The role of errors in the language learning process has been of interest to many of the researchers in the field. Starting from the 1970s, Error Analysis was appreciated as the model for investigating second and foreign language learning. Error Analysis regards the errors of the learners as indicators of their target language development (Gass and Selinker 2008). When it comes to errors, the feedback that the teacher provides is also investigated greatly in the literature. Teacher’s treating an erroneous utterance of the learners is regarded as the most common pattern of interaction in the language learning classes. Winne and Butler (1994) defines feedback as “information with which a learner can confirm, add to, overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory, whether that information is domain knowledge, meta-cognitive knowledge, beliefs about self and tasks, or cognitive tactics and strategies” (p. 5740). Long (1977) makes a distinction between feedback and correction: feedback is considered to be the initial step of promoting self-correction. Furthermore, it is also pointed out that studies on students’ attitudes would be useful in illuminating the classroom practices of feedback (Renko, 2012). Russell (2009) also states that studies investigating the learners’ and the teachers’ attitudes towards feedback is of great importance since the teachers’ and the students’ beliefs and attitudes are not identical in most of the cases.Thus, the aim of the present study is to investigate the learner’s attitudes towards written and oral feedback from an EFL context, Turkey. British Council and TEPAV (2015) study about the state of English in higher education in Turkey concluded that although few universities were able to rank among Times Higher Education global university rankings; Turkey's "English deficit", was found to be the "major factor affecting the quality of higher education, restricting access to academic resources, international research publication and the mobility of staff and students" (p.14). This study focuses on the issue from students' point of view by examining their attitudes towards feedback.

For this study, Ellis (2010)’s framework on studying corrective feedback (CF) has been utilized. Within this framework there are five components interacting with each other. The purpose of creating this framework was “to identify the variables that CF research to date has addressed and aspects that future CF research might find useful to investigate. The framework is intended not so much as a theory of CF but as a heuristic that can inform research” (p.337). Ellis (2010) argues that although commonly categorized as implicit and explicit; feedback can also be categorized as oral and written. According to Ellis (2010), there are some differences between oral and written feedback. For example, oral feedback is typically immediate whereas written feedback is delayed. Written feedback is not always available to the learner on the time of error. Furtmermore, Ellis (2010) argues that individual factors and contextual factors interact with the way corrective feedback is perceived by the learner and thus have an effect of the language learning process. It is also pointed out in the study that, individual factors are neglected in the literature while the majority of attention is on the types of corrective feedback and learner uptake.

Considering the issues argued by the literature, following research questions have been formed:

1. What are the attitudes of students, who are studying English as a foreign language at a preparatory school, towards written and oral feedback?

a) Are there any significant differences between their attitudes towards written and oral feedback?

b) Is there a relationship between the participants’ level of proficiency and their attitudes towards written and oral feedback?

Brown, J. D. (2011). Likert items and scales of measurement? SHIKEN: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 15(1), p.10-14. http://jalt.org/test/PDF/Brown34.pdf Can, G. & Walker, A. (2011) A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), p. 508-536. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2), p. 335-349. Gass, S. M. and Selinker, L. (Eds.) (2008). Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course (3rd edition). New York: Routledge. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-47618-8. Leaph, K. (2011). Using Oral and Written Feedback to Improve Student Writing: An Investigation from Cambodian University Students’ Perspectives. MA Thesis, Royal University of Phnom Penh Institute of Foreign Languages Department of English. Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping conditions, On TESOL 77, 278-293. Omta, W. & de Waal, P. (2014). Scientific Research Mehods. Retrieved from: http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/wo/handouts/methods7.pdf Rassaei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.002 Renko, K. (2012). Finnish EFL learners’ perceptions on errors, corrective feedback and foreign language anxiety. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Jyväskylä. Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012 Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), p. 21-31. Winne, P. H., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Education: Student Cognition in Learning from Teaching (2nd ed., pp. 5738-5745). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. de Winter, J. C.F and Dodou, D. (2010). Five-point likert items: t-test versus mann-whitney-wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(11), p. 1-12.