Republic of Sudan

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

Nile Valley University
College of Graduate Studies
English Language Department

Teachers' and Students‟ Preferences for Error

Correction in EFL Writing
A Case Study of Preparatory Year Students at Majmaah University, Saudi
Arabia

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Requirements of Master's Degree in

English Language Teaching (ELT)

By

Mahmoud Aboubakr Sayed Abdelrahman

Supervised By

Prof. Ibrahim Al-Faki

2016

1
 Dedication
I dedicate this work to my parents for their support and prayers; and to my wife, for
her continuous support, patience, and encouragement; and to my dear children for
their love, support, and understanding.

2
 Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I praise and glorify Allah for enabling me to finish this work.
Heart felt gratitude is expressed to Nile Valley University, College of Graduate
Studies and Scientific Research represented in all faculty members. Also, I would
like to express my great gratitude to my advisor and teacher Prof. Ibrahim Al-Faki
for his guidance and support, and invaluable suggestions throughout the study.
My thanks go to my MA professors, classmates, and colleagues for their love,
support and friendship. Finally, my sincere appreciation is also extended to the
teachers and students whose participation led to the achievement of this thesis.

3
 Abstract
This research showed students‟ and teachers‟ tendencies towards error correction in
writing of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context through a survey. In this
study, 50 teachers and 100 students were required to react on two surveys, one for
teachers and another one for students. The data were gathered and analyzed by
descriptive method. The results collected from teachers and students revealed
positive tendency for written error correction and showed a lot of mutual
preferences among teachers and students as well. However, there were some
differences, for instance; students favored to get all their written errors marked and
corrected by their teachers, but teachers, on the other side, desire to focus on some
errors which are of great importance and leave the others for students. Some
teachers believe that written corrective feedback is wasting teachers‟ time whereas
students think that feedback provision is on the teachers‟ responsibilities.
Additionally, this research revealed different theories and teaching methodologies
related to error correction, the types of errors and the techniques of error correction,
such as teacher correction, peer-correction or self-correction. Finally, the research
recommended some solutions to the above-mentioned problems.

Key words: preferences, error correction, error analysis, corrective feedback

4
 ‫الخالصة‬

‫يخٕا‪ٚ‬ي ٘ذا اٌبحذ اٌىشف ػٓ اٌطزق اٌّضخخدِت في حصحيح األخطاء اٌخي ححدد ارٕاء ِّارصت ِ‪ٙ‬ارة اٌىخابةت‬
‫‪ ٚ‬اٌخي ححظي بمب‪ٛ‬ي ِةٓ لبةً اٌدارصةيٓ ‪ٚ‬اٌّؼٍّةيٓ ػٍةس اةد صة‪ٛ‬اء فةي ااةدا اٌماِؼةاث اٌضةؼ‪ٛ‬ميت ِةٓ خة ي‬
‫‪ٚ‬ححٍيةةً ٘ةةذٖ‬ ‫حز‪ٚ‬يةةد ػةةدم ِةةٓ اٌّؼٍّةةيٓ ‪ٚ )05‬اٌدارصةةيٓ ‪ )055‬باصةةخبأت حخؼٍةةك ب‪ٙ‬ةةذا اٌشةةمْع ‪ٚ‬صةةيخُ ػةةز‬
‫اٌبيأاث بطزيمت ‪ٚ‬صفيتع ‪ٚ‬اظ‪ٙ‬زث اٌبيأاث اٌخي حُ اٌخ‪ٛ‬صً اٌي‪ٙ‬ا ِٓ خة ي االصةخبياْ اْ اٌّؼٍّةيٓ ‪ٚ‬اٌدارصةيٓ‬
‫يخّخؼةة‪ ْٛ‬بٕظةةزة ايمابيةةت ٌخصةةحيح األخطةةاء اٌىخابيةةتع ‪ٚ‬اضةةحج إٌخةةايض اينةةا اْ ٕ٘ةةان بؼةةج االصةةخزاحيمياث‬
‫اٌّخفك ػٍي‪ٙ‬ا ِٓ لبً اٌّؼٍّيٓ ‪ٚ‬اٌدراصيٓع ‪ٚ‬باٌزغُ ِةٓ لٌةه فمةف افةامث اٌبييأةاث اٌخةي حةُ اٌحصة‪ٛ‬ي ػٍي‪ٙ‬ةا اْ‬
‫ٕ٘ةةان رّةةت حنةةارأل فةةي األراء بةةيٓ اٌّؼٍّةةيٓ ‪ٚ‬اٌدارصةةيٓ ػٍةةس صةةبيً اٌّزةةاي يفنةةً اٌط ة أل اْ يمةة‪ َٛ‬اٌّؼٍةةُ‬
‫بخصحيح جّيغ االخطاء بيّٕا يفنً اٌّؼٍّ‪ ْٛ‬اٌخزويز ػٍس بؼج ِةٓ ٘ةذٖ االخطةاء ٔظةزا الّ٘يخ‪ٙ‬ةا ِةغ حةزن‬
‫اٌبالي ٌٍط أل أفض‪ُٙ‬ع ‪ٚ‬في ٘ذا اٌصدم ل٘ة بؼةج اٌّؼٍّة‪ ٌ ْٛ‬ػخمةام بةاْ حمةديُ اٌخلذيةت اٌزاجؼةت ية ما اٌةس‬
‫ضياع ‪ٚ‬لج اٌّدرس بيّٕا يمزَ اٌدارص‪ ْٛ‬بأٗ جزء ِةٓ اٌّ‪ٙ‬ةاَ اٌخةي البةد اْ يمة‪ َٛ‬ب‪ٙ‬ةا اٌّؼٍةُع اضةافت اٌةس ِةا‬
‫اٌبحذ بؼج إٌظزياث ‪ٚ‬طزايك اٌخدريش اٌخةي ٌ‪ٙ‬ةا ػ لةت ‪ٚ‬ريمةت بؼٍّيةت حصةحيح االخطةاء‬ ‫صبك صيضخؼز‬
‫فن ػٓ أٔ‪ٛ‬اع األخطاء ‪ ٚ‬االصخزاحيمبياث اٌّخبؼت ٌٍخلٍ ػٍي‪ٙ‬ا ػٍي صبيً اٌّزاي حصحيح األخطاء ب‪ٛ‬اصطت‬
‫اٌّؼٍةةُ أ‪ ٚ‬بخفاػةةً اٌدارصةةيٓ أفضةة‪ِ ُٙ‬ةةغ بؼن ة‪ ُٙ‬اٌةةبؼج أ‪ٚ‬اخةةي ِحا‪ٌٚ‬ةةت امران اٌةةدارس ٔفضةةٗ ٌ‪ٙ‬ةةذٖ األخطةةاء‬
‫‪ٚ‬اٌخؼاًِ ِؼ‪ٙ‬ا بشىً فزماع ‪ٚ‬صيخطزق اٌبحذ اٌي ايمام بؼج اٌحٍ‪ٛ‬ي ٌٍّشى ث آٔفت اٌذوزع‬

‫‪5‬‬
 Table of Contents

Contents
Dedication .................................................................................................................. 2

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... 3

Abstract....................................................................................................................... 4

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................................... 10

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 10

1.0 Background .................................................................................................... 10

1.1 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................. 12

1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................... 13

1.3 Significance of the Study ............................................................................... 13

1.4 Research Questions ........................................................................................ 14

1.5 Hypotheses of the Study ................................................................................. 15

1.6 Limitations...................................................................................................... 16

1.7 Research Methodology................................................................................... 16

1.8 Sampling and Locale of the Study ................................................................. 17

CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................... 18

Review of Literature................................................................................................. 18

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 18

6
 2.2 Definitions of errors ....................................................................................... 18

2.3 Types of Errors ............................................................................................... 19

2.4 Theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) ......................................... 20

2.4.1 Contrastive Analysis (CA) ........................................................................ 20

2.4.2 Error Analysis (EA) .................................................................................. 20

2.4.3 Behaviorist Theory of Language Learning ............................................... 21

2.4.4 Krashen„s Monitor Model of SLA ............................................................ 23

2.4.5 Two Types of Language Skills ................................................................. 24

2.4.6 Interlanguage Theory and Processes......................................................... 25

2.4.7 Pienemann„s Teachability Hypothesis ...................................................... 27

2.4.8 Schmidt‟s Noticing Hypothesis ................................................................ 28

2.4.9 Reflection on the previous theories .......................................................... 30

2.5 Background of Language Teaching Methods ................................................ 31

2.6 Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) ............................................................. 33

2.6.1 Types of Corrective Feedback (CF).......................................................... 34

2.7 The Error Correction Dispute......................................................................... 35

2.7.1 Negative Perceptions of Error Correction ................................................ 35

2.7.2 Positive Perspectives of Error Correction ................................................. 36

2.8 The Roles of Written Error Correction .......................................................... 37

2.8.1 Error Correction as Focus-on-Form Intervention ..................................... 37

2.8.2 Error Correction to Facilitate Noticing ..................................................... 38

7
 2.9 Approaches and Methods of Written Error Correction .................................. 39

2.9.1 General Approaches: Comprehensive vs. Selective ................................. 39

2.9.2 Explicit Written Error Correction ............................................................. 41

2.9.3 Implicit Written Error Correction ............................................................. 42

2.9.4 Error Correction Codes ............................................................................. 42

2.10 Teachers‟ Attitudes and Students‟ preferences ............................................ 43

2.10.1 Teacher Beliefs and Practices ................................................................. 43

2.10.2 Student Preferences ................................................................................. 45

2.11 Previous Studies ........................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................. 47

Research Method and Design ................................................................................... 47

3.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 47

3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................. 47

3.2 Population....................................................................................................... 47

3.3 Sampling ......................................................................................................... 47

3.4 Scope of the Study.......................................................................................... 48

3.5 Data Collection Tool ...................................................................................... 49

3.5.1 Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 49

3.5.2 Pilot Study ................................................................................................. 50

3.5.3 Questionnaire Reliability .......................................................................... 51

3.6 Data Analysis Procedures .............................................................................. 53

8
CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................... 54

Data Analysis and Interpretation .............................................................................. 54

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 54

4.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 54

4.3 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 73

4.4 Summary ........................................................................................................ 74

CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................... 75

Conclusion, Findings, and Recommendations ......................................................... 75

5.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 75

5.2 Findings of the Study ..................................................................................... 76

5.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 77

5.4 Suggestions for Further Studies ..................................................................... 77

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 78

Appendix 1: Error Correction Code ..................................................................... 78

Appendix 2: Teachers‟ questionnaire................................................................... 79

Appendix 3: Students’ questionnaire ................................................................ 82

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 85

9
 CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

1.0 Background
Foreign language learning does not occur at once, since it is considered a
progressive process. Within the stages of this process, mistakes are expected to be
made. It is taken for granted that accepting the fact that errors are inescapable part
of the learning process is crucial for both teachers and students (Davies & Pearse,
2000). In fact errors could be dealt with as a sign of learning in (SLA) second
language acquisition. Due to students‟ errors, they can work hard to master
concepts they have misunderstood and define exactly extra work they might
require.

Since foreign language error began to be taken into consideration as a requisite

and naturalist approach of language learning, errors committed by learners. As a
result, the possible response to those errors have become of great importance to
those who are interested in teaching and investigating these errors (Diab, 2005);
(Katayama, 2007; Wang, 2010). Too much attention has been given, by
researchers, to the value of feedback, strategies of conducting and receiving
feedback in addition to the influence of feedback on students' written production
(Lee, 2005; Noora, 2006). Unfortunately, these studies have neglected preferences
and attitudes of the learners and teachers for error correction (Katayama, 2007).

Having known these preferences and attitudes is substantial in teaching and

learning process. Distinction between styles of learning with learners affect the

10
learning environment by either providing or prohibiting their intentional awareness
and active engagement (Katayama, 2007). This stems from the fact that learners are
expected to be highly motivated in doing things that they prefer. Based on that, it is
needful to recognize that learners have different attitudes and preferences i.e. styles
in the way they like to be corrected. For instance, some students prefer a focus on
form, while others do not. Teaching methods also vary. Some instructors have a
tendency for all errors to be corrected whereas some desire to be lenient and still
some others leave the errors uncorrected (Noora, 2006).

Depending on the available literature review on teachers‟ and students‟

preferences and attitudes for correcting errors, a lot of studies reveal that while
teachers and students share such viewpoints as the necessity of error correction and
the items of errors that are required to be corrected, there are some discrepancies
toward the strategies of error correction (Lee, 2005; Wang, 2010). For instance,
students desire all errors to be corrected thoroughly, whereas teachers do not. The
findings of (Noora, 2006) claim that FL students favored focus on form style, but
some discrepancies appeared in teachers‟ beliefs. In a comparison of students‟ and
teachers‟ beliefs, Diab (2005) also found various conflicts between EFL
instructors‟ and students‟ preferences for correcting errors and paper-marking
techniques. Such differences between students‟ and teachers‟ expectations and
views about feedback can result in inadequate learning (Katayama, 2007).

