The Effect of Error Correction vs. Error Detection on Iranian pre-Intermediate EFL Learners' Writing Achievement

English Language Teaching 11/2010; DOI: 10.5539/elt.v3n4p168
Source: DOAJ


This study tries to answer some ever-existent questions in writing fields regarding approaching the most effective way to give feedback to students' errors in writing by comparing the effect of error correction and error detection on the improvement of students' writing ability. In order to achieve this goal, 60 pre-intermediate English learners were randomly divided into two groups: the first one was Direct Feedback Group, receiving feedback on their writing through error correction (DFG) and the other one was Indirect Feedback Group (IFG), receiving feedback in their writing through error detection along with the codes. The learners were taking English classes in a private English center and were supposed to self-correct and hand in their writings when received indirect error feedback. The results suggested that error detection along with the codes led to more improvement in the learners’ writing than the error correction treatment.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "In support for this view, the findings of previous research suggest a general agreement that CF has a positive influence on learners' performance on posttests compared to ignoring them (Abedi, Latifi, & Moinzadeh, 2010; Ashwell, 1990; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Fathman & Walley, 1990; Kartchava, 2012; Khatri, 2013; Russell & Spada, 2006; Sampson, 2012). For example, Russell and Spada's (2006) meta-analysis of 34 studies indicated an overall positive effect of CF. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Corrective feedback (CF), the implicit or explicit information learners receive indicating a gap between their current, compared to the desired, performance, has been an area of interest for EFL researchers during the last few decades. This study, conducted on 139 English-major prospective EFL teachers, assessed the impact of two CF types (implicit vs. explicit) on students’ ability to detect and correct some “common” grammatical errors (definite and indefinite article, subject-verb agreement, prepositions, spelling, and logical connector use). The study used a quasi-experimental pretest, posttest with a 12-week treatment program. The results indicated a statistically significant difference in students’ performance prior to and after exposure to the intervention, confirming the positive role CF has on students' performance. However, there was no significant difference attributed to the type of CF introduced. The paper sets recommendations for both practitioners and researchers and suggests a reconceptualization of the EFL learning process.
    Preview · Article · Jul 2013 · Language Teaching Research
  • Source

    Preview · Article · Aug 2015 · Theory and Practice in Language Studies