Interpreting coded feedback on writing: Turkish EFL students' approaches to revision Louisa Buckingham a, * , Duygu Aktu  g-Ekinci b a University of Auckland, New Zealand b Uluda g University, Turkey article info Article history: Received 12 May 2016 Received in revised form 8 January 2017 Accepted 10 January 2017 Available online 25 January 2017 Keywords: Think-aloud protocols Second-language writing Metalinguistic feedback Correction code Process approach Turkey Error correction abstract This study investigates how 32 Turkish elementary and intermediate-level EFL university students respond to metalinguistic feedback on the first draft of a timed writing assess- ment. Correction codes were used to indicate problematic linguistic features of each stu- dent's text, and students redrafted the text with the assistance of a correction code key (containing model sentences) and a dictionary. Data were compiled through think-aloud protocols, two versions of students' drafted texts, observation notes, and an exit inter- view. Students' errors were classified as one of four types: morphological, syntactic, lexical, and orthographic (including punctuation). Lexical errors were the most common error type for both proficiency levels, although punctuation errors were the most frequent specific error. Correction codes which required no metalinguistic reflection tended to promote an automatized response from students, while more indirect correction code symbols often resulted in unsuccessful attempts at re-drafting. Students often found English-sourced correction codes difficult to interpret and we question the utility of these in a monolingual setting. At liberty to use their L1 or English throughout, students used Turkish for metalinguistic reasoning and spontaneously made linguistic comparisons be- tween English and their L1. The concurrent verbalization requirement may have prompted greater metalinguistic reasoning, however. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The expansion of English-medium instruction (EMI) in tertiary institutions across a range of countries, including Turkey, has increased the need for EFL learners to develop a level of English-language writing skills appropriate for academic study. Such writing-intensive courses necessarily have a general EAP rather than discipline-specific focus and syllabi usually include the teaching of complex sentences, paragraph structure, bibliographic citations and short essay or report writing. While written assessments in university courses in Turkey continue to display a product-based approach to writing (i.e., only one draft is submitted and graded), academic writing intensive courses tend to follow the process-approach to writing devel- opment. As this approach foresees the production of multiple drafts and the provision of feedback, decisions regarding the type of feedback to provide on drafts become pedagogically pertinent. As described in Ellis (2009), feedback techniques, * Corresponding author. E-mail address: bucklj@gmail.com (L. Buckingham). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of English for Academic Purposes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.01.001 1475-1585/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 26 (2017) 1e16