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

Abstract

This study tries to answer some ever-existent questions in writing fields regarding approaching the most effective ways 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 better improvement in the learners' writing than the error correction treatment.

Corrective Feedback (CF) and English-Major EFL Learners’ Ability in Grammatical Error Detection and Correction

“…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.…”

“…To mention two recent studies, Abedi et al (2010) found that their student group that received errors detected with the codes performed better than the group that received CF in the form of corrected errors. Moreover, www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol.…”

“…With an attempt to identify an effective way to approach EFL writers' grammatical errors, Abedi, Latifi, and Moinzadeh (2010) randomly assigned 60 pre-intermediate EFL learners into two groups: the first received direct feedback (error correction) while the second received indirect feedback (error errors identified and codes provided). Comparisons were made between students' writing performance prior to, and after, receiving the two forms of feedback on five essays each participant wrote.…”

“…Since it provides a chance for learner reflection hence more in-depth processing, indirect CF is more likely to result in long-term learning. However, it falls short behind benefiting learners when they fail to identify the exact error or provide appropriate correction (Abedi, Latifi, & Moinzadeh, 2010). The third type, metalinguistic CF, which involves presenting an explicit comment about the error type, can be carried out in two ways: (a) providing a label or code (e.g., sp for spelling, prep for preposition, etc.)…”

Corrective Feedback and Writing Accuracy of Students Across Different Levels of Grammatical Sensitivity

“…Yet, the investigations into it