Correspondingly, a mutual benefit could occur from discovering the students‟

and teachers‟ preferences in instructional practices. Wang (2010) proposed that
“teachers should find out what their students think and feel about what and how
they want to learn” (p.140). Leki (1991) also avers that an awareness of students'

11
learning styles will enable teachers to use appropriate techniques and methods that
are expected to be convenient to the students' preferences. Above all, matching the
learning styles of students in a class and the teaching style of the instructor would
help ameliorate students‟ learning, attitudes, behavior, and motivation (D. R. Ferris,
2003). Subsequently, it is worthy to detect the ways via which students favor to be
corrected.

At last, the current study first focuses on both teachers‟ and students‟
preferences for error correction since these attitudes have a great influence on the
whole learning process, and then investigate the difficulties of the teachers in
conducting feedback and of the students in revising the sheets after receiving them
supported with feedback from their teachers (Hamouda, 2011).

1.1 Objectives of the Study

The aim of this study is to identify and explore the preferences of teachers and
students at Preparatory Year Deanship (PYD) students for correcting written work
in EFL classrooms.

Bearing that in mind, the study formulates to:

1- determine EFL teachers' attitudes for correcting strategies

2- identify EFL teachers' practices using styles of correction

3- define EFL teachers' methods of correction in their classes

4- identify EFL attitudes for correcting mistakes in EFL classroom

5- establish the correlation between teachers and EFL students in correcting

mistakes
12
 6- determine whether teachers' preparation programs give priority to classroom
error correction strategies or not.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The researcher as an EFL teacher, teaching university students, noticed that
many students suffer from deficiency in their foreign language proficiency in
general and writing in particular. Writing as an important skill is a challenge to
Saudi students for a few reasons. Firstly, there is a big difference between Arabic
as a native language and English as a foreign language in terms of structure,
organization, and style. Secondly, Saudi students at post-secondary school do not
like to sit down and study whether in library or at home. On the other hand, they
are socially and orally communicative. They desire to listen and talk rather than
read and write.

In compliance with the above statement, Saudi students achieve high scores in
speaking and listening skills, but not in writing, since they spend most of their
learning time speaking the language rather than writing it. Therefore, the researcher
believes that the problem might stem from the fear of making mistakes and being
corrected form their peers or teachers.

1.3 Significance of the Study

The results of current study may contribute significantly to the promotion of
interactive learning and enhance mutual teaching practice, particularly at the first-
year university level for medical and engineering tracks. Also, the study is
significant in that it attempts to explore the effective attitudes for particular types of
feedback technique of error correction among teachers and students respectively.
Moreover, the findings of this study will help the researcher and teachers draw
13
appropriate recommendations regarding incorporating the above-mentioned
preferences in writing curriculum. Finally, it motivates students to write in L2 as
well as boost their confidence to continue writing in the target language.

1.4 Research Questions

The study designs following research questions:

Main Questions:

1. What are the preferences (attitudes) of EFL teachers for error correction
in EFL writing classrooms?
2. What are the preferences (attitudes) of EFL PYD students for error
correction in EFL writing classrooms?
3. Do EFL teachers effectively use these preferences and feedback
techniques in their classrooms?
4. What are the most popular preferences for error correction in EFL
writing classrooms?
5. What are the obstacles of employing those preferences for error
correction?
6. What expected benefits do EFL students think they will gain from
recognizing favored techniques of error correction concerning second
language development?
7. Are there any training materials for fostering error correction
preferences in EFL teachers‟ preparation programs in the Saudi EFL
context?

14
 Sub- Questions:

1. What strategies do EFL students prefer to effectively correct their writing

errors or get them corrected by other ways (teachers, peers, electronic
ways, or editing blogs e.g. Grammarly)?
2. Does knowing these preferences increase Saudi PYD students‟
confidence to write in L2?
3. Does using these preferences motivate Saudi PYD learners to write in
English, and would they recommend it, why and why not?

1.5 Hypotheses of the Study

Following are the hypothesis of the study:

There are some discrepancies of what teachers already know and what they actually
do.

1. There are some contradicting attitudes in using different techniques for

error correction.
2. There is misunderstanding with teachers on how to successfully use
various feedback techniques in their classrooms.
3. There are some preferences favored by the vast majority of PYD students.
4. There are some barriers to use these preferences in the writing
classrooms.
5. There are a lot of benefits the PYD students will get from knowing better
the most effective preferences for them.
6. There should be workshops and training sessions for feeding error
correction preferences techniques in EFL teachers‟ preparation programs.

15
1.6 Limitations
The study focuses only on EFL teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for error
correction in EFL classroom written work in the Saudi context. It is also restricted
to EFL teachers' practices in their EFL classrooms and EFL students' practices as
well. The motivation for choosing this group stems from its distinctive features, is
that it has a collection of teachers from different Arab and foreign countries, who
have different cultural, academic, educational and national backgrounds. All of the
students participated are enrolled at Preparatory Year Deanship (PYD) level at
Majmaah University. This would restrict the generalizability of the study findings
to the participants at this university. Moreover, the study depends on a self-
reporting research method (questionnaire, survey); therefore, data accuracy
depends on the practitioners‟ points of view, perspectives, and their willingness and
ability to give accurate data regarding their preferences for error correction. Finally,
the researcher believes that some preferences are more favored than others by both
teachers and students. Therefore, there is a possibility for bias in the findings of the
study. However, the researcher will use various strategies to minimize the level of
bias, as will be discussed later in Chapter 3.

1.7 Research Methodology

A quantitative study will be conducted to explore the phenomenon of teachers'
and students‟ preferences for correcting errors in EFL classroom written work in
the educational context, specifically in EFL classes in the Preparatory Year
Deanship (PYD) at Majmaah University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The researcher will
use this method to answer the research questions. The tool used for data collection
will be two types of questionnaires. The first will be used to collect data from EFL

16
teachers, and the second will gather information from EFL students. Thus,
receiving various types of evidence can best provide a thorough account of patterns
of interaction in the TEFL setting. The tool used to analyze the obtained data will
be a computer program called Statistic Package for Social Science (SPSS).

1.8 Sampling and Locale of the Study

The study will be conducted with the participation of students and teachers of
Preparatory Year Deanship (PYD), in Majmaah city, at Majmaah University, Saudi
Arabia. The university is considered significant and one of the modern, newly
founded universities in Saudi Arabia. Majmaah University has about 30 colleges
for both genders.

PYD, Majmaah,
Male (main)
campus

Majmaah University- PYD,

PYD,
Preparatoty Year Majmaah,
Zulfi, female Deanship female
campus campus
(PYD)

PYD,
Zulfi, male
campus

*PYD = Preparatory Year Deanship

The researcher will choose a comprehensive sample randomly from four various
branches (two male and two female), in two different cities within Riyadh Region.
The two cities are Majmaah and Zulfi. Zulfi is in the middle, between Majmaah
and Al- Qassim. Zulfi has some colleges following Majmaah University.

17
 CHAPTER TWO

Review of Literature

2.1 Introduction
This chapter begins by defining the definition of errors and the different types
of errors. The following section talks about some theories of Second Language
Acquisition (henceforth SLA) connected to the error correction (henceforth EC). A
background of language teaching methods is presented next to shed some light on
the popular methods that are followed in teaching writing. The target is employing
the role of error correction in language learning. The following part will go through
the issue of written corrective feedback (henceforth WCF) and its various types.
The research displays, through previous studies, the continuous argument on
whether the provision of written error correction is effective or not. The final part
summarizes the literature of both teachers and students‟ preferences concerning
correcting written errors. Reviewing and analyzing the relevant literature provides
hypothetical basis for the current study and provides a synopsis of the emphasis and
conclusions of former research for creating new space for further study.

2.2 Definitions of errors

Errors denote to the usage of linguistic items in a way that is unacceptable to
native speakers because of unfitting usage or unfinished learning (Klassen, 1991).
Starting from the 1990s, errors were regarded a vivacious part of the learning
process. They are systematic and different from mistakes.

18
 From the time when analysis of error sources is a fundamental aspect in the
study of errors committed by learners, a distinction between mistakes or lapses
should be highly considered.

2.3 Types of Errors

Apart from hypothesizing about the most efficient approach to provide written
error correction, researchers have also explored the different types of errors that
should be marked out while giving written error correction. Lots of schemes
relevant to this issue have been put forward. For instance, (Stephen Pit Corder,
1967) said that L2 learners‟ errors are crucial in three various methods. First of all,
learners‟ errors tell the tutor to what extent the language course aim has been
achieved and the learner has improved, and subsequently, how much is remaining
for learners to learn. Secondly, learners‟ errors support investigators with data as to
how the L2 is grasped and what techniques learners functionalize so as to improve
proficiency in the L2. Thirdly, Coder asserts that errors are requisite tools that
learners utilize so as to learn the L2. In line with Coder‟s statements, it can be
suggested that students‟ errors are crucial, not only for the exploration of the
multifaceted condition of language learning, but also for the development of
learners‟ writing accurateness.

Additionally, Burt (1975) differentiated between two kinds of errors that tutors
perform when providing written error correction. He referred to errors that affect
the whole message of the scripted text as global errors. Alternatively, local errors
are minor linguistic violations that have no effect on the required meaning the
scripted text is aiming to deliver. To put it differently, the focal alteration between
global and local errors is the gravity of interference or inhibition they create to the

19
meaning of the scripted text. Hendrickson (1978) suggested that tutors ought to
give written error correction merely on global errors since they prevent
communication. Nonetheless, the influences of tracing particular items of errors
when offering written error correction still deserves further exploration.

2.4 Theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

Language overcomes every corner of human experience through imitating and
generating pictures of that experience. As a result, the worth of language and
language acquisition cannot be adequately appraised, and human life cannot be
imagined without it (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Utilizing the role of written error
correction in L2 requires a discussion of the varied theories of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA). Investigators and theorists, for many years, inspected only one
query: how is it possible for someone to learn a language after learning the first?
Thus, researchers have come up with different types of SLA, so as to elaborate the
ability of learning L2.

2.4.1 Contrastive Analysis (CA)

The basic hypothesis of CA is that L2 would be influenced by L1. In other

words, it sees errors basically in consequence of L1 interference. This approach;
however, cannot give details about other error factors. Much research such as by
Dulay and Burt (1973) reinforce the fact that intervention from L1 is not the one
and only source of L2 learning problems. This caused CA to become an uncreative
teaching tool.

2.4.2 Error Analysis (EA)

20
 Since the late 1960s when cognitive psychology affected the theory of
language acquisition, errors have been seen positively as an active part of learning
(Lu, 2010). Corder was one of the first researchers who disputed the importance of
learners‟ errors and Error Analysis (EA), which has appeared in the field of second
language acquisition, revealing the alteration from CA to EA. EA is “the study and
analysis of the errors made by second language learners” (Richards et al, 1998:
160). Error Analysis has two functions: a theoretical and a practical (Stephen Pit
Corder, 1981). On the foundation of its theoretical aspect, Error Analysis is part of
the methodology of researching the language learning process. From its practical
aspect, Error Analysis guides the remedial action. For instance, it informs the
teacher the destination in the direction of the goal the learners have developed and
what is left for them to learn (S Pit Corder, 1973) It tells the teacher how useful the
teaching approach and aids are, what the troubles in the curriculum are and how to
prepare the lesson plans and supplementary materials (S Pit Corder, 1973).

2.4.3 Behaviorist Theory of Language Learning

This theory is considered vital, as it participated in the appearance of the role

of written error correction in the L2 writing classroom. In the 1950‟s, the
behaviorist theory controlled mainstream psychology. In keeping with this theory,
formation of habits is the main focus of language learning. This perception has
been formed depending on the experiments of psychology that revealed learning
any type of behavior is based on stimulus and response (Ellis, 1994; Mitchell,
Myles, & Marsden, 2013). By ways of explanation, it is confirmed through the
Behaviorist theory that humans‟ exposure of different language stimuli and the
continual responses to these stimuli will result in the formation of those habits.
21
Reflecting on learning a new language, and in line with this theory, it denotes that
language learning is encouraged when active and continual responses to the stimuli
are made by the learner (Skinner, 1957). As a result, the responses are strengthened
when continued occurrence for a long time to form habits that comprises
mechanical responses provoked by a given stimuli. In compliance with this theory,
language teaching inclusions are that language learning could occur by imitating
and repeating the same habits for a long time. Additionally, teachers are required to
concentrate their teaching on the habits that are thought to be difficult. Reflecting
on the above statement, written error correction that are provided by teacher can
play the role of stimuli that in turn should be met by suitable responses from
language learners so as to acquire new language.

