Comparing student and teacher attitudes toward various aspects of language and instruction including the way writing errors are corrected is a fruitful activity in language education and SLA classroom research. To contribute to this line of inquiry, the present study investigated the preferences of 30 EFL teachers and 100 L2 students as to various language features as well as error marking techniques in writing. Two questionnaires were developed to elicit views of students and teachers on various error correction techniques in L2 writing. To add a qualitative dimension to the study and to triangulate the findings, nine teachers who took part in the survey study were invited for follow-up interviews. The results revealed that there are noticeable differences in the preferences and attitudes of teachers and students toward issues related to marking writing papers. Furthermore, not only were differences observed between students and teachers in terms of their preferences and attitudes, but there was also disagreement between teachers themselves and among students as to the most appropriate error correction techniques. Further results and implications of the study are discussed in the paper.

1. Teachers’ and Students’
Attitudes Toward
Error Correction in L2 Writing
Published in:
THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL
Vol.12, No. 3, pp. 1-31, Fall 2015

2. Written by:
Maghsoud Alizadeh Salteh
English Language Department
Farhangian University
Urmia, Iran
Karim Sadeghi
Department of English Language and
Literature
School of Literature and Humanities
Urmia University
Urmia, Iran
Presented by:
Mohammad Mustafizur Rahman
Student, MA in ELT
East West University
Jannat Shaila Karim
Student, MA in ELT
East West University

3. Abstract
 Students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward various
aspects of language and instruction
 Investigation of the preferences of 30 EFL teachers
and 100 L2 students
 Two questionnaires were developed to elicit views
of students and teachers
 Interviews were taken to add a qualitative
dimension
 The results revealed a noticeable differences in the
preferences and attitudes of teachers and students

4. Introduction
 To respond student writers’ errors is a controversial
issue
 ESL students want for error correction that it is
effective
 Has not enough published work on students’
preferences and viewpoints
 Teachers’ understanding of the non-linguistic
aspects of teaching and learning
 Teachers’ and students’ mutual understanding
makes the feedback more fruitful

5. Purpose and Research Questions
To examine the misfit between teachers’ and
students’ preferences on error correction
Research Questions
(1) On what aspect(s) of language (content, ideas,
vocabulary, grammar, text organization,
mechanical errors, etc.) do teachers offer and
students receive feedback?
(2) What are the favoured techniques of error
correction according to teachers and students?

6. Research Methods
 Participants
 The study was conducted at Azad (Open) and Payam Noor
Universities in the northern part of West Azerbaijan Province, Iran.
 100 students and 30 teachers took part in this study
 Participants were from disparate native language backgrounds
(i.e., Turkish, Persian, and Kurdish)
 Participating students successfully passed ‘English grammar 1 & 2’,
‘advanced writing’, ‘essay writing’ and ‘reading comprehension’
courses
 Participating teachers’ teaching experience ranged from a
minimum of one year to a maximum of 33 years

7. Research Methods (con't.)
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
 The use of questionnaires and interviews as a method of
data-gathering
 Questionnaire: demographic information, multiple
response items, closed items (yes / no), and Likert-type
items
 Nine participants (four teachers and five students) were
interviewed
 Data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively

8. Results
 All the information obtained from the participants was
fed into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)
for statistical analysis
 SPSS generated different types of data:
 frequency of participants
 percentages
 mean of the students’ and teachers’ responses
 standard deviation
 standard error mean etc.

9. Results (con't.)

10. Results (con't.)

11. Results (con't.)

12. Discussion
The points have been discussed:
 Useful amount of corrective feedback
 Preference for the correction of different types
of errors
 Evaluation of various error correction techniques

13. Discussion (con’t.)
This study has paralleled with:
Oladejo (1993)
Diab(2006)
Amrhein and Nassaji (2010)

14. Discussion (con’t.)
Useful Amount of Corrective Feedback
 According to this study:
1. Both teachers and students are optimistic about the
effects of corrective feedback given by the teacher.
2. Teachers give priority to providing feedback on
errors of content or ideas and on errors that bring
meaning negotiation process.
3. But students prefer to get feedback on all errors.

15. Discussion (con’t.)
 Other studies say:
1. Students want correction of all types of errors
while teachers are selective and tended to focus on
meaning negotiation and accuracy. (Amrhein and
Nassaji)
2. Redecki and Swales (1988) are supporting students
viewpoints of students that their write up should
be corrected otherwise they might lose their faith
in teacher.

16. Discussion (con’t.)
 Other studies say:
3. Students believe that good writing is equal to
error free writing so their errors should be
corrected. (Leki, 1991)
4. On the other hand, Oladejo’s study strongly
disagreed with the idea that grammatical errors
should be disregarded in favor of errors that
break down the exchange of meaning.

17. Discussion (con’t.)
Other studies say:
5. In Diab’s study 10% students wanted their
teachers to focus exclusively on errors that
interfere with communication whereas in
this study the percentage is 18.

18. Discussion (con’t.)
 Preference for the Correction of Different Types of Errors
 According to this study-
1. Teachers strongly uphold paying attention to the
errors of content / idea and organization.
2. Students gave priority to errors of grammar and
vocabulary choice.
3. Students displayed negative or neutral opinions
about the effectiveness of corrective feedback on
ideas and content of the writing.

19. Discussion (con’t.)
 Other studies say:
1. Students preferred comments on the writing style and
idea/ content as the most important teacher feedback
they longed for. (Diab)
2. Students showed a stronger inclination for the correction
of all errors.
3. They were concerned about using correct English,
implying that they set error free writing rather than
interesting and coherent content as their goal. (Amrhein
and Nassaji)

20. Discussion (con’t.)
Other studies say:
4. Students long for corrective feedback in the form
of comments on content and ideas rather than on
grammatical, structural, surface errors. (Semke
1984), (Lee 2005).

21. Discussion (con’t.)
Evaluation of various error correction techniques
According to this study:
1. Teachers preferred more explicit techniques of error
correction.
2. Students prefer explicit and explanatory error
marking techniques to being asked to self-correct or
peer-correct.

22. Discussion (con’t.)
Other studies say:
1. Students thought that it was chiefly the responsibility of
teachers to do the correction. (Amrhein and Nassaji)
2. Self or peer correction has been found to be useful in
some previous research.( Ferris and Robberts,2001;
Makino,1993)
3. Students’ preference for teacher’s error correction was
high but teachers’ preference for it was low. (Nunan)

23. CONCLUSION
 Feedback will be productive if teachers and students
have mutual understanding.
 Students believe that feedback is useful.
 Teacher’s immediate yielding to students’ preferences
and expectations may give rise to student over-
dependence on the teacher.
 Teacher must help students understand how feedback is
supposed to influence their writing and why it is given in
the way it is.