İngilizce Hazırlık Biriminde Görev Yapan Öğretim Elemanlarının Yazılı Düzeltici Dönüte Yönelik İnanç ve Uygulamaları

Öz

Yabancı dilde yazma eğitimi oldukça karmaşık ve çok yönlü bir süreçtir. Bu zorlu süreçte eğitimciler daha iyi bir yazma eğitimi verebilmek için birçok farklı yönteme başvurabilmektedir. Bu yöntemlerden biri olan yazılı düzeltici dönüt (YDD) eğitimcilerin öğrencilerin hatalarına verdikleri tepkiler olarak tanımlanabilmektedir. Yabancı dil sınıflarında yazılı düzeltici dönüt kullanımı araştırmacılar arasında süregelen bir tartışma konusudur. Bazı araştırmacılar YDD’nin faydalı olduğunu ve sınıfta kullanılması gerektiğini öne sürerken diğerleri bazı nedenlerden dolayı kesinlikle kullanılmaması gerektiğini öne sürmektedir. Ancak kesin bir sonuca varılabilmesi için bu alanda daha fazla çalışmaya ihtiyaç vardır. Mevcut araştırmalar genellikle YDD’nin etkililiğini, türlerini ve EFL öğrencilerinin dönüte yönelik tutumlarını incelemektedir. Nitekim YDD etkisi değerlendirilirken sadece öğrenci gözünden değil, eğitimci gözünden de uygulamaya bakılmalıdır. Bu nedenle bu çalışmanın temel amacı bir İngilizce hazırlık programında görev yapan öğretim elemanlarının YDD’ye ilişkin görüşlerini incelemek ve bu görüşlerle gerçek uygulamaları arasındaki uyumu araştırmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda bir devlet üniversitesinde İngilizce hazırlık programında yazma dersleri veren üç öğretim elemanıyla yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiş ve uygulama örnekleri toplanmıştır. Görüşmelerde katılımcıların eğitim geçmişi, mesleki deneyimleri ve YDD hakkındaki inançlar sorgulanırken toplanan YDD örnekleri gerçek sınıf uygulamalarının nasıl şekillendiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu veriler ışığında öğretim elemanlarının inançları ile uygulamaları arasındaki tutarsızlıklar ve bu tutarsızlıklara yol açan faktörler analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma sonuçlarına göre öğretim elemanlarının ders yüklerinin fazla olması, sınıfların kalabalık olması ve ders saatlerinin yetersizliği gibi sebeplerden öğretim elemanları yabancı dil eğitiminde istedikleri uygulamaları tam olarak gerçekleştirememektedir. Sonuç olarak makalede bu farklılıkların nedenleri tartışılmış ve pedagojik çözüm önerileri sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yazılı Düzeltici Dönüt
• EFL
• Yabancı Dil Eğitimi
• Yabancı Dilde Yazma Eğitimi.

Teaching Staff’s Beliefs and Practices towards Written Corrective Feedback in English Preparatory School

Öz

Teaching writing in a foreign language is a highly complex and multifaceted process. In this challenging process, educators can utilize many different methods to provide better writing education. One of these methods, written corrective feedback (WRF), can be defined as the reactions educators give to students' mistakes in writing. The use of WCF in foreign language classes is an ongoing debate among researchers. While some researchers argue that written corrective feedback is beneficial and should be used in the classroom, others state that it should be avoided for several reasons. However, more studies are needed to elucidate the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in reaching a consensus. Current studies in this field generally cover the effectiveness of written corrective feedback, its types, and EFL students' attitudes towards feedback. However, when investigating the efficacy of written corrective feedback, it should be delved into not only from the perspective of students but also from the perspective of educators. Therefore, the study aims to reveal the opinions of teaching staff working in an English preparatory program regarding WCF and to investigate the consistency between these opinions and their actual practices. For this purpose, semi-structured interviews were conducted with three teaching staff who teach writing in the English preparatory school at a state university, and they provided practice examples. In the interviews, information was obtained about the teaching staffs` educational background, years of experience, and their beliefs about written corrective feedback. Additionally, how they applied written corrective feedback was examined in the requested practice examples. According to the results of the study, the instructors cannot fully implement the practices they want in foreign language education due to reasons such as heavy course loads, crowded classes, and insufficient lesson hours. Thus, the mismatches between their beliefs and practices and the factors that cause these mismatches were examined. As a result, the reasons for these mismatches were discussed, and pedagogical solutions were proposed in the article.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Written Corrective Feedback
• EFL
• Foreign Language Education
• Foreign Language Writing Education.