However, Chomsky (1959) criticized this theory claiming that novice and
complex sentences could be easily produced by learners although they have never
experienced them before. On the other hand, it can be difficult for the same learners
to produce some simple sentences in particular situations. In line with Chomsky,
learners are capable of forming new sentences by implying the rules rather than a
few words. Chomsky concluded asserting on the complexity of language learning
process. Some language structures could not be learned only depending on the
language stimuli that the learners may be exposed to. This limitation caused the
partial failure of the Behaviorist theory, which gave the chance to the
communicative approach to emerge and adopted by linguists. Based on Chomsky‟s
criticism, language learners cannot achieve a great improvement for the new
language structures can be easily learned by utilizing the language learned rules, in
addition to the continual responses to the stimuli.

22
2.4.4 Krashen„s Monitor Model of SLA

Krashen‟s Monitor Model (1982) is considered by far one of the most argued
and detailed design of SLA. Five hypotheses have formed this model; however, this
study will be focusing on the ones related to error correction. The acquisition-
learning hypothesis, the first one, claims that language learning and language
acquisition are unlike. Consistent with the hypothesis, when learners unconsciously
grasp their L1 the language acquisition can occur. This in turn takes place when
children use language for communicative issues in the very premature stages of
their language development.

Contrariwise, language learning may occur when students learn the rules of the
target language (TL). To state the matter differently, children‟s naturally absorbing
of the language is considered language acquisition, as long as the language is
grasped inside the environment for everyday communicative purposes; whereas
language learning requires different prerequisites that could be achieved through
following some structures and rules concerning the target language (TL) (Diaz-
Rico, 2004). Therefore, the dissimilarity between both conceptions offers intuitive
understanding for the error correction. It has been debated by Krashen that
depending on the fact that naturally language acquisition happens naturally, the
effect of error correction seems to be worthless on the process of acquisition.

The third hypothesis is called the Monitor hypothesis that is relevant to the
topic of error correction. The hypothesis claims that the structures and the syntactic
rules learned by a student do not contribute excessively to his/her language
capability for the reason that utilizing language rules will be used essentially to

23
simplify the language output while the graspable input is adequate for SLA. In line
with that, the language rules could be given the role of a monitor or editor the an
L2 student can employ to easily edit the L2 output whenever the utterance is
actually on paper or orally produced. For this reason, the language learned rules can
affect marginally on language production on the assumption that the output
produced by the student controlled by the acquired language system. Thus, the
argument results in the fact that the provision of error correction may simplify the
production of writing, but it is undefined if the language learning has taken place or
not. Plus, it is claimed that the rules learned by students have limited application in
communicative conditions. Therefore, although students learn all the rules of the
target language (TL), those rules are not considered valuable enough for they are
used limitedly and to a degree, worthless. Therefore, the issue can be concluded
that the monitor hypothesis averred the error correction has no influence on the
language acquisition process, whether it is applied or not.

2.4.5 Two Types of Language Skills

In learning L2, formal and informal input of the target language has to be
offered to the student (Leki, 1992). The offered input could be in both forms
written or spoken and the condition of the input will have an impression on how the
student internalizes the target language. Two kinds of language acquisition are
distinguished by (Cummins, 1979) Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills
(BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BISC are skills
that mainly used in listening and speaking that student can acquire with ease,
particularly though engagement inside an environment where they can interact with
native speakers on a daily basis.
24
 CALP, on the other hand, is the foundation for a student‟s capability to deal
with several academic demands concerning L2. For instance, well-developed BICS
may have been acquired by a student through spending too much time in an
environment where he/she can easily connect to speakers of L1 frequently, but the
student struggles in an academic environment that proficiency in CALP is required.
The opposite could be true too. A highly professional student in CALP might find
problematic to communicate and interact in an environment where BICS is
required, a good example for that is having a conversation in informal English. The
difference between both items (BICS and CALP) provokes (Krashen, 1982)
hypothesis that focuses on the difference between language learning and
acquisition. Depending on the above statements, CALP is improved through
studying syntax rules within formal language instruction. Conversely, BICS are
skills that are acquired through the exposure within L2 environment.

In essence, an L2 student who has got a great amount of accuracy and fluency
in daily basis spoken or written English may lack the consistent proficiency and
skills that work well in academic situations. Thus, the effectiveness of providing
written error correction in L2 activities is not obvious yet. It might be supportive in
enhancing students‟ skills mainly in a classroom situation where formal L2 is the
main focus.

2.4.6 Interlanguage Theory and Processes

Selinker‟s (1972) Interlanguage theory is viewed as one of the prominent

theories in SLA. Based on this theory, every student constructs at any offered point
in their L2 development within the frame of language system. By ways of

25
explaining, interlanguage is the output of language that students can come up with
through the process of learning a foreign or a second language. According to this
theory, the language the student can come up with is considered a unique system
that can stand alone and also has special rules that can be followed. This system is
active and can be evolved through time (Mitchell et al., 2013). As a result, It is
clear that the main focus of this theory is on the innate mental ability of the student
that is basically used for acquiring a target language (Stephen Pit Corder, 1967).
Based on the above, an L2 student has his own language system that can be used at
any level of language learning

Simplification is the process in which the student uses learned structures and
lexical items presented in a very simplified utterance to express a message, in a
way that an L1 learner can do at an early stage. Overgeneralization process sums up
the student‟s use of an L2 rule in events where an L1 learner should not. The
occurrence of this process could be systematic or accidental at different language
items such as: grammar, phonetics and lexis. Another process in this regard is
restructuring. Restructuring occurs when the student aspects of his language L1 so
as to be able to produce some grammatical structures. The U-shaped action is
considered a part of this process. U-shaped action stands for using a target language
form at an early stage and replaces it with interlanguage form at a later stage. By
ways of explaining, the final product could not be distinguished from the first
product. These processes coin the levels wherein learners are believed to learn an
L2; nevertheless, no one can pledge that all the learners will master the target
grammar system in the same way.

26
 According to Selinker (1972), fossilization is the shortage of competence of the
target language even if the learners have the opportunity to get a great amount of
exposure, instruction and practice (Han, 2004).

2.4.7 Pienemann„s Teachability Hypothesis

According to the Interlanguage theory, it can be extracted that it is crucial for

the L2 student to receive operative language instruction so as to efficiently learn a
target language. Besides, some student-based elements should be crucially
investigated such as age, motivation, learner attitudes, memory, language ability,
and cultural background; that play an important role in student‟s language
improvement (Ellis, 2010). What‟s more, in Pienemann‟s research (1984) which
was done on a sample of Italian students wishing to learn German as a second
language is interesting or not. For a couple of weeks, a few of the students were
given classroom instruction on the structure of inversion. When a test was
administered to measure the improvement of the language structure that has been
recently taught, it was obvious that some children achieved some advancement
whereas some had not. As a consequence, Pienemann deduced that language
teachers may have some tendency to instruct L2 students the language items that
they are ready to study. In the light of that, he came up with the idea of the
Teachability hypothesis.

It is learned from this hypothesis that acquisition can be encouraged in the

event that L2 student‟s interlanguage is in parallel with the taught structure when it
is acquired naturally. To put it another way, language instruction can be absorbed
well by students especially when they have the ability to do that based on their

27
current level. It is apparent that the effectiveness of teaching is controlled by the
learning items that are thought the L2 student is ready to accept. Besides,
Pienemann debates that once the student is enrolled at the apt language acquisition
level, language instruction can positively enhance L2 acquisition pertaining to the
pace of acquisition; the regularity of rule use; and the different linguistic
framework in which the rule should be presented. Henceforth, it is extracted from
that feedback provision is of a great importance within the stage when students are
ready to process the feedback. Equally important, the correlation of this hypothesis
in respect to error correction in second language instruction is that L2 instructors
have a tendency utilize their feedback and error correction techniques to be
harmonize language learning that the study are ready to engross.

2.4.8 Schmidt‟s Noticing Hypothesis

This theory is considered one of the important theories that are relevant to the
issue of written error correction. (R. W. Schmidt, 1990) averred that the amount of
attention that is given by the students in the form of input during the stage of
noticing is crucial to the following second language acquisition (SLA). This claim
works conversely to Krashen's dual system hypothesis which claims that SLA
depends mainly on the unconscious “acquisition” system; the conscious “learning”
system shares a minimum amount in SLA. An idea that has been improved by
second language investigators that students‟ increasing attention on the form might
affect to an extent the output of L2 which has been utilized for it to turn out to be
rooted into the student‟s developing second language system. By ways of
explaining, the degree of conscious attention that paid by an L2 student can
positively effect on his improvement in L2 system. To put it bluntly, it can be
28
disputed that written error correction may help L2 students to some degree to be
vigilant to the form that can help in inserting the correct forms in students‟
improvement language system. (R Schmidt, 2001; Richard Schmidt, 1994) is
viewed as one of the investigators who contributed in this issue by presenting the
Noticing hypothesis in 1990s.

Along with (Richard Schmidt, 1994), the Noticing hypothesis focuses on the
attention that L2 is paying to the form may affect the treating of utterances within
second language learning that is needed for students to absorb any chunk of
language. They have to notice the related material in the linguistic data that is
suitable in the nature. To put it another way, L2 students‟ consideration has to be
directed to particular structures with the intention for them to be familiar with
linguistic features of the L2.

Investigators, like Philp (2003), have piloted experimental studies to pinpoint

the way that noticing might affect the treatment of utterances that take place within
the second language learning. Philp, in his research, gave a group of English L2
learners an exercise of a story completion and a picture learning task. The students
were required to ask some questions and their peers (conversational partners) also
were asked to support active feedback when the students made errors to complete
the tasks successfully. Nevertheless, L2 students used to be encouraged from time
to time to recall what has been told by the conversational partners (interlocutors)
and their capability to do this was paraphrased as a proof that they were watching
these replies carefully. They proved that they as a minimum kept these replies in
the short memory. It goes without saying that the L2 students were able to replicate
a great quantity of these responses owing to noticing them well and observing

29
them. The participations of Philp's research regarding error correction are
conducting feedback by the teacher plays an effective role to direct students
towards noticing not only the errors in their utterances, but they also will be
heading for new features concerning L2. Moreover, it can be debated that error
correction is able to stimulate alertness on the part of L2 students, which stimulates
effective L2 learning, with respect to the hypothesis.

2.4.9 Reflection on the previous theories

In the light of the above stated SLA theories, varied facts concerning error
correction can be experienced. In the first place, contrastive analysis is referring to
the effect of L1 on L2 learning. The error analysis, on the other hand tells the
teacher two things: how far towards the aim the learners have improved and what is
left for them to learn; how effective the teaching method and materials are.
Behaviorist theory proclaims that the acquisition of language includes the
formation of habits through the responses to stimuli that take place actively and
repeatedly. In brief, there is an assumption that written error correction can work as
a stimulus that can be met with the proper, active, and repeated responses, so as to
stimulate efficient language acquisition. Despite Krashen‟s Monitor design
supports the idea of neglecting correcting errors due to the ineffectiveness on
language learning acquisition process, it can be disputed that providing written
error correction should not be completely neglected without scientifically proving
its uselessness. The reason behind that, L2 students who have performed a
remarkable level of fluency with the target language through communication
situations probably have not received the parallel language proficiency that is
highly standard in academic situations. It may be contested that written error
30
correction provision might have a great impact on language instruction in
prohibiting fossilization to take place. The essence of Pienemann‟s Teachability
Hypothesis is that language instruction is of assistance to students on the condition
that they are all set for it. The theory came up with a suggestion that the written
error correction is of a great importance to be provided when the students are
organized to incorporate the feedback. Last of all, Schmidt‟s Noticing Hypothesis
added a modulation that written error correction might function as an enabler that is
thought to support alertness related to L2 students which probably brings about
operative L2 learning. As a consequence of these suggestions, the development and
incorporation of language teaching has constantly increased. The background of
language teaching methods will be outlined in an attempt to functionalize the part
of error correction in second language instruction.

2.5 Background of Language Teaching Methods

Grammar- Translation method is regarded as one of the oldest language
teaching methods, in which language structures and lexical items are learned
through reading. The aim of this method is getting the students to acquire the target
language through improving the ability of translation between L1 and L2 (Stern,
1983). The main focus of this method is on the written form of the language and
accuracy as well. Translation is considered the core of this method to let students
move easily between the mother tongue and the language that is aimed to learn.
Conversely, a minimum attention has been given to the spoken form of the
language that is used to converse with others. As a matter of fact, this method lacks
the theoretical frame and also the absence of literature that joins it to linguistics,
psychology, or educational theories. As a result, this method was subject to

31
criticism (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Plus, by emergence of some SLA theories
such as Krashen‟s Monitor Model and Chomsky‟s Universal Grammar theory, the
visions concerning second language acquisition SLA have been entirely changed. It
follows that, in the mid-nineteenth century the disagreement with the Grammar-
Translation Method increased gradually. Owing to the imperfect efficiency that
overwhelmed the Grammar-translation Method for communication and the
increasing insight that L2 is acquired orally, new perceptions on creative language
teaching stood out.

