SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 4

Enhancing English Writing Skills through Sequential Integration of Indirect and Direct Feedback

Dolaylı ve Doğrudan Geri Bildirimin Sıralı Biçimde Bütünleştirilmesiyle İngilizce Yazma Becerilerinin Geliştirilmesi

Funda Ölmez-Çağlar(AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-6114-8445
Gonca Nur Ölmez(ANTALYA BILIM UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3381-6730
Pages
853–878
Publication Date
2026-10-29
🏛️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)

Therefore, the results provided classroom-based evidence for the potential of a two-phase feedback cycle for low-proficiency learners, with indirect WCF as the primary intervention and direct WCF as a supplement.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The distinct impacts of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on writing skills have been extensively explored in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching, yielding mixed results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Participants were 18 beginner (A1) level EFL students at a university in Türkiye.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, the results provided classroom-based evidence for the potential of a two-phase feedback cycle for low-proficiency learners, with indirect WCF as the primary intervention and direct WCF as a supplement.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Doğrudan yazılı düzeltme geri bildirimi · dolaylı yazılı düzeltme geri bildirimi · yabancı dil olarak İngilizce

Abstract

The distinct impacts of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on writing skills have been extensively explored in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching, yielding mixed results. Prior research has underscored the suitability of indirect WCF for students with high English proficiency, leaving the benefits for low-proficiency students under-researched. This case study examined the effect of sequentially integrating indirect and direct WCF on the EFL writing skills of students with low English proficiency, with a particular focus on their reflections on indirect WCF. Participants were 18 beginner (A1) level EFL students at a university in Türkiye. Over seven weeks, they wrote an initial paragraph, revised it into a second draft using indirect WCF, and finalized it through direct WCF each week. Statistical analysis of first- and second-draft scores revealed significant within-week increases, indicating improvement across successive drafts each week. Content analysis of reflection reports and stimulated recall interviews revealed that students benefited from indirect WCF, particularly correction symbols, as part of this process. Therefore, the results provided classroom-based evidence for the potential of a two-phase feedback cycle for low-proficiency learners, with indirect WCF as the primary intervention and direct WCF as a supplement.

Özet

Doğrudan ve dolaylı yazılı düzeltme geri bildirimlerinin yazma becerileri üzerindeki farklılaşan etkileri, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretiminde kapsamlı bir şekilde araştırılmış ve farklı sonuçlara varılmıştır. Önceki araştırmalar dolaylı yazılı düzeltme geri bildiriminin İngilizce yeterlilik düzeyi yüksek öğrenciler için uygun olduğunu vurgularken, bunun İngilizce seviyesi düşük öğrenciler için yararları yeterince araştırılmamıştır. Bu durum çalışmasında, dolaylı ve doğrudan yazılı düzeltme geri bildirimlerinin sıralı biçimde bütünleştirilmesinin İngilizce yeterlilik düzeyi düşük öğrencilerin İngilizce yazma becerilerine etkisi araştırılmış ve özellikle öğrencilerin dolaylı geri bildirime ilişkin yansımalarına odaklanılmıştır. Katılımcılar Türkiye’deki bir üniversitede öğrenim gören başlangıç (A1) İngilizce seviyesindeki 18 öğrenciden oluşmuştur. Yedi haftalık süreçte öğrenciler her hafta bir paragraf yazmış, bu paragrafı sırasıyla verilen dolaylı yazılı düzeltme geri bildirimine dayalı olarak ikinci bir taslakta düzenlemiş ve doğrudan geri bildirime dayanarak paragrafın son halini vermiştir. Öğrencilerin birinci ve ikinci taslak puanlarının istatistiksel analizi, her hafta içinde anlamlı puan artışları olduğunu göstermiştir ve bu durum, bu sıralı geri bildirim bütünleştirmesinin her hafta birbirini izleyen taslaklar arasında bir gelişmeye işaret ettiğini ortaya koymuştur. Yansıtma raporlarının ve uyarılmış geri çağırma görüşmelerinin içerik analizi, öğrencilerin bu sürecin bir parçası olan dolaylı yazılı düzeltme geri bildiriminden, özellikle düzeltme sembollerinden yararlandığına işaret etmiştir. Dolayısıyla, araştırma sonuçları, düşük seviyedeki öğrenenler için dolaylı yazılı düzeltme geri bildiriminin ana uygulama olarak kullanıldığı ve doğrudan geri bildirimle desteklendiği iki aşamalı geri bildirim döngüsünün potansiyeline ilişkin sınıf ortamında elde edilen kanıtlar sunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ölmez-Çağlar, F., Ölmez, G. N. (2026). Enhancing English Writing Skills through Sequential Integration of Indirect and Direct Feedback. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 4, 853–878. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1805816

