SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Milli Eğitim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 55 Sayı: 251

Examining the Influence of L1 on Feedback Literacy: A Cross-Cultural Feedback Literacy Study

Anadilin Geri Bildirim Okuryazarlığına Etkisinin İncelenmesi: Kültürlerarası Bir Geri Bildirim Okuryazarlığı Araştırması

Sabahattin Yeşilçınar(MUS ALPARSLAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-6457-0211
Kaveh Jalilzadeh(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL VOCATIONAL SCHOOL, GLASS PR.)0000-0003-3113-512X
Mehmet Şata(VAN YUZUNCU YIL UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2683-4997
Pages
1189–1210
Publication Date
2026-08-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Educators and institutions can benefit from these findings by adopting context-sensitive approaches to feedback literacy, promoting effective feedback practices in language learning contexts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the impact of L1 (native language) on feedback literacy among EFL learners from Türkiye, Iraq, and Iran.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Understanding the role of L1 in feedback provision contributes to the knowledge of effective feedback practices for diverse language learners.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Educators and institutions can benefit from these findings by adopting context-sensitive approaches to feedback literacy, promoting effective feedback practices in language learning contexts.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:geri bildirim okuryazarlığı · kültür ve geri bildirim · geri bildirim okuryazarlığında madde yanlılıkları

Abstract

This study examines the impact of L1 (native language) on feedback literacy among EFL learners from Türkiye, Iraq, and Iran. It also investigates potential item biases in feedback literacy across diverse contexts and explores variations in feedback literacy levels based on native language, language proficiency, and gender. By focusing on these variables, the research highlights the multifaceted nature of feedback literacy and its dependency on both individual and contextual factors. The findings emphasize the significance of students' literacy backgrounds, cultural influences, and prior educational experiences in shaping feedback literacy, advocating for an inclusive and culturally sensitive approach. This approach is particularly critical for addressing the challenges faced by linguistically diverse learners in higher education contexts. The findings shed light on the intricate interplay of cultural, linguistic, and educational factors in feedback literacy and offer practical insights for educators and institutions. Understanding the role of L1 in feedback provision contributes to the knowledge of effective feedback practices for diverse language learners. Recognizing the diverse literacy backgrounds and experiences of students enables higher education institutions to better support the development of feedback literacy, fostering inclusive and culturally responsive learning environments. This study contributes to the existing literature on feedback literacy and provides a foundation for further exploration. Educators and institutions can benefit from these findings by adopting context-sensitive approaches to feedback literacy, promoting effective feedback practices in language learning contexts.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye, Irak ve İran'dan İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen bireyler (EFL öğrencileri) arasında ana dilinin (L1) geri bildirim okuryazarlığı üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Aynı zamanda, geri bildirim okuryazarlığı ile ilgili maddelerin farklı bağlamlardaki olası yanlılıklarını araştırmakta ve geri bildirim okuryazarlığı seviyelerindeki farklılıkları ana dil, dil yeterliği ve cinsiyet değişkenleri açısından değerlendirmektedir. Bu değişkenlere odaklanarak, araştırma geri bildirim okuryazarlığının çok yönlü doğasını ve bireysel ile bağlamsal faktörlere olan bağımlılığını ortaya koymaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, öğrencilerin okuryazarlık geçmişlerinin, kültürel etkilerin ve önceki eğitim deneyimlerinin geri bildirim okuryazarlığını şekillendirmedeki önemini vurgulamakta ve kapsayıcı, kültürel olarak duyarlı bir yaklaşım benimsenmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım, özellikle dilsel çeşitlilik gösteren öğrenicilerin yükseköğretim bağlamında karşılaştıkları zorlukların ele alınmasında kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Araştırma, geri bildirim okuryazarlığındaki kültürel, dilsel ve eğitsel faktörlerin karmaşık etkileşimine ışık tutarak, eğitimciler ve kurumlar için pratik öneriler sunmaktadır. Ana dilin geri bildirim sağlama sürecindeki rolünü anlamak, farklı dil geçmişlerine sahip öğrenicilere yönelik etkili geri bildirim uygulamalarına ilişkin bilgi birikimine katkı sağlamaktadır. Öğrencilerin çeşitli okuryazarlık geçmişlerini ve deneyimlerini tanımak, yükseköğretim kurumlarının geri bildirim okuryazarlığını geliştirmek için daha iyi destek sunmasını sağlayarak kapsayıcı ve kültürel olarak duyarlı öğrenme ortamlarını teşvik etmektedir. Bu çalışma, geri bildirim okuryazarlığına ilişkin mevcut literatüre katkı sunmakta ve daha ileri araştırmalar için bir temel oluşturmaktadır. Eğitimciler ve kurumlar, bu bulgular doğrultusunda bağlama duyarlı yaklaşımlar benimseyerek dil öğrenimi bağlamlarında etkili geri bildirim uygulamalarını destekleyebilirler.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yeşilçınar, S., Jalilzadeh, K., Şata, M. (2026). Examining the Influence of L1 on Feedback Literacy: A Cross-Cultural Feedback Literacy Study. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 55 Sayı: 251, 1189–1210. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1638231