Along with the expansion of the Audio-Lingual Method in the United States
for the period of the World War II, a new stimulus-response method appeared
during the course of 1950s and 1960s to contribute to the field of language teaching
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000). In line with the Behaviourist viewpoint of language
learning, the fundamental concept vis-à-vis this method is that habits can be formed
by exposing L2 students to language stimuli accompanied by their appropriate
responses to these stimuli. Consider an illustration, learners were thought echo and
recall the correct structures and patterns of the target language (Hendrickson,
1978). This way is intended to empower L2 students to utilize the target language
precisely and smoothly in conversation-based situations. Accordingly, and to
reflect on written error correction issue, one of the most favored ways for teachers
is correcting every error straightaway after its occurrence in order for fossilization
to be curbed. Previously, the tutorial focus was on the accurate structures of
grammar, so language instructors found that oral error correction was one of their
core roles.

32
 Even so, by the appearance of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT),
the performances for providing corrective feedback altered. On the word of Larsen-
Freeman and (Long, 1991), more willingly than letting learners remember the
structures of language, the aim of the communicative approach is to get learners
carry out different tasks concerning the target language. In consequence, the main
focus of the communicative approach is on utilizing the target language efficiently
in different conversational situations in preference to getting them recall precise
grammatical patterns and sentence forms. To put it another way, language
instruction‟s main focus was communication, notwithstanding of errors in written
or spoken language ever since SLA has acknowledged that making errors is
unavoidable and natural part of the second language learning process (Nunan &
Lamb, 1996).

The previous lines witnessed loads of contradicted sights related to error

correction, this in turn generated a hot discussion on whether or not instructors are
asked to provide written error correction or not. In the light of literature, it is
obvious that irrefutable proof concerning the usefulness of corrective feedback
provision has not yet been formed, and investigators have dealt with this subject in
different ways. Latest literature on the subject of written corrective feedback
(WCF) will be overviewed in the next part.

2.6 Written Corrective Feedback (WCF)

Classroom interaction plays an important role in second and foreign language
(L2) development. This topic has been investigated from different facets.

The effect of CF in L2 has been one of the mostly debated subjects in

language teaching environments and received much attention. It has become a
33
highly argumentative issue by playing a head role in language acquisition (Penning
de Vries, Cucchiarini, Strik, & van Hout, 2010). In line with Furnborough and
Truman (2009) , feedback needs “a gap between what has been learned and the
target competence of the learners, and the efforts made to bridge these gaps.”

2.6.1 Types of Corrective Feedback (CF)

Baleghizadeh and Gordani (2012), emphasize that agreeing upon the right CF
kind, which is a crucial educational issue, necessitates “different amounts of time
and teaching skill.” Various types of CF exist, each with its own appropriate uses.
(Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005) identified three types of CF: direct, indirect,
and metalinguistic. Firstly, in direct CF teacher provides “the correct linguistic
form through the deletion of an unnecessary word, addition of a necessary one, or
substitution of an incorrect word with a correct one” (D. R. Ferris, 2006). Since it
does not need processing, direct CF may be more valuable for low proficiency
learners (Asassfeh, 2013). If the teacher does not offer the correction and just
elaborates to the learner that there is an error, s/he uses the second type, indirect
CF. It can lead to long-term learning contrary to direct CF because it generates
learner reaction and comprehensive processing. The third CF type is metalinguistic
CF which can be utilized in a couple of ways (a)” providing a label or code” (e.g.,
sp for spelling, prep for preposition, etc.) or (b) “providing comments about each
error the learner has made” (Bitchener et al., 2005). Direct CF (just underlining and
tagging errors by type) is less time-consuming for teachers; however, “holding
student teacher conferences on errors will necessarily call for sufficient
metalinguistic knowledge possessed by students as well as teachers” (Baleghizadeh
& Gordani, 2012).
34
2.7 The Error Correction Dispute
In spite of the fact that instructors and learners have recognized that written
error correction plays a decisive role in developing L2 writing accuracy (Brown,
2001; D. Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Lee, 2004), an argument concerning its efficiency
has appeared in the previous decade (Chandler, 2003; D. Ferris, 1999; Truscott,
1996). Some of the studies such as (Kepner, 1991; Truscott & Hsu, 2008) revealed
some findings which claim that error correction is not only unproductive, but also
theoretically prejudicial to L2 writing advance. However, outcomes from other
studies (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener et al., 2005) revealed that error correction is
effectual and supportive in the advance and enhancement of students„ L2 writing
accurateness. This division will debate the negative and positive perceptions of
written error correction.

2.7.1 Negative Perceptions of Error Correction

The list contains lots of standpoints concerning the influence of error

correction: error correction has been located as efficient, inefficient; useful,
detrimental; usable, unusable. Nevertheless, although a conclusive answer cannot
be given, several L2 instructors apprehend the prerequisite to offer written
corrective feedback with the purpose of helping students‟ language learning
(Brown, 2001; Casanave, 2004; Goldstein, 2005).

Truscott (1996), called for the negligence of grammar correction in L2

writing classes. Truscott reinforced his viewpoint with a widespread analysis of
previous researches that verified grammar correction to be uncooperative and
ineffectual as well. Additionally, he upheld that error correction in general and

35
grammar correction in particular has injurious influence on the progress of L2
student writing accurateness. He is in line with Krashen's Monitor Hypothesis
relating to SLA. Krashen focused on the sufficiency of comprehensible input for L2
acquisition to occur. Thus, he finalizes that grammar correction ought to fizzle out
in writing instruction and recommends that the students‟ precision will be
accomplished efficiently through the exposure to wide-ranging forms of experience
within the target language. Plus, that could occur through adopting a diversity of
reading and writing tasks. Truscott‟s point of view in this issue is that there are lots
of proofs touching the efficiency of error correction and no motivation to work on
it.

2.7.2 Positive Perspectives of Error Correction

Unlike the previous stated opinions to some investigators like (Kepner, 1991;
Truscott, 1996), a research proof has been presented by the backers of corrective
feedback to prop the worthy advantages that may happen in utilizing written error
correction. D. Ferris (1999), for instance, discorded Truscott‟s pretensions contra
the efficacy of grammar correction. She assessed Truscott‟s debates and
investigated the researches he depended on to present his claims. Ferris recorded
two feeble points in Truscott‟s debate: (1) that there are more less efficient methods
to deal with error correction in L2 composition; and (2) Truscott has under or over
depended on the findings and allegations of last researches to back his own study
program. Ferris‟ defiance steered to extra dispute regarding the domain of the
leverage of error correction and researches were carried out to investigate this topic
thoroughly and find out proofs finish this dispute whether pro or against error

36
correction use in L2 writing tutoring (Bitchener, 2008; Chandler, 2003; Fazio,
2001; D. R. Ferris, 2004; Lee, 2004; Truscott, 1999).

Taking all the above-mentioned proofs into consideration, it is conspicuous

that the topic of the efficacy of written error correction permits future investigation.
Additionally, it can be deduced that, preceding studies on error correction have
come up with varied outcomes of alterations in research style. However, it can be
debated that error correction ought to be nonstop unless its inefficiency and
destructiveness have been completely confirmed. The forthcoming section of this
chapter will discuss the title role of written error correction in second language
teaching methodology.

2.8 The Roles of Written Error Correction

Error correction has different forms and it can be spoken or scripted. Error
correction is termed as the method of offering obvious, overwhelming, and reliable
corrective feedback on a learner‟s grammatical errors in an attempt to developing
the learner‟s capability to write perfectly (D. R. Ferris, 2002). It can be disputed
that the provision of error correction is crucial owing to its significant role in
leading, stimulating, and inspiring learners to improve their accuracy in L2 writing
(Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982).

2.8.1 Error Correction as Focus-on-Form Intervention

Error correction is regarded as one of the remarkable teaching tools denoted as

focus-on-form tool (Ellis, 2005; Van Beuningen, 2010). Along with (Long, 1991)
the focus-on-form method obviously heeds students to linguistic items as they
ascend by the way in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or
37
communication. By ways of explaining, the L2 student‟s attention will be paid
obviously to linguistic qualities as required by communicative requisite.

Bearing in mind this standpoint, it can be speculated that error correction is

given to concentrate learners‟ awareness on sound grammatical forms within the
context of carrying out a communicative task. Henceforth, it can be debated that
one of the roles of error correction in L2 instruction is to enhance learners‟ output
of L2 forms that are grammatically sound and are still appropriate for
communicative intents.

2.8.2 Error Correction to Facilitate Noticing

As mentioned formerly, the Noticing hypothesis detailed that to be easy for

learners to absorb any chunk of the L2; they require paying attention to the related
stuff in the linguistic datum offered within the environment

Taking the hypothesis into account, suggestions concerning error correction

on L2 instruction arise. First of all, by ways of offering error correction, learners
are capable of paying attention to the presence of new features of the L2.
Additionally, learners turn out to be mindful and are capable of filling the blanks
between their L2 utilization and that L1 speakers. Secondly, error correction may
assist learners to find out the delimitation of their L2 communication capabilities
with their given L2 resources. Thus, it can be disputed that error correction could
be employed as a noticing facilitator that leads the attention of the L2 learners not
only for error, but also for new features of the target language.

38
2.9 Approaches and Methods of Written Error Correction
Although the provision of correct forms of grammatical errors is one the most
prevalent modes used by lots of instructors (Hendrickson, 1980), employing a
number of kinds of corrective feedback has been proposed as it is regarded to be
efficacious and felicitous than artlessly depending on an individual strategy. By the
same token, investigators have recognized a couple of wide-ranging approaches
and a couple of particular methods of written error correction, as displayed in
Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 General Approaches and Specific Methods of Written Error Correction

2.9.1 General Approaches: Comprehensive vs. Selective

39
 In accord with latest literature (Ellis, 2009; Van Beuningen, 2010) there is a
couple of general approaches used in providing written error correction. These two
confronting approaches bring up the inclusiveness of written error correction
delivered by instructors on their learners‟ written tasks. The overall (or unfocused)
approach includes the instructor's correcting the whole errors in a student‟s paper,
regardless the classification of their errors. Alternatively, the choosy (or focused)
method aims at concentrating on particular linguistics items merely, neglecting all
the remaining errors apart of the present focus domain uncorrected.

Varied expectations have been sorted out concerning the efficacy of the two
approaches. The comprehensive approach could be relevant to Schmidt‟s (1994)
Noticing hypothesis, as formerly debated, in that the correction of all the writing
errors in a learner‟s text may enhance lots of noticing on the learner‟s benefit by
treating a large spectrum of errors. To put it in another way, a comprehensive
approach in written error correction might steer the awareness to of the learner not
only towards errors in the writing, but also to unprecedented aspects of the target
language herewith enhancing more dynamic language learning.

Nonetheless, Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) debate that a comprehensive

approach to provide written error correction might not be the most functional
approach owing to the confined processing capability that L2 learners have. It was
asserted by them that asking L2 learners to tackle written error correction that
covers a large spectrum of linguistic aspects simultaneously may direct to a
perceptive overload that might ban the learners from handling the feedback they
received. The selective approach can be attributed to Pienemann‟s (1984)
Teachability hypothesis, as formerly stated, in that L2 learners have the ability to

40
efficiently learn new aspects of the target language only when they are in a
complete readiness for it. Moreover, Ellis avers that a selective approach in written
error correction may confirm more dynamic as L2 learners are capable of inspect
numerous corrections of a single error. Under those circumstances, L2 learners
might not only get a more affluent comprehension as to why what they wrote
inaccurate, but also opportunities to absorb the accurate form.

Whether one approach is more efficient than the other still requires additional
exploration because so far, there are no researches comparing the particular effects
of comprehensive and selective approaches in written error correction. The
subsequent part will talk over the two particular methods in providing written error
correction.