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00027-8
  2. Beuningen, C. V., Jong, N. D., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(1), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
  3. Bitchener, J. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 207–225). Cambridge University Press.
  4. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
  5. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
  6. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
  7. Brown, D., Liu, Q., & Norouzian, R. (2023). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374
  8. Budianto, S., Sulistyo, T., Widiastuti, O., Heriyawati, D. F., & Marhaban, S. (2020). Written corrective feedback across different levels of EFL students’ academic writing proficiency: Outcomes and implications. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 472-485. https://doi.org./10.24815/siele.v7i2.16569
  9. 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
  10. Cheng, X., & Xu, J. (2025). Engaging second language (L2) students with synchronous written corrective feedback in technology-enhanced learning contexts: A mixed-methods study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05007-3
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
  14. East, M. (2009). Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign language writing. Assessing Writing, 14(2), 88-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2009.04.001
  15. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
  16. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press.
  17. 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
  18. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
  19. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Routledge.
  20. 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 University Press.
  21. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
  22. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J.S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, & practice (2nd Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  23. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
  24. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson Education.
  25. Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: A case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410
  26. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  27. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
  28. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
  29. Kang, E. (2022). A meta-analysis of short-and long-term effects of written corrective feedback on L2 grammatical accuracy in writing. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 22, 1269-1286. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22.202211.1269
  30. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
  31. Karaca, M., & Uysal, H. H. (2023). An investigation into L2 writing teacher beliefs and their possible sources. Assessing Writing, 56, 100710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100710
  32. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
  33. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). 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
  34. Kartal, M. G., & Atay, D. (2019). Corrective feedback on writing in EFL context: comparison of two approaches. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 385-401. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.651390
  35. Kıvrak, C. (2023). Turkish EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback. Journal of Language Research, 7(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.51726/jlr.1341654
  36. Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students' perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176-199. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fflan.12443
  37. Kim, M., & Hiver, P. (2025). The effect of metacognitive instruction with indirect written corrective feedback on secondary students’ engagement and functional adequacy in L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 66, 100962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2025.100962
  38. 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
  39. Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
  40. Lim, S. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Efficacy of written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A meta-analysis. TESL-EJ, 24(3), 1-26.
  41. Loewen, S. (2013). The role of feedback. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24-40). Routledge.
  42. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
  43. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
  44. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.) (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. Routledge.
  45. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045
  46. Park, E. S., Song, S., & Shin, Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 678-699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609617
  47. Pham, L. N. (2023). The interplay between learner autonomy and indirect written corrective feedback in EFL writing. TESOL Journal, 14, e694. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.694
  48. Rasool, U., Qian, J., & Chen, H. (2026). Educational psychology perspectives on cognitive load and written corrective feedback: Enhancing past tense acquisition in L2 learning. Frontiers in Education, 11, 1695913. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1695913
  49. Saragih, N. A., Madya, S., Siregar, R. A., & Saragih, W. (2021). Written corrective feedback: Students' perception and preferences. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 8(2), 676-690.
  50. Shao, J., & Liu, Y. (2022). Written corrective feedback, learner-internal cognitive processes, and the acquisition of regular past tense by Chinese L2 learners of English. Applied Linguistics Review, 13(6), 1005-1028. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.51034
  51. Sherpa, S.Z. (2021). Effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on Bhutanese learners’ grammatical accuracy over time. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(1), 574-603.
  52. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
  53. Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181
  54. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
  55. Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
  56. Trabelsi, S. (2019). The perceptions and preferences of the general foundation programme students regarding written corrective feedback in an Omani EFL context. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(1), 91-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.1p.91
  57. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
  58. Uludağ, O. (2025). The immediate and delayed effects of direct versus indirect written corrective feedback on Turkish EFL learners' accuracy development in using past counterfactual conditionals. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 12(1), 286-310.
  59. Üstünbaş, Ü., & Çimen, S. (2016). EFL learners’ preferences for feedback types for their written products. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 6(4), 68-74.
  60. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
  61. Wondim, B. M., Bishaw, K. S., & Zeleke, Y. T. (2024). Effectiveness of teachers' direct and indirect written corrective feedback provision strategies on enhancing students’ writing achievement: Ethiopian university entrants in focus. Heliyon, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24279
  62. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
  63. Zhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P. (2021). EFL students' preferences for written corrective feedback: Do error types, language proficiency, and foreign language enjoyment matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 660564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564
  64. Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
  65. Kang, E. (2022). A meta-analysis of short-and long-term effects of written corrective feedback on L2 grammatical accuracy in writing. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 22, 1269-1286. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22.202211.1269