Although there exists some controversy regarding the effectiveness of written corrective feedback as a tool to improve the accuracy and overall quality of students’ writings, a new dimension is to be added to this discussion in the light of the Noticing Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis. Written corrective feedback types, in particular, was evaluated in this study regarding their effectiveness in reducing the number of errors in students’ subsequent writings. The focus of this study was to analyse the results of three groups formed depending on the corrective feedback type they received. The students wrote a narrative paragraph depending on the picture prompt used in a similar study by Izumi (2012). After the completion of the pre-test part, the first drafts, the first group received direct written corrective feedback; however, the second group read a model text and revised their first drafts. There is a control group in the current study and this group did not receive any kind of feedback for their previous writings. In the light of the statistical results of the study, it is plain that direct written corrective feedback is more effective in providing solutions to the erroneous parts in students’ writings; notwithstanding the model text was more instrumental with respect to authentic lexical items provided. The data also show that this sequence enables students to actively participate in the learning process by including corrections in their writing. As a result, a significant difference was observed between the number of errors before the feedback sections and after the review section, depending on the teacher's corrective feedback type.