2.9.2 Explicit Written Error Correction

Explicit error correction ( also known as direct or obvious error correction) is

the kind of feedback in which the L2 learner provides the accurate forms or
structures in a straight line to overtly reveal the error in the linguistic structure of
the learner‟s written task (D. R. Ferris, 2002, 2003), as shown in Figure 2.2:

Figure 2.2 Example of Explicit Written Error Correction

41
2.9.3 Implicit Written Error Correction

On the contrary, implicit error correction is known as the kind of feedback in

which the L2 tutor basically displays that an error has been done through. This
could be offered through numerous ways such as underlining, marginal
clarification, encircling, or correction codes (see Appendix 1) referring to specific
grammatical errors, as shown in Figure 2.3:

Figure 2.3 Example of Implicit Written Error Correction

2.9.4 Error Correction Codes

The use of error correction code is considered another kind of implicit written
error correction. This strategy includes delivering correction codes in the form of
symbols (e.g. _[ ]‟ for a missing word, _( )‟ for extra words) and abbreviations (e.g.
SVA- Subject Verb Agreement, pl/sing – Plural/Singular) to inform the L2 learner
not only that an error has been done, but also the type of error done (Hendrickson,
1984). For further details of error correction codes, see Appendix 1)

In line with Hyland (1990), error correction codes make it easy to language
teachers to give implicit feedback, and minimize undesirable and discouraging

42
effects if demonstrating writing errors without decreasing the effects of error
correction. This is pertinent to language instructors, who are very duteous with
accurateness, the output of which is the learners‟ writings are often timed marked
with red ink (Harmer, 1991). Nevertheless, with error correction codes, language
instructors can basically define the kind and place of errors. Moreover, utilizing of
error correction codes permits tutors to signspot pedagogical points that have
actually been taught to the L2 Learners.

By talking over the various kinds of written error correction, it can be

concluded that each strategy of giving feedback (whether implicit or explicit) has
its merits and demerits. The forthcoming of this chapter will offer an overview
related researches that have been explored teachers‟ and students‟ preferences in
written error correction.

2.10 Teachers‟ Attitudes and Students‟ preferences

2.10.1 Teacher Beliefs and Practices

Teachers‟ preferences are significant items that affect teacher favored ways for
error correction. In line with (Borg, 2001), teacher beliefs is termed as a set of
consciously and unconsciously saved suggestions that is responded as a reaction
and a plan to the teacher‟s views and performances.

An obvious example of this study was investigated by Hyland and Hyland

(2006) to explore the impact of first language (L1) and experience on teachers‟
preferences concerning error correction. The contributors were put in three teams
of 16 members each: (1) the first team encompassed a number of L2 English

43
speaking teachers; (2) the second team included L1 English non-teachers, and (3)
contained L1 English speaking teachers. Altogether were given a text contains 150
words and were required to assess the text entirely, to pin spot and correct all
errors, to choose and grade the most important errors, and to provide the rationale
behind their selection. By having finished the mission, the contributors were
requested to fill in a survey which collected biographical information and their
attitudes on error correction. Findings of the study reveal that although all the
contributors realized error correction as positive teaching technique, they
experienced the task in various ways. Teachers with various backgrounds deal with
error correction in varied ways and this defines their decisions about
appropriateness in L2 writing. This indicates that teachers‟ awareness of
grammatical errors in L2 writing are greatly affected by their attitudes about
language learning, and may have an impact on the kind of written error correction
they support to enhance their students‟ L2 writing accurateness.

One of the most prominent researches in teachers‟ preferences was

administered by Lee (2005) mentioning about ten gaps between teachers‟
preferences and written error correction practice. Lee asserts on the results from a
study that explored the teachers‟ preferences in written feedback from a couple of
sources: (1) feedback analysis on the basis of written texts collected from teachers
in some continuation interviews and (2) a survey including a questionnaire directed
to teachers along with interviews. Subsequently feedback is considered a crucial
task for teachers; she managed to provoke the beliefs that trigger teachers‟ practices
so as to aid detect the aspects that lead to efficient feedback. The core result of her
study is that while the teachers‟ inclination to check and identify the spots of errors

44
for learners, they have a strong perception that the teacher feedback is the most
desirable way for them to learn to correct and locate their own errors. This shows a
discrepancy between the teachers‟ preferences supposing that teachers‟ written
error correction activities may not permit learners to learn the proper way to correct
and identify their own errors, even though the think that it does.

2.10.2 Student Preferences

Numerous studies have investigated students‟ preferences and attitudes in

recent literature on written error correction as well. Studies also reveal that learners
depend on their teachers for correcting errors in developing L2 writing accuracy
(Lee, 2004). Extended research could investigate in larger depth how these errors
correction preferences influence the capability of students to improve their writing.

Making an allowance for the literature, it is worth mentioning that tutors

realize the process of providing written error correction as a progressive
educational technique. Conversely, results taken from preceding studies advocate
that teachers have provided written error correction in variable ways, which may be
impressed by their practices and verdicts, concerning what is adequate in L2
writing. Besides, results from former studies advise that teachers‟ preferences vary
from the real written error correction strategies that they make use of in the
classroom. Likewise, results from latest research have averred that appreciate value
obtaining their errors marked by their teachers. By brushing up the literature, it can
be surmised that there is a prerequisite for further research to explore teachers‟ and
students‟ preferences regarding written error correction.

45
2.11 Previous Studies
Lots of allegations relevant to written error correction can be taken from the
various SLA theories that have been put heads together. Plus, it is clear cut that
results from former studies regarding the efficiency of written error correction are
still unsettled down. By brushing up former studies on written error correction, it
can be surmised that further research is necessary to explore and study teachers‟
and students‟ preferences on the subject of written error correction. As a matter of
fact, the current study aims at investigating this gap in the literature by studying
teachers‟ attitudes and inspecting the preferences of the learners regarding the
above-mentioned subject so as to detect the important items of L2 writing more
methodically. Hopefully this study will add to the present studies by supporting a
more inclusive exploration of teachers‟ and students‟ preferences with regard to
written error correction. Moreover, the current study may offer the chance for
teacher to react on and select the most appropriate L2 writing instructions.

46
 CHAPTER THREE

Research Method and Design

3.0 Introduction
In this chapter, the researcher will display the research method used in this
study together with the data collection processes besides the instruments of such
data collection. It describes the research population and data analysis methods.
Moreover, this chapter sets forth the scope of the practical side of this study, as it
elucidate the essential items of the methodology, the methods of data collection and
data analysis. Sampling, validation, and reliability will be discussed as well.

3.1 Methodology
The current study is quantitative in nature where the data was collected
through an online questionnaire that was planned to be along the lines of the
research hypotheses. The questionnaire was electronically sent online to the
targeted teachers and students alike to find out which error correction preferences
better to be utilized in their EFL classrooms

3.2 Population
EFL teachers and learners symbolize the population of this study. The
population of this study is the English language teachers and students at
Preparatory Year Deanship (PYD), Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia.

3.3 Sampling
The sample number is 50 EFL teachers and 100 EFL students. The investigator
believes that this number is sufficient to accomplish the objective of the study. The
47
students are selected from selected campuses. Teaching in these campuses, the
teachers are from different countries, with several years of experience. They have
different academic qualifications and professional training. The instructors work in
English Department at Preparatory Year Deanship (PYD), at Majmaah University.
EFL students are Saudis who, as they reported, started studying English in middle
schools. Thus, they have similar EFL learning experience, but their proficiency in
English is somehow different. They study at various premises in Majmaah and
Zulfi and all of them are at the Preparatory Year Deanship (PYD).

3.4 Scope of the Study

This study is intended to explore EFL teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for
error correction in EFL writing classroom. The data was collected by way of two
online questionnaire forms. The first form was electronically sent to EFL teachers
at Majmaah University in Saudi Arabia. The second was sent to EFL students of
the Preparatory Year Deanship (PYD) at different campuses in Majmaah area in
Saudi Arabia. Both English language teachers and students were the population of
the study. Fifty English language teachers and 100 of EFL native Arabic speakers
have participated in this survey. The teachers were 50 instructors who taught
English at the PYD. Their experience in teaching English ranged from 1 to more
than 15 years. Some of the instructors were native speaker. They were of different
nationalities (i.e. Egyptian, Sudanese, Jordanian, Syrian, American, and South
African). The subjects were students from different classes in the PYD campuses
at. Writing was on of the courses taught to the students. The course being taught
was Q-skills. The students ranged between 18-21years of age and they were all
undergraduates. Students have reacted on both forms of the questionnaire. Equally,

48
the two forms of the questionnaire consist of fifty-one items. Each questionnaire
includes two sections. The results of the questionnaire are interpreted by the
researches using Statistic Package for Social Science (SPSS).

3.5 Data Collection Tool

3.5.1 Questionnaire

The present survey is designed to provoke direct judgments, straightforward

statements, and easy questions. It comprises a variety of options: agree, disagree,
and I do not know tags. The questionnaire statements extracted from instruments
used in previous studies (D. R. Ferris, 2003; Hyland, 2003; Lee, 2005; Radecki &
Swales, 1988). The participant can respond to the written statements to elicit
reactions, preferences and attitudes for error correction. The investigator writes and
adapts a number of statements and asks the participants to choose what corresponds
with their views. The questionnaires are adapted to collect quantitative data and to
bring about information from the 50 EFL teachers and 100 EFL students. All
questionnaires‟ statements concentrate on the utilization of different ways to
correct errors in EFL writing classrooms. The surveys aim at recognizing their
point of views and beliefs towards the various error correction strategies. A survey
questionnaire was used to examine the perceptions and practices of EFL teachers
for correcting written errors to develop EFL classroom and EFL students on top.
The questionnaire was prepared in two forms. The first targets EFL teachers,
while the second one was planned for EFL students. Both questionnaires are almost
similar, regarding statements, with slight changes to address the two kinds of

49
population (teachers and students). The EFL teachers‟ questionnaire version
incorporates fifty-one statements; likewise The EFL students‟ inquiry form
includes fifty-one statements. The questionnaire was designed and prepared in
English to achieve the aim of this research, but in order for the students‟ survey to
be efficient and receive growing attention, the researcher presents the survey to a
translation panel to be translated in Arabic. Plus, the written surveys, two online
versions for both surveys have been developed to be on hand for many of PYD
students. Furthermore, the online survey reduces effort and saves time of
distributing and collecting data. The items on the questionnaire were developed on
a three-point Likert scale of agreement that was favored, as it is one of the most
commonly widespread Likert scales in the field of education. The researcher sent
the questionnaire links to EFL teachers via e-mail and various social media sites.
They had enough time to fill in the survey and respond. Although, the
questionnaires were slightly long, the items were direct and clear. As a result, the
participants did not have any trouble responding them. After that, the investigator
checked the electronic assorted data and organized them for analysis.

3.5.2 Pilot Study

With the intention of measuring the validity of the questionnaire, a pilot study
has been conducted to make sure that the survey is valid for the participants.
Twenty copies of the questionnaire were sent to EFL teachers and some EFL
students from Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia. Likewise, the EFL teachers
responded electronically to the survey and supported the researcher with their
comments, suggestions, notes, and advice at the end of the inquiry as requested by
the researcher. In line with their recommendations, the number of the statements
50
was reduced from fifty-three in the pilot survey to fifty-one statements submitted to
EFL teachers and fifty-one statements submitted to EFL students in the final
version as well. The adapted study version contained two open-ended questions at
the end, which the researcher has been advised to delete those questions in order
not to prolong the questionnaire. The questionnaire is designed from two sections.
The first one includes information about EFL teachers‟ and EFL students‟
qualifications, levels, and years of experience. The second section consists of
statements.

3.5.3 Questionnaire Reliability

The reliability of the questionnaire was measured by Statistic Package for

Social Science (SPSS). The Cronbach‟s Alpha was as follows:
Questionnaire 1: EFL teachers
Table (3.1): Reliability Statistics: The Questionnaire
Cronbach‟s Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Number of items
Standardized Items

0.831 0.831 51
This table shows a high degree of reliability (0.831).

51
This table shows a high figure of reliability (0.831).

Questionnaire 2: EFL students

Table (3.2): Reliability Statistics: The Questionnaire
Cronbach‟s Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Number of items
Standardized Items

0.831 0.831 51
This table shows a high figure of reliability (0.831).

52
3.6 Data Analysis Procedures
The questionnaire was electronically sent to the subjects, and they were
required to respond to it during their free time. The EFL teachers and their students
were given a few days to complete the questionnaire. The researcher was
continuously following up the results on Google Drive, where it is possible to see
the subjects‟ responses at once.

Quantitative analysis was used to analyze the data gathered through surveys.
The obtained data was analyzed by using basic the factor analysis, using the (IBM)
Statistic Package for Social Science (SPSS) computer-based application.

53
 CHAPTER FOUR

Data Analysis and Interpretation

4.1 Introduction
This chapter is designed to show the tools of data collection and data
analysis. It makes required data available for the study. It also exhibits illustrated
tables and bar charts, followed by a discussion of the results and summary.

4.2 Data Analysis

This chapter presents the analysis of the survey. The questionnaire contains
fifty-one statements to cover the research hypotheses.

Keys: A= Agree D= Disagree DN= I do not know

Table: 1

Years of Experience (Teachers‟ Survey)

Valid Cumulativ
Frequency Percent
Percent e Percent
Valid 1-5 years 20 40.0 40.0 40.0
6-10 years 13 26.0 26.0 66.0
11 years or
17 34.0 34.0 100.0
above
Total 50 100.0 100.0

54
 Table (1) represents years of experience of the subjects. By taking a look at
the above table, it is clear that around one third of the teachers are experienced of
more than eleven years. This is a good factor because these instructors can provide
the research with dependable judgment owing to their remarkable years of
experience in ELT.