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.20 18.1434128
  2. Barton, D., Ivanic, R., Appleby, Y., Hodge, R., & Tusting, K. (2007). Literacies, lives, and learning. Routledge.
  3. 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
  4. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
  5. Bond, T. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Routledge. Third Edition (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814698
  6. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/026 02938.2012.691462
  7. Burkitt, I. (2021). The emotions in cultural-historical activity theory: Personality, emotion and motivation in social relations and activity. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55, 797–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09615-x
  8. Carless, D. (2015). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69, 963- 976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9816-z
  9. Carless, D. (2019). Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: A need for teacher–student partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455
  10. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  11. Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.202 0.1782372
  12. Chong, S. (2021). Feedback engagement in university students: A multilevel examination of contextual influences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 83-99. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1730765
  13. Damşa, C. I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2016). Learning through interaction and co-construction of knowledge objects in teacher education. Learning, culture and social interaction, 11, 1-18. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.03.001
  14. Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Implementing intercultural competence assessment. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 477-491). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071872987.n28
  15. Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Pearson.
  16. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 719-731). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_47
  17. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156. https://doi. org/10.1080/13639080020028747
  18. Engestrom, Y., Brown, K., Engestrom, R., & Koistinen, K. (1990). Organizational forgetting: An activity-theoretical perspective. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering (pp. 139–168). Sage Publications.
  19. Esterhazy, R., & Damşa, C. (2019). Unpacking the feedback process: An analysis of undergraduate students’ interactional meaning-making of feedback comments. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 260-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1359249
  20. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
  21. Farrell, T. S. C. (2016). TESOL, a profession that eats its young! The importance of reflective practice in language teacher education. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 4(3), 97- 107. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127348.pdf
  22. Farrokhi, F., Esfandiari, R., & Schaefer, E. (2012). A many-facet Rasch measurement of differential rater severity/leniency in three types of assessment. JALT Journal, 34(1), 79-101. https://doi. org/10.37546/JALTJJ34.1-3
  23. Farrokhi, F., Esfandiari, R., & Vaez Dalili, M. (2011). Applying the many-facet Rasch model to detect centrality in self-assessment, peer-assessment and teacher assessment. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15(11), 76-83. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.11.1531-1540
  24. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-hill.
  25. Gao, Y., Liu, Y., Zeng, Y., & Wang, X. (2024). Studies on language teachers’ beliefs and emotions: Current status and future directions. Heliyon, 10(19), Article e38695.https://www.cell.com/ heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(24)14726-3
  26. Guo, W. (2021). Gender differences in teacher feedback and students’ self-regulated learning. Educational Studies, 50(3), 341-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1 943648
  27. Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European journal of psychology of education, 28, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y
  28. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547
  29. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B.A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i4.1772
  30. Kassim, A. N. L. (2007). Exploring rater judging behaviour using the many-facet Rasch model. [Paper Presented]. Second Biennial International Conference on Teaching and Learning of English in Asia: Exploring New Frontiers (TELiA2), Universiti Utara, Malaysia.
  31. Kim, Y., & Kim, T. Y. (2018). Korean EFL teachers’ emotional labor: An exploratory study. English Language Teaching, 30(2), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.17936/pkelt.2018.30.2.002
  32. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in higher education, 23(2), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750798 12331380364
  33. Leontyev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality (M. J. Hall, Trans.). Prentice Hall.
  34. Lillis, T., & Tuck, R. (2016). Academic literacies: A critical lens on writing and reading in the academy. In C. Bazerman, C. Dean, J. Early, K. Lunsford, S. Null, P. Rogers, & A. Stansell (Eds.), The Bedford book of genres: A guide and reader (pp. 24-37). Bedford/St. Martin’s. Linacre, J. M. (1993). Rasch-based generalizability theory. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(1), 283-284.
