NOTICING INTERLINGUAL LEXICAL ERRORS IN TURKISH EFL WRITING: A COMPARISON OF LEARNER, TEACHER, AND CHATGPT ERROR FLAGGING AND FEEDBACK TYPES

Authors

  • Funda Dündar Department of Informatics, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Türkiye orcid.org/0000-0002-7209-5198

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v11i4.6913

Keywords:

interlingual errors, lexical errors, written corrective feedback, ChatGPT, EFL writing

Abstract

Written corrective feedback (WCF) from teachers and, more recently, from artificial intelligence (AI) tools has been widely studied; however, little attention has been paid to comparing how these sources address interlingual lexical errors. This study primarily aims to examine how the learners, the teacher, and AI feedback generated by ChatGPT differ in noticing and addressing interlingual lexical errors in EFL university writing. The present study was carried out at a state university where the English preparatory program introduces systematic writing instruction, progressing from paragraph writing (B1) to essay writing (early B2). Adopting a descriptive case study design, the study analysed 18 opinion texts produced by 12 B1-level students enrolled in an English preparatory programme at a Turkish state university. Six students each produced one opinion paragraph, while six different students each produced two opinion essays. A total of 81 error instances, identified through retrospective learner self-flagging, teacher feedback, and AI feedback, were classified according to James’s (1998) taxonomy, and the feedback types were coded following Ellis’s (2009) typology. The results showed that semantic errors constituted the majority of the instances (80.2%). The AI tool noticed the largest share of the errors (85.2%), followed by the learners (45.7%) and the teacher (28.4%), while all three sources converged on only 11 instances (13.6%). The teacher mostly provided indirect feedback with error codes, whereas the AI tool almost always gave direct feedback with an explanation. In this sense, it can be said that error identification works best as a complementary process, in which learner awareness, teacher judgement, and AI assistance each cover a different part of the errors.

Author Biography

  • Funda Dündar, Department of Informatics, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Türkiye orcid.org/0000-0002-7209-5198

    Funda Dündar is an EFL instructor at Eskisehir Technical University, School of Foreign Languages and a PhD candidate at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Türkiye, in Informatics Department. Her research interests include English Language Teaching and EFL writing.

    Academic profile: https://akademik.eskisehir.edu.tr/fundadundar

    Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GdT40_UAAAAJ

References

Al-Olimat, S. I. (2015). Using computer-mediated corrective feedback modes in developing students’ writing performance. Teaching English with Technology, 15(3), 3–30. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1138425.pdf

Arts, J. G., Jaspers, M., & Brinke, D. J. (2016). A case study on written comments as a form of feedback in teacher education: So much to gain. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2015.1116513

Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage. International Education Journal, 1(1), 22–31.

Carrió-Pastor, M. L., & Mestre-Mestre, E. M. (2014). Lexical errors in second language scientific writing: Some conceptual implications. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 97–108. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1042860.pdf

Cengiz, Y., & Yigitoglu Aptoula, N. (2026). Comparing AI and human feedback at higher education: Level appropriateness, quality and coverage. Language Teaching, 59(1), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444825000199

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161

Council of Europe. (n.d.). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Structured overview of all CEFR scales. https://rm.coe.int/168045b15e

Crosthwaite, P., & Sun, S. (2025). Generative AI and L2 written feedback studies: A scoping review. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251386530

Dodigovic, M., Ma, C., & Jing, S. (2017). Lexical transfer in the writing of Chinese learners of English. TESOL International Journal, 12(1), 75–90. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1247836.pdf

ElEbyary, K., Shabara, R., & Boraie, D. (2024). The differential role of AI-operated WCF in L2 students’ noticing of errors and its impact on writing scores. Language Testing in Asia, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00312-1

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Er, H. K., & Küçükali, E. (2024). The Effects of Face-to-Face vs. Digital Feedback in an EFL Writing Context: Comparison of Two Turkish State Universities. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024..-1340007

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., Liu, H., & Rabie, B. (2011). “The job of teaching writing”: Teacher views of responding to student writing. Writing & Pedagogy, 3(1), 39–77. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v3i1.39

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/websites.umass.edu/dist/c/2494/files/2015/08/Gass.Second-Language-Acquisition.pdf

Gök, Ş. (2020). Contrastive error analysis of Turkish EFL learners in writing. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 2(4), 236–242. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v2i4.429

Guo, K., & Wang, D. (2024). To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 8435–8463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0

Han, T., & Sari, E. (2024). An investigation on the use of automated feedback in Turkish EFL students’ writing classes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(4), 961–985. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2067179

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002

Hasırcıoğlu, S., & Öztürk, M. S. (2024). Analyzing mother tongue interference in Turkish EFL students’ written products: A lexical and syntactical perspective. Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.52911/itall.1438891

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Longman. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Errors_in_Language_Learning_and_Use.html?id=DLBoAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

Kaliisa, R., Misiejuk, K., López-Pernas, S., & Saqr, M. (2026). How does artificial intelligence compare to human feedback? A meta-analysis of performance, feedback perception, and learning dispositions. Educational Psychology, 46(1), 80–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2553639

Kazazoğlu, S. (2020). The impact of L1 interference on foreign language writing: A contrastive error analysis. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1177–1188. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803621

Kırkgöz, Y. (2010). An analysis of written errors of Turkish adult learners of English. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4352–4358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.692

Liu, Y. (2023). A comparison of automated corrective feedback and traditional corrective feedback: A review study. The Educational Review, USA, 7(9), 1365–1368. https://doi.org/10.26855/er.2023.09.024

Makino, T. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT Journal, 47(4), 337–341. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ474539

Mao, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004

Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. John Benjamins. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Collocations_in_a_Learner_Corpus.html?id=RasDwVvBp00C&redir_esc=y

Pham, L. N. (2023). The interplay between learner autonomy and indirect written corrective feedback in EFL writing. TESOL Journal, 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.694

Rattanadilok Na Phuket, P., & Othman, N. B. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ errors in writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(32), 99–106. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083531.pdf

Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal, 25(3), 204–219. [if kept, change the in-text year from 1972 to 1971]

Son, M. (2024). L2 language development in oral and written modalities. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 46(3), 841–868. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263124000329

Wang, D. (2024). Teacher- versus AI-generated (Poe application) corrective feedback and language learners’ writing anxiety, complexity, fluency, and accuracy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(3), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7646

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007

Zheng, Y., Yu, S., Liu, X., & Gu, M. (2018). Student engagement with teacher-written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 36, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001

Downloads

Published

2026-08-01

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 4 (2026)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).