Table: 2

Qualifications of the Subjects (teachers‟ Survey)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Valid BA 22 44.0 44.0 44.0
MA 23 46.0 46.0 90.0
PhD 5 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table (2) shows the qualifications of the teachers. It is noticed that Bachelor degree
holders and Master‟s degree holders are almost equal of (44%) and (46%)
respectively. On the other hand Ph.D. holders just represent about (10%) since
these students just left high school and start tertiary education. Moreover, they
study general English which makes the need of Ph.D. holders is not one of the
priorities. These givens will play a great role in giving reasonable judgments.

Table: 3

55
Levels Taught by the Subjects (Teachers‟ survey)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Valid Beginner 8 16.0 16.0 16.0
Elementary 9 18.0 18.0 34.0
Pre-
4 8.0 8.0 42.0
intermediate
Intermediate 29 58.0 58.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table (3) supports the research with the various levels taught by tutors. It is
obvious that near (60%) of the teachers teach intermediate students and less than
half of the teachers teach beginner, elemntary, and pre-intermediate of (16%),
(18%), and (8%) respectively. This variety shows that the subjects are given
different levels to teach.

Table: 4

Levels that Students Study (Students‟ Survey)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent

Valid Beginner 25 25.0 25.0 25.0

56
 Elementary 17 17.0 17.0 42.0
Pre-
18 18.0 18.0 60.0
intermediate
Intermediate 40 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Table (4) describes that (70%) of the subjects are above elementary level which
means that these students have enough English language knowledge that makes
them able to deal professionally with the questionnaire and give their point of
view without hesitation.

Table: 5

Proper time to give feedback

Teachers Students
I prefer to get my feedback
1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
1) at the prewriting stage 21 42 26 52 3 6 51 51 16 16 33 33

2) at the drafting stage 21 42 20 40 9 18 37 37 44 44 19 19

3) at the revising stage 42 84 6 12 2 4 62 62 21 21 17 17

4) at the evaluation stage 41 84 6 12 3 6 44 44 27 27 29 29

1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.

In the table above (5), the third and fourth statements show a mild percentage
(84%) of teachers was in line with providing feedback during the revising and
evaluation stages. By comparing that with the previous studies, it can be noticed
that the results are nearly similar to (Salteh & Sadeghi, 2015). The same results
were in conflict with (Hajian, Farahani, & Shirazi, 2014) which recorded a high

57
percentage for giving feedback at the prewriting stage, but agreed with providing
feedback at the evaluation stage. Giving feedback at an early stage may inhibit
students to achieve progress in writing since they are still brainstorming and
attempting to write the first draft (Hamouda, 2011). Although, corrections on
written work at the final stage may not be better to enhance students‟ writing
(Stanely, 2003 cited in Hamouda, 2011), a lot of teachers believed that providing
feedback at this stage will be supportive to students and that has been mentioned in
the current study. 42% teachers were in agreement to conduct feedback at both
drafting and pre-writing stage. Although, as stated by previous studies, giving
feedback in above mentioned stages could be better than evaluation stage (Stanely,
2003 cited in Hamouda, 2011). Less than half of the teachers were agreed to give
feedback at the drafting and prewriting stage. The researcher is in the favor of
giving feedback at the early stages, since it will give the opportunity to the leaners
to edit their errors before the final stages, especially if they care about the mark
given.

Students, on the other hand, gave too much importance to giving feedback at the
revising stage (62%) in (statement 3). Statement 2 (get feedback at the drafting
stage) was the less important for students in their ideas (37%). Half of the students
(51%) were in line with getting feedback at the prewriting stage (statement 2). 44%
of the students showed agreement to receive feedback at the evaluation stage
(statement 4).

The results of this study were agreed more or less with (Salteh & Sadeghi, 2015)
while the most preferred choice for the teachers was to give feedback at the
revising stage and the next most liked one in the descending of popularity is to give

58
feedback at the evaluation stage. The most preferred option for the students was
giving feedback at the drafting stage.

Table: 6

Color of pen for feedback

In giving feedback, I like my Teachers Students

teacher to use….. 1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
5) the red pen 42 84 8 16 0 0 63 63 26 26 11 11

6) the pencil 14 28 27 54 9 18 42 42 44 44 14 14

1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.

Table (6) illustrated that using a red pen has been favored by both teachers (with
84%) and students (with 63%), while using a pencil came in the second rank with
14% by teachers and 42% by students. Using the red pen is useful since it
highlights the places of errors and makes them apparent to the learner. Reflecting
on the previous studies, a lot of learners thought that the lack of using the red pen
by the teacher is a sort of neglecting their responsibilities to learn effectively (Lee,
2005). Therefore, students believed that using a red pen is more effective than
using a pencil and tutors believed that utilizing the red pen makes students learn
well (Hajian et al., 2014). The researcher thinks that using the red pen in error
correction gives the students the chance to realize that something went wrong and
needs to be dealt carefully. The comments given in pencil were desired by readers
and could be debated (Kate, 2010, cited in Hamouda, 2011).

Table: 7

The amount of teacher written correction

59
It would be better if my Teachers Students
teacher 1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
7) corrects all the errors 23 46 24 28 3 6 75 75 17 17 8 8

8) selects some errors 31 62 18 36 1 2 29 29 48 48 23 23

9) doesn‟t correct any error 3 6 39 78 8 16 15 15 64 64 21 21

1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.

Table (7) showed 62% of teachers favored to select some errors of their learners
written work, while (46%) of teachers desired to correct all errors. According to the
previous studies, there is an agreement between this study and (Hajian et al., 2014)
on the statements 7 and 8 to correct all errors or select some. By giving students all
the errors corrected, they will lose their self-awareness and they might copy the
teacher‟s correction without paying any attention to the errors committed
(Katayama, 2007). According to Hamouda (2011), teachers believe that it is better
to appoint some errors and leave the remains for students with some guidelines. 6%
of teachers opted to leave the errors without correction. Diab (2005) in her research
mentioned that it was unworkable for the teachers to correct all errors that students
did because of the enormous number of students.

It was surprising that 70% of students thought that they should have all their errors
corrected, 29% of them asserted on the selection of a few errors, and 15% desired
all the errors to be left without correction. In line with the previous researchers
(Diab, 2005; Halimi, 2008; Lee, 2005; Leki, 1991; Oladejo, 1993) 75% of the
students in the current study favored their errors to be corrected as a whole to be
understood to them. The researcher sees that leaving some errors uncorrected for
students will encourage them to work on errors by themselves which create a good
environment for learning.
60
Table: 8

Who will do the correction?

Teachers Students
4. Class error correction. Who?
1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
10) the teacher 37 74 12 24 1 2 74 74 20 20 6 6

11) your peers 31 62 11 22 8 16 37 37 40 40 23 23

12)self-correction 36 72 13 26 1 2 44 44 30 30 26 26

1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.

By having a look at table 8, it is clear that the statements get high various
percentage of 74% for the errors to be corrected by teachers, 62% to get the errors
corrected by students‟ peers, and 72% for correcting the errors by the students
themselves. Therefore, tutors believed that correcting errors could be distributed
and shared by the all the three elements. A great number of teachers liked the
strategy of peer correction. This result is in compliance with Witbeck (1976), who
observed that peer correction guided to “ a greater concern for achieving accuracy
in written expression in individual students and creates better atmosphere for
teaching the correctional aspects of composition”

Students, on the other hand, gave a great attention (74%) to get the errors corrected
by the teacher. Students thought that correcting errors by teachers is trustworthy
and supportive (statement 10). The findings were similar to (Hajian et al., 2014)
also were in accordance with Radecki and Swales (1988), a lot of students favor to
get their errors corrected by teachers because they thought that it is their teachers‟
responsibilities. The reason behind that is the students feel comfortable when the
61
errors are corrected by teachers. 37% agrees to get some correction from their peers
(statement 11). That was in compliance with Oladejo (1993), students could be
terrified to get unpleasant feedback from their peers, so peer correction was
unaccepted by some students. Less than half of the students (44%) liked to correct
the errors themselves, they are pleased to do that (Diab, 2005).

Table: 9

Forms of paper-marking techniques

How would you like your teacher Teachers Students

to correct your errors in writing? 1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
13)writing questions 25 50 20 40 5 10 54 54 32 32 14 14

14) writing statement 34 68 24 28 2 4 54 54 29 29 17 17

15)underlining the error and write 41 82 8 16 1 2 75 75 18 18 7 7

comments at the end of the essay

16) using imperatives 25 50 18 36 7 14 34 34 41 41 25 25

17) using exclamations 27 54 17 34 6 12 38 38 35 35 26 26

18) crossing out the error and writing 38 76 10 20 2 4 61 61 27 27 12 12

in the correct word or structure

19) using correction codes 33 66 11 22 6 12 47 47 31 31 22 22

1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.

In table 9, statement 13 was selected by 50% of teachers and it was surprising that
also 54% of students opted to correct their errors by getting some questions from
their teachers. By answering these questions, students can easily correct their
errors. In line with previous studies, Hamouda (2011) in his study averred that
writing questions as feedback on the learners composition may lead to
misperception or misinterpretation. In statement 15 an agreement has been noticed,
62
82% of teachers and 75% of students agreed to get the errors underlined by
teachers, provided with written comments. 66% of teachers favored utilizing error
correction codes (statement 19). By ways of explaining, teachers thought using
such codes will let students recognize their mistakes and the type of them. Around
half of the teachers agreed to correct the errors by imperatives (statement 16). The
previous findings were in line with (Hajian et al., 2014).

Statement 14 was chosen by 68% of teachers. Therefore, they were for the idea of
correcting errors by writing statements. By comparing the findings with the
previous studies, statements may be difficult for teachers to reflect on the students‟
writing (Hamouda, 2011). Unlike previous studies, 54% of teachers agreed upon
using exclamations (statement 17),. According to Hajian et al. (2014), the
preference to utilize exclamations , teachers may try to assist their students‟
improvement to distinguish between two drafts. While 76% of teachers like to cross
out the error and write the correct word or structure (statement 18) was in contrast
with the finding of previous studies; EFL teachers may not like to cross out the
incorrect errors and write the correct word as the most preferable strategy to mark
errors in the initial draft (Diab, 2005; Hamouda, 2011).

Statements 15 and 18 of the questionnaire showed high percentage of agreement by

students (76%) and (61%) respectively. Therefore, students favored that their
teachers comprehend their errors and support them with the proper comments at the
end of the written work and preferred to the teachers to cross out the mistakes and
write the correct word or structure. (Hajian et al., 2014). Afterwards, statement 14
has been selected by (54%) students to have paper-marking strategy by statements.

63
Statement 13 cultivated about (54%) of students preferred to get some questions on
their written work.

Furthermore, the statements 16 and 19 were favored by 34% and 47% respectively
by students. By ways of explaining, 34% of students liked to use imperatives given
by their teachers to give feedback about their errors. Additionally, 47% of students
desired their errors to be corrected by their teachers via giving them some
correction codes as guides for them. The percentage of 34% of students‟ selection
of using imperative means that: 66% of students showed a great amount of
confusion regarding this topic. Finally, 38% of students desired statement 17.

Table: 10

Focus on feedback

Which aspect(s) in writing Teachers Students

would you prefer teacher
comments to focus on? 1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
20) grammar 45 90 4 8 1 2 70 70 19 19 11 11

21) mechanics (e.g. punctuation, 42 84 8 16 0 0 42 42 31 31 27 27

spelling)
22) vocabulary choice 42 84 8 16 0 0 42 42 36 36 22 22

23) content 41 82 6 12 3 6 50 50 26 26 24 24

24) organization and paragraph 46 92 2 4 2 4 45 45 31 31 24 24

construction
1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.

In table (10), the results of the six statements of this table were almost close to each
other and ranged from 82% to 92%. As a matter of fact, 90% of teachers were in

64
line with teacher‟s comments should concentrate on grammar (statement 20).
Hajian et al. (2014), thought that teachers should give a great amount of awareness
and feedback at all stages of correction. 84% of teachers expressed high necessity
for choosing vocabulary items and mechanics (e.g. punctuation, spelling) to be
corrected, but it came less important than correcting grammatical mistakes. 82%
teachers preferred to focus on the content (statement 23). Also, 92% of teachers
believed that organization and paragraph construction is of great importance to be
taken into consideration by students when they give their comments on students‟
writings (statement 24).

