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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, H., & Sidek, H. M. (2012). L2 writing feedback: Alignment of instructional planning and implementation. Journal of Language Studies, 15, 15-17.
2. Akbulut, S. (2016). Attitude and apprehension of people learning Turkish as a foreign language towards writing [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Pamukkale University.
3. 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
4. Balcı, A. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler (12. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
5. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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

9. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
10. Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. Prentice Hall.
11. 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
12. 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
13. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Deneysel desenler (5.baskı). Pegem Akademi.
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback styles. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
22. 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
23. 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.
24. 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
25. Ferris, D. R. (1995). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal 8, 41–62.
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. Ferris, D.R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31, 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
30. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2023). How to design and evaluate research in education (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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.
34. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. Longman.
35. 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.
36. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
37. 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
38. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
39. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
40. 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
41. 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
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler (35. baskı). Nobel Yayınları.
48. 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.
49. 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
50. 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
51. 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.
52. 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
53. 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
54. 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
55. 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
56. 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
57. Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer Nature.
58. 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
59. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2021). How languages are learned (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
60. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
61. 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
62. 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
63. 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
64. 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
65. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
66. 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
67. Moser, A. (2020). Written corrective feedback: The role of learner engagement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63994-5
68. Özşavlı, M. (2017). The effect of peer feedback on Turkish as a foreign language students’ writing [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Mustafa Kemal University.
69. 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
70. Rachman, S. (2013). Anxiety (3rd ed.). Psychology Press.
71. 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.
72. 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
73. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
74. 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
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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
78. Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners’ writing development. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies,12(1) 7-17.
79. 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
80. 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
81. 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.
82. 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
83. 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
84. 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
85. 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
86. 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
87. 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
88. 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
89. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
90. 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
91. 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.
92. Zorbaz, K. Z. (2011). Writing apprehension and measurement of it. Education Sciences, 6(3), 2271-2280.