  35. Linacre, J. M. (2017). FACETS (Version 3.80.0) [Computer Software]. Mesa Press.
  36. Mahn, H., & John Steiner, V. (2002). The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 46-58). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1002/9780470753545.ch4
  37. Malecka, B., Boud, D., & Carless, D. (2022). Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: Mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(7), 908-922. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784
  38. Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2022). Researching L2 student engagement with written feedback: Insights from sociocultural theory. TESOL Quarterly, 56(2), 788-798. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3071
  39. Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Feedback in professional education: An introduction. In E. Molloy, D. Boud, & M. Henderson (Eds.), Feedback in professional education: Making sense of feedback in professional learning (pp. 1-15). Springer.
  40. Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W. (2003). Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part I. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4(4), 386-422.
  41. Nicol, D. (2021). The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 756-778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.20 20.1823314
  42. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
  43. Pitt, E., Bearman, M., & Esterhazy, R. (2020). The conundrum of low achievement and feedback for learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 45(2), 239-250. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/02602938.2019.1630363
  44. Plante, I., De la Sablonnière, R., Aronson, J. M., & Théorêt, M. (2013). Gender stereotype endorsement and achievement-related outcomes: The role of competence beliefs and task values. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 225-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cedpsych.2013.03.004
  45. Ramani, S., Post, S. E., Könings, K., Mann, K., Katz, J. T., & van der Vleuten, C. (2017). “It’s just not the culture”: A qualitative study exploring residents’ perceptions of the impact of institutional culture on feedback. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 29(2), 153-161. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10401334.2016.1244014
  46. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273
  47. Sampson, R. J. (2016). Complexity in classroom foreign language learning motivation: A practitioner perspective from Japan. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095896
  48. Sia, P. F. D., & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A qualitative synthesis of recent research. Issues in Language Studies, 6(1), 61-80. https:// doi.org/10.33736/ils.478.2017
  49. Song, B., & Kim, T. Y. (2016). Teacher (de)motivation from an Activity Theory perspective: Cases of two experienced EFL teachers in South Korea. System, 57, 134-145. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.006
  50. Sutton, P., & Gill, W. (2010). Engaging feedback: Meaning, identity and power. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 4(1), 3-13.
  51. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
  52. Tian, M., & Lowe, J. (2013). The role of feedback in cross-cultural learning: A case study of Chinese taught postgraduate students in a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 580-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.670196
  53. Värlander, S. (2008). The role of students’ emotions in formal feedback situations. Teaching in higher education, 13(2), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510801923195
  54. Vattøy, K. D., & Smith, K. (2019). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback practice in teaching English as a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 260-268. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.024
  55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology (R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton, Eds.). Springer Science & Business Media.
  56. Wakeling, P., & Hampden Thompson, G. (2013). Transition to higher degrees across the UK: An analysis of national, ınstitutional and ındividual differences (HEA Research Series). Higher Education Academy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561332
  57. Wertsch, J. V., del Río, P., & Alvarez, A. (1993). Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge University Press.
  58. Winstone, N. E., Mathlin, G., & Nash, R. A. (2019). Building feedback literacy: Students’ perceptions of the Developing Engagement with Feedback Toolkit. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00039
  59. Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Routledge.
  60. Yu, S., & Liu, C. (2021). Improving student feedback literacy in academic writing: An evidencebased framework. Assessing Writing, 48, Article 100525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. asw.2021.100525
  61. Zhan, Y. (2022). Developing and validating a student feedback literacy scale. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1087-1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001430
  62. Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, Article 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043