Based on the above table, 70% of the students selected to focus on the grammatical
errors (statement 20). Thus, the greatest amount of attention was given to grammar,
compared with other statements on the table. About half of the students (50%)
preferred their teachers to focus on content (statement 23). Reflecting on the
previous studies, Hajian et al. (2014) averred that the reason for selecting the
content is that the students believed that content in writing is crucial and these
types of errors should be handled by the teacher and teachers comments‟ on this
part are indispensable. Statements 21, 22, and 32 were less important for students,
and the percentage were 42%, 42%, and 45% respectively. Previous studies showed
that students favored to get teachers‟ comments on grammatical, lexical, and
mechanics items, more than those on the content and construction (Hajian et al.,
2014; Halimi, 2008). It might cause conflicting findings even if it is conducted by
the same subjects. For example in the finding of (Diab, 2005) inquiring about these
aspects from students by three tables ( 6 items and 18 sub-items) , firstly most of
them agreed to point out errors in grammar by teachers in both first draft and final

65
draft (86%) agreed with the first draft and 82% were in line with the final draft),
but in item 6, grammar was given as one of the minimal percentages in students‟
responses and it was just more than spelling and punctuation(Diab, 2005).

Table: 11

Types of feedback

Which type of teacher comments Teachers Students

do you prefer? 1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
25) general comments 28 56 20 40 2 4 54 54 31 31 15 15

26) detailed and specific comments 34 68 14 28 2 4 59 59 22 22 19 19

27) positive comments 47 94 1 2 2 4 73 73 17 17 10 10

28) negative comments 11 22 34 68 5 10 19 19 66 66 15 15

29) direct feedback 31 62 16 32 3 6 57 57 17 17 26 26

30) indirect feedback 24 48 20 40 6 12 33 33 36 36 31 31

31) margin feedback 33 66 13 26 4 8 53 53 22 22 25 25

32) end feedback 34 68 10 20 6 12 52 52 24 24 24 24

1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.

In table (11), it is obvious that 92% liked to offer positive comments (statement
27). Direct feedback (statement 29) has been selected by around two thirds of
teachers. As for (statement 26) a lot of teachers 68% preferred to give detailed and
specific feedback. About half of the teachers 48% were in compliance with giving
indirect feedback (statement 30). Giving end feedback (statement 32) was too much
important to some teachers 68% to conclude their comments on students‟ writing.
Statements 27 and 30 were similar to each other in percentage 44% and 48%
respectively. By ways of explaining, around half of the teacher refused to provide
their students with negative and indirect feedback, believing that might be
66
confusing and discouraging for them. Although negative feedback was selected by
22% of teachers, it should be taken into account that it is preferable by some
teachers.

73% of students were attracted to get positive feedback from their teachers more
than the reaming items related to feedback (statement 27). Moreover, positive
feedback may motivate students to better writing. 59% of students preferred to be
given detailed and specific comments (statement 26). Hamouda (2011) thought
that detailed and specific feedback is more efficient than the general feedback to
suggest feedback more clearly. 57% of students liked direct feedback because the
thought it is supportive (statement 29). Wang (2010) asserts that direct comments
my enhance students‟ enthusiasm and self-awareness to correct their errors.
Statements 25, 31, and 32 statements were very close to each other of 54%, 53, and
52 respectively. More than half of the students preferred to get general comments,
margin feedback, and end feedback. Based on the above statements, students were
thought to like general comments to be motivated and encouraged to detect the
errors and correct them; margin feedback might be useful to the students, the
information on the margin will lead the students to fix their errors; the importance
of end feedback stems from the necessity to come to a conclusion and
comprehension of the structure and its application. Statement 28 was selected by
19% of students. This might be acceptable according to the diversity of learners‟
styles. Negative feedback is oftentimes taken seriously by learners, especially when
it is leading to assessment and giving marks.

Table: 12

Teachers‟ comments and corrections

67
 What do you usually do Teachers Students
after you read your
teacher‟s comments and
corrections? 1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
33) I like to read every 27 54 16 32 7 14 78 78 12 12 10 10

mark/comment my teacher
wrote on my piece of work
carefully.
34) I am mostly concerned and 42 84 7 14 1 2 68 68 18 18 14 14

motivated about the grade.

35) I ask my teacher for help. 44 88 4 8 2 4 60 60 20 20 20 20

36) I ask some other teachers 19 38 18 36 13 26 37 37 37 37 26 26

for help.
37) I use the Internet to find 30 60 11 22 9 18 57 57 24 24 19 19

more references.
38) I go to the library to 13 26 24 48 13 26 44 44 27 27 29 29

consult reference materials

(e.g. grammar book,
dictionary).
39) I ask my classmates for 43 86 5 10 2 4 70 70 18 18 12 12

help.
40) I make correction myself. 17 34 20 40 13 26 50 50 32 32 18 18

41) I ignore them because I do 17 34 24 48 9 18 20 20 55 55 25 25

not know how to make the

corrections.
42) I don't like to read the 26 52 18 36 6 12 38 38 36 36 26 26

entire composition again after

my teacher has marked it.
1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.
68
Based on the table above (12), 84% of teachers asserted that students were mostly
concerned and motivated about the grade (statement 34). With reference to the
previous studies, the finding of this study were similar to (Hajian et al., 2014;
Hamouda, 2011). The same results were in conflict to Halimi‟s (2008) . Halimi
(2008), declared that none of the learners desire to write to receive good grades and
no more goals (Hamouda, 2011). Statement 35 was chosen by 88% of teachers. It is
thought that they ask teachers for help because they might not know how to correct
the errors themselves and believe that teachers are responsible for error correction
(Hamouda, 2011). More than half of the teachers 54% viewed that students like to
read every comment written by their teacher with prompt attention. One third of the
students 38% showed importance to ask some teachers from other groups / classes
due to the lack of confidence to ask their teacher for help. 86% of the teachers
agreed with the idea that students ask their peers for help (statement 39). This
statement indicated that not just a few students felt free to ask their classmates to
correct errors. In contrast with the previous studies, 52% of teachers agreed that
their students neglect to read the whole writing again after being marked by their
teachers (statement 42). It was unanticipated and different from previous studies to
witness less than one third if the teachers asserting that their students are interested
in visiting the library seeking for more and rich resources such as: grammar books
and dictionaries ( statement 38). Since the internet is regarded as a good resort for
all learners, 60% of teachers thought that students use the internet for reference and
further information (statement 37). Statement 40 revealed that about third of the
teachers believed that 34% managed to correct the errors themselves. It means that
66% of the teachers were against the previous statement.

69
Students on the other side, (78%) students agreed to like to read every mark/
comment their teachers wrote on their pieces of work carefully. In other words, less
than a hundred of students preferred to read every mark or comment on their
written work (statement 33). Statement 35 was opted by 60% of students who
agreed to ask their teachers for help. The teacher is for sure a great helper for them
to clarify any difficult issues for them (Hamouda, 2011). Less than half of the
students 44% loved to go to the library to look up on dictionaries and books for any
misunderstood aspects (statement 38). 70% of students wanted to ask their peers for
help (statement 39). It is thought that it was useful for them to ask their classmates
without any hesitation or fear. The given grade / mark influenced most the students
opting for this aspect; 68% of students were interested in knowing the grade given
on their work (statement 34). Therefore, it is evident that, the grade was very
important to learners to enhance their levels. Exactly, half of the students 50%
favored to correct the mistakes by themselves (statement 40). Statement 37 was the
nearest on to the former statement. 57% had the desire to use the internet seeking
more references. Hamouda (2011), asserted that using internet is very helpful and
supportive to search for new resources to enhance their skills. 20% of the students
confessed that they ignore any items they do not know how to deal with because of
the lack of knowledge. Statement 42 showed that more than a third of students
38% didn‟t like to read the whole written work again after it has been marked by
their teachers. Also, 37% sought for other teachers in other groups to ask them
some question concerning their error mistakes. It might happen because the
students feel uncomfortable and ashamed to ask their own teachers in order not for
the teachers to attract bad attentions about them (statement 36).

70
Table: 13

How students feel about their teachers‟ comments

How do you feel about your Teachers Students

teacher comments? 1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
43) My teacher‟s comments are too 5 10 38 76 7 14 19 19 63 63 18 18

negative and discouraging.

44) My teacher‟s comments are too 22 44 23 46 5 10 47 47 33 33 20 20

general.
45) I enjoy the teacher's comments on 22 44 18 36 10 20 63 63 18 18 19 19

my composition.
46) My teacher‟s comments and 44 88 3 6 3 6 73 73 16 16 11 11

corrections help me to know what to

avoid/improve next time.
47) My teacher‟s comments and 45 90 3 6 2 4 69 69 17 17 14 14

corrections help me to know where my

mistakes are and correct them.
48) The feedback given makes me 42 84 5 10 3 6 71 71 15 15 14 14

want to try harder to improve in my

writing.
49) The feedback given makes me feel 31 62 7 14 12 24 66 66 14 14 20 20

good about myself.

50) I feel that my writing has improved 42 28 4 8 4 8 68 68 17 17 15 15

because of the feedback given on my

paper.
51) Generally, I like the way my 34 38 11 22 5 10 55 55 21 21 24 24

composition is marked.
1= agree, 2= disagree, 3= I do not know.

71
In the above table (13), statement 47 presented that 90% of teachers were
completely agreed with the idea that teachers‟ comments and corrections assist
students to know the places of mistakes and correct them. The second rank 88%
was given to statement 46 which refers to the assistance of teachers‟ comments for
students to enable them to know the mistakes and improve / avoid them next time.
Less than half of the teachers 44% of teachers like their comments given to
students (statement45). These results came in contrast with some previous studies
like (Hajian et al., 2014). Statement 84 showed that 84% of teachers approved that
the feedback given makes students enthusiastic to do their best to enhance their
writing. Less than a third of the teachers 28% believed that students feel that their
writing has improved due to the feedback given on their papers. More than a third
of teachers opted statement 51. Thus, they liked the way the composition is
marked. Only 44% of teachers thought that the teachers‟ comments are too general
(statement 44). Around two thirds of teachers believed that the feedback given
makes students feel good about them. Just 10% of teachers felt that teachers‟
comments are too negative and discouraging (statement 43).

The students on the other hand, 74% of them, agreed upon the idea that teachers‟
comments and corrections help students to know what to avoid / improve next time
(statement 46). Referring to the above table, 71% of the students agreed that the
feedback given makes students want to try harder to improve their writing
(statement 48). Statement 49 showed that 66% of students felt good about the
feedback given on their paper. 68% of students felt that their writing enhances
owing to the feedback given on their paper. According to the table, 63% of students
enjoyed teachers‟ comments on their written work (statement 45). More than half

72
of the students liked the way their writing has been marked (statement 51). It is a
coincidence that most of the results of this study was too close to the previous study
results like (Hajian et al., 2014). A bit less than half of the students 47% felt that
teachers‟ comments are too general (statement 44). A few number of students 19%
declared that teachers‟ comments are too negative and discouraging (statement 43).
69% of them asserted that teachers‟ comments and corrections help students to
know where mistakes are and correct them (statement 47).

Furthermore, these finding were in line with results of (Diab, 2005; Hajian et al.,
2014; Hamouda, 2011; Lee, 2005). Students were glad to get their teachers‟
feedback on their writing. They might feel comfortable with their teacher.
Therefore, they thought their teachers‟ feedback might be necessary for them to
enhance their writing.

4.3 Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the EFL teachers‟ and students‟
preferences for error correction in EFL classroom in Saudi context. The findings
have shown that both teachers and students have their own preferences for
correcting errors. The analysis of this study came up with some conflicts between
the teachers and students towards the issue of correcting errors. The students‟
dependence on their teachers‟ was obvious from the responses obtained from both
teachers and students. This will make it time-and effort consuming for teachers
especially they are teaching so many classes. At the end of each assignment, the
students only submit their written waiting the reply from their instructors without
paying any attention for the effort made from the instructors‟ part. Saudi EFL
classes are enormous in number. Additionally, teachers and students have long

73
exercises and conversations concerning errors and the possible ways for correcting
these errors. It goes without saying that instructors don‟t have the ability to correct
all errors. Although the increasing necessity from students towards correcting
errors by teachers. It wasn‟t reasonable for teachers to spend their valuable time
just for fixing these errors.
It can be understood from the finding that the time and effort required for
fixing the errors should be shared between the instructors and students. By ways of
explaining, instructors could do their best to lead their learners to the place and type
of mistakes and give their students the opportunities to try to use the possible
strategies to fix these problems by themselves. Students may find it difficult to fix
these problems themselves, so they can evoke one of the ways that have been
discussed in this study. Furthermore, they can consult a peer, dictionary, grammar
book or even internet editing blogs (i.e. grammarely). These procedures should be
tried before conducting the feedback session with the teacher.