Kaynakça

1. Adzhar, N., Puteh, M., & Sazalli, N. A. H. (2025). Exploring teachers’ beliefs in written corrective feedback (WCF) in Kuala Lumpur secondary schools. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15(1), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i1/24483
2. Ahmetović E., Bećirović S., Dubravac V., & Brdarević-Čeljo A. (2023). The interplay between corrective feedback, motivation and EFL achievement in middle and high school education. Journal of Language and Education, 9(1), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.12663
3. Almohawes M (2025). Undergraduate EFL learners’ preferences for three different types of written corrective feedback. Frontiers in Education, 10(1532729), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1532729
4. Alqurashi, F. (2022). ESP writing teachers' beliefs and practices on WCF: Do they really meet?. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(Special Issue 1), 569-593.
5. Aminah, M., & Supriadi, T. F. (2023). Writing diffuculties faced by English foreign language students, Jurnal Ilmiah Hospitality, 12(1), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.47492/jih.v12i1.2663
6. Annury, M. N., Ma`mun, N., & Sutrisno, D. (2023). Teachers’ beliefs and practice on providing EFL written corrective feedback. Journal of English Teaching and Learning Issues, 6(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.21043/jetli.v6i1.19360
7. Aquino, C. J. B., & Cuello, R. (2020, June 17-19). Teachers’ beliefs and practices on written corrective feedback: Matched or mismatched? [Paper presentation]. Da La Salle University (DLSU) Research Congress 2020. Manila, Philippine. https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-congress-proceedings/2020/LLI-01.pdf
8. Aull, L. (2020). Student-centered assessment and online writing feedback: Technology in a time of crisis. In Assessing Writing, 46, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100483

9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2) 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
10. Cahyono, B. Y., & Yahayu, T. (2020). EFL students` motivation in writing, writing proficiency, and gender. TEFLIN Journal, 31(2), 162-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v31i2/162-180
11. Chen, W., & Liu, G.-q. (2021). Effectiveness of corrective feedback: Teachers’ perspectives. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.120974
12. Chen, W. (2023). Investigating novice EFL writing teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning written corrective feedback across contexts: A case study from a complexity theory perspective. Language Awareness, 32(3), 465-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2022.2119993
13. Chico, K. Z. H. (2022). An analysis of factors influencing EFL learners writing skills. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.53103/cjlls.v2i2.38
14. Şakrak-Ekin, G., & Balçıkanlı, C. (2019). Written corrective feedback: EFL teachers` beliefs and practices. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 114-128.
15. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language and Teaching Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
16. Fitriyah, I., Ningrum, A., & Gozali, I. (2024). An investigation of written corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: How teachers’ feedback practices meet students’ expectations. International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 166-184. https://doi.org/10.22034/IJLT.2023.411616.1275
17. Golpour, F., Ahour, T., & Ahangari, S. (2020). Iranian EFL teachers' beliefs and practices regarding written corrective feedback with a focus on teaching experience. Journal of Language Horizons, 4(1), 247-271. https://doi.org/10.22051/lghor.2020.28210.1184
18. Hao, H., & Razali, A. B. (2022). The impact of peer feedback on Chinese EFL junior high school students’ writing performance. English Language Teaching, 15(9), 9-31. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n9p9
19. Horbacauskiene, J., & Kasperaviciene, R. (2016). Writing assignments as a way of enhancing foreign language proficiency at university studies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.037
20. Hosseinpour, N., Biria, R., & Rezvani, E. (2019). Promoting academic writing proficiency of Iranian EFL learners through blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.640525
21. Lee, I. (2024). The future of written corrective feedback research. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(4), 660-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2024.2388068
22. Leki, I. (2001). Material, educational, and ideological challenges of teaching EFL writing at the turn of the century. IJES, 1(2), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.1.2.48301
23. Lira-Gonzales, M. L., Valeo, A., & Barkaoui, K. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and practice about written corrective feedback: A case study in a French as a foreign language program. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 25, 5-28. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.25.02
24. Mustafa, A., Arbab, A. N., & El Sayed, A. A. (2022). Difficulties in academic writing in English as a second/foreign language from the perspective of undergraduate students in higher education ınstitutions in Oman. Arab World English Journal, 13 (3) 41-53. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no3.3
25. Oranga, J., & Matere, A. (2023) Qualitative research: Essence, types and advantages. Open Access Library Journal, 10(e11001), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1111001
26. Purnomo, W., Basthomi, Y., & Prayogo, J. (2021). EFL university teachers` perspectives in written corrective feedback and their actual applications. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(3), 1089-1099. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i3.21641
27. Rasool, U., Qian, J., & Aslam, M.Z. (2023). An investigation of foreign language writing anxiety and its reasons among pre-service EFL teachers in Pakistan. Frontiers in Psychology. (13)947867, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947867
28. Saiyad, M. A., & Mevada, S. (2024). Writing anxiety among ESL learners: Implications for teacher education. Language and Language Teaching, 12(25), 51-58.
29. Soleimani, N., & Rahimi, M. (2021). (Mis) Alignment of Iranian EFL teacher’s written corrective feedback beliefs and practices from an activity theory perspective. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1901640
30. 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
31. Tzoannopoulou, M. (2016). Foreign language anxiety and fear of negative evaluation in the Greek university classroom. Selected Papers of the 21st International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISTAL 21), 823-838.
32. Yang, L., Zhang, L., Li, C., Wang, K., Fan, L., & Yu, R. (2025). Investigating EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about written corrective feedback: A large-scale study, Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 25, 29-65. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.25.03