: The role of learner engagement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63994-5
• Özşavlı, M. (2017). The effect of peer feedback on Turkish as a foreign language students’ writing [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Mustafa Kemal University.
• Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
• Rachman, S. (2013). Anxiety (3rd ed.). Psychology Press.
• Razmi, M. H., & Ghane, M. H. (2024). The impact of written corrective feedback on students’ writing performance, self-efficacy, and anxiety. Journal of Writing Research, 16(2), 271-321.
• Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
• Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28(1), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00309.x
• Şen, Ü., & Boylu, E. (2017). Developing writing anxiety scale for those who learn Turkish as foreign language. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 6(2), 1122-1132.
• Serpen, M. N. (2024). The effect of feedback studies on written expressions of students learning Turkish as a foreign language [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University.
• 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
• Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners’ writing development. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies,12(1) 7-17.
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Putting the human back in “human research methodology”: The researcher in mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 4(4), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382532
• Tekin, E. (2023). The effect of computer and mobile assisted feedback on students’ expression skills in teaching Turkish as a foreign language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Yıldız Teknik University.
• Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
• Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case against 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
• Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002
• Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
• Truscott, J. (2010). Further thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38(4), 626-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.10.003
• Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
• Yastıbaş, G. C., & Yastıbaş, A. E. (2015). The effect of peer feedback on writing anxiety in Turkish EFL (English as a foreign language) students. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 530-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.543
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zhu, S., & Wang, C. (2025). Effects of corrective feedback on writing motivation and anxiety: A structural equation model of adult CSL learners in Vietnam. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 57, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101844
• Zileli, E. N. (2024). Feedback of instructors teaching Turkish to foreigners on writing skills and their observations on learners’ motivations [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University.
• Zorbaz, K. Z. (2011). Writing apprehension and measurement of it. Education Sciences, 6(3), 2271-2280.