4.4 Summary
This chapter has presented the data analysis of this study. The current study
is conducted to investigate the EFL teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for error
correction in writing. This has been achieved via two online questionnaires sent
electronically to EFL teachers and students. Additionally, this chapter provided the
data drawn in figures and tables. Finally, interpretations were made from the data
collected and the researcher has discussed the results of the study.

74
 CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusion, Findings, and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion
This study has explored the EFL teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for error
correction in EFL writing classes in the Saudi context. The data was collected from
two online questionnaires. The first form targeted EFL teachers at (PYD) Majmaah
University in Saudi Arabia, and the second one was responded by EFL Preparatory
Year Deanship (PYD) students in Majmaah University. The targets of the surveys
were to investigate the ways of error correction that meet with their approval.
Plus, it studies the probable common ways that can be used by the teachers and
students alike. However the discrepancies that takes place between the instructors
and learners, for example students need to have every error correction completely
and fully revised by teachers while teachers, conversely, desire to leave the doors
open for students in order for the learning process occurs naturally.
Moreover, it sheds some light on the issue of feedback and focuses on the
appropriate time to provide it rather than who is responsible for this task, whether
the teacher or the peers. The researcher believes that adopting the suitable ways for
error correction and employing them in the EFL writing classes will help enhance
the students‟ language proficiency. The vast majority of EFL teachers agreed that
error correction, in writing classroom, is a cooperative task that compromises the
teacher and the learners. There is no point for error correction to be done
individually by the teacher without any kind of reaction resulting from students.

75
 To sum up, it must be said that investigating the preferences of error
correction is of great importance for the teachers and students. In fact, the diversity
of these preferences will help the learners and teachers get rid of the boredom of
traditional writing classrooms. Therefore, teacher and student training is essential
in order to have smoother and more efficient implementation of these preferences.
ELT experts have a significant role in supporting, guiding and developing teachers‟
performance.

5.2 Findings of the Study

The Researcher came up with the following findings after the data collected
via the questionnaires.
1. Teachers and students have their own preferences for error correction.
2. There are some conflicts between the teachers and students towards the topic of
error correction.
3. Students are very dependent on their teachers for correcting errors, because they
trust their teachers.
4. Some ways of error correction are preferred by students than others like the
overall correction.
5. Learners have different styles in learning and correcting errors.
6. The task of error correction is a cooperative task between teachers and students.
7. Students aren‟t aware of reviewing their marked papers after getting them from
their teachers without paying any attention for their teachers‟ valuable time spent in
marking these papers.

76
5.3 Recommendations
The researcher has suggested some recommendations, which should be
employed by EFL teachers and EFL students:
1. Teachers should have training programs on the various strategies related for
correcting errors.
2. The preferences for error correction for both teachers and students should be
applied.
3. EFL Teachers should make groups of homogeneous students to work with each
other.
4. Other ways for error correction should be followed like visiting libraries for
more resources and online editing blogs.
5. Error correction as a task should be shared between teachers and their students.
6. Feedback sessions should be conducted at the appropriate time for students and
teachers for saving time, effort, and in order for effective learning to take place.

5.4 Suggestions for Further Studies

Further research studies should be concerned with:
1. Using computer applications (e.g. PowerPoint) for correcting errors as a
preference for visual learners.
2. Sharing students‟ composition among each other before teacher‟s feedback or
whole class discussion.
3. The influence of peer correction on the efficacy of students‟ writing.

77
 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Error Correction Code

78
Appendix 2: Teachers‟ questionnaire
https://goo.gl/forms/tRR5zCyt2RVYuwoX2
Nile Valley University
College of Graduate Studies
English Language Department
Dear Lecturer,
This questionnaire is prepared to explore your preferences for error correction in
EFL writing classroom at the Preparatory Year Deanship (PYD) at Majmaah
University. This study is conducted in fulfillment of a master's degree in applied
linguistics at Nile Valley University, Republic of Sudan. Bear in mind that your
responses to the questionnaire will be kept confidential, and used only in this study
for scientific purposes. Your contributions are highly appreciated.
Lecturer: Mahmoud Aboubakr Sayed
The Title of the Study:
“Teachers‟ and Students‟ Preferences for Error Correction in EFL
Writing Classrooms”

Section 1: Please complete the following information:

Years of Experience ( ) Qualifications………………………………………..
Level: Beginner ( ) Elementary ( ) Pre-intermediate ( ) Intermediate ( )
Section 2: Please tick the appropriate number for your opinion.
Items: 1= agree (A), 2= disagree (DA), 3= I do not know (DN)

79
80
81
Appendix 3: Students’ questionnaire
https://goo.gl/forms/VVHdmBuLgNPsMeJi2

Students‟ Questionnaire

Nile Valley University

College of Graduate Studies

English Language Department

Dear Student,

This study is prepared to complete a master's degree in applied linguistics (ELT) at

Nile Valley University, Republic of Sudan. In line with this study, this)
questionnaire is prepared to investigate your preferences for error correction carried
out in writing classrooms. The aim of this questionnaire is to know the students‟
opinions of the Preparatory Year Deanship, PYD, at Majmaah University, Saudi
Arabia. This is not a test, so there is no “right” or “wrong” answer. I am interested
in your personal point of view, so feel free. Your answers to the questionnaire will
be used only in this study. Please give your answers sincerely. Thank you very
much for your help.

Lecturer: Mahmoud Aboubakr Sayed

The Title of the Study:

“Teachers‟ and Students‟ Preferences for Error Correction in EFL Writing

Classrooms”

Section 1: Please complete the following information:

82
Level: Beginner ( ) Elementary ( ) Pre-intermediate ( ) Intermediate ( )

Section 2: Please tick (✓) the appropriate number for your opinion.

Items: 1= Agree (A) 2= Disagree (DA) 3= I do not know (DN)

83
84
 REFERENCES
Asassfeh, Sahail M. (2013). Corrective Feedback (CF) and English-Major EFL
Learners' Ability in Grammatical Error Detection and Correction. English
Language Teaching, 6(8), 85.
Baleghizadeh, Sasan, & Gordani, Yahya. (2012). Academic writing and
grammatical accuracy: The role of corrective feedback. Gist: Education and
Learning Research Journal(6), 159-176.
Bitchener, John. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback.
Journal of second language writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, John, Young, Stuart, & Cameron, Denise. (2005). The effect of different
types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of second
language writing, 14(3), 191-205.
Borg, Michaela. (2001). Key concepts in ELT. Teachers' beliefs. ELT journal,
55(2), 186-188.
Brannon, Lil, & Knoblauch, Cy H. (1982). On students' rights to their own texts: A
model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33(2),
157-166.
Brown, H Douglas. (2001). Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to
language pedagogy. New York: AW Longman: Inc.
Burt, Marina K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL
quarterly, 53-63.
Casanave, Christine Pearson. (2004). Controversies in second language writing:
Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction: University of Michigan
Press.
Chandler, Jean. (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.
Chomsky, Noam. (1959). A note on phrase structure grammars. Information and
control, 2(4), 393-395.
Corder, S Pit. (1973). The elicitation of interlanguage. Errata: Papers in error
analysis, 36-48.
Corder, Stephen Pit. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL-
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1-4),
161-170.
Corder, Stephen Pit. (1981). Interlanguage and error analysis: Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

85
Cummins, James. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational
development of bilingual children. Review of educational research, 49(2),
222-251.
Davies, Paul, & Pearse, Eric. (2000). Success in English Teaching: A Complete
Introduction to Teaching English at Secondary School Level and Above:
Oxford University Press.
Diab, Rula L. (2005). EFL university students' preferences for error correction and
teacher feedback on writing. TESL reporter, 38(1), 27-51.
Diaz-Rico, Lynne T. (2004). Teaching English learners: Strategies and methods:
Allyn & Bacon.
Dulay, Heidi C, & Burt, Marina K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax?
Language learning, 23(2), 245-258.
Ellis, Rod. (1994). The study of second language acquisition: Oxford University.
Ellis, Rod. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-
224.
Ellis, Rod. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal,
63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, Rod, Loewen, Shawn, & Erlam, Rosemary. (2006). Implicit and explicit
corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second
language acquisition, 28(2), 339.
Fazio, Lucy L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal
writing accuracy of minority-and majority-language students. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235-249.
Ferris, Dana. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A
response to Truscott (1996). Journal of second language writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, Dana R. (2002). TREATMENT OF ERROR IN SECOND LANGUAGE
STUDENT WRITING. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS.
Ferris, Dana R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second
language students: Routledge.
Ferris, Dana R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are
we, and where do we go from here?(and what do we do in the meantime…?).
Journal of second language writing, 13(1), 49-62.
Ferris, Dana R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on
the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. Feedback in
second language writing: Contexts and issues, 81104.

86
Ferris, Dana, & Roberts, Barrie. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How
explicit does it need to be? Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-
184.
Furnborough, Concha, & Truman, Mike. (2009). Adult beginner distance language
learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback. Distance Education,
30(3), 399-418.
Goldstein, Lynn M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language
writing classrooms: University of Michigan Press ELT.
Hajian, Leila, Farahani, Ali Akbar Khomeijani, & Shirazi, Masomeh Ahmadi.
(2014). A study of students‟ and teachers‟ preferences and attitudes towards
correction of classroom written errors in Iranian EFL context. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 287-297.
Halimi, Sisilia S. (2008). Indonesian teachers' and students' pref erences f or error
correction. Wacana: jurnal ilmu pengetahuan budaya, 50.
Hamouda, Arafat. (2011). A study of students and teachers' preferences and
attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL
context. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 128.
Han, Zhaohong. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition (Vol.
5): Multilingual Matters.
Harmer, Jeremy. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. London/New
York.
Hendrickson, James M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching:
Recent theory, research, and practice. The modern language journal, 62(8),
387-398.
Hyland, Ken. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT journal, 44(4), 279-285.
Hyland, Ken. (2003). Second language writing: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Hyland, Ken, & Hyland, Fiona. (2006). Feedback on second language students'
writing. Language teaching, 39(02), 83-101.
Katayama, Akemi. (2007). Students' perceptions of oral error correction. Japanese
Language and Literature, 41(1), 61-92.
Kepner, Christine Goring. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of
written feedback to the development of second‐language writing skills. The
modern language journal, 75(3), 305-313.
Klassen, Johanna. (1991). Using student errors for teaching. Paper presented at the
English Teaching Forum.
Krashen, Stephen. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.

87
Kumaravadivelu, Balasubramanian. (2006). Understanding language teaching:
From method to postmethod: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching:
Oxford University.
Lee, Icy. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of
Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312.
Lee, Icy. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students
think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1-16.
Leki, Ilona. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college‐
level writing classes. Foreign language annals, 24(3), 203-218.
Leki, Ilona. (1992). Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Teachers:
Partsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Long, MH. (1991). Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language'[bashing
Methodology, In K. de Bot, R. Ginsbert, and C. Kramsch (Eds), Foreign
Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective (pp. 39 52). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Lu, Tuanhua. (2010). Correcting the Errors in the Writing of University Students'
in the Comfortable Atmosphere. International Education Studies, 3(3), 74.
Mitchell, Rosamond, Myles, Florence, & Marsden, Emma. (2013). Second
language learning theories: Routledge.
Noora, Azam. (2006). Iranian Non-English Majors‟ Language Learning
Preferences: The Role of Language Institutes. Asian EFL Journal.
Nunan, David, & Lamb, Clarice. (1996). The self-directed teacher: Managing the
learning process: Cambridge University Press.
Oladejo, James A. (1993). Error Correction in ESL: Learner's Preferences. TESL
Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
Penning de Vries, BWF, Cucchiarini, C, Strik, H, & van Hout, RWNM. (2010).
The Role of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning: New
Research Possibilities by Combining CALL and Speech Technology'.
Philp, Jenefer. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 25(01), 99-126.
Radecki, Patricia M, & Swales, John M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written
comments on their written work. System, 16(3), 355-365.
Salteh, Maghsoud Alizadeh, & Sadeghi, Karim. (2015). Teachers‟ and Students‟
Attitudes Toward Error Correction in L2 Writing. The Journal of AsiaTEFL,
12(3), 1-31.

88
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention in P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Schmidt, Richard. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful
definitions for applied linguistics. Consciousness in second language
learning, 11, 237-326.
Schmidt, Richard W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language
learning1. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Selinker, Larry. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.
Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal Behavior, New York, Appleton-Century-Croft: Inc.
Truscott, John. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, John. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2
writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing,
8(2), 111-122.
Truscott, John, & Hsu, Angela Yi-ping. (2008). Error correction, revision, and
learning. Journal of second language writing, 17(4), 292-305.
Van Beuningen, Catherine. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical
perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal
of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.
Wang, Ping. (2010). Dealing with English majors written errors in Chinese
universities. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 194-205.
Witbeck, Michael C. (1976). Peer correction procedures for intermediate and
advanced ESL composition lessons. TESOL Quarterly, 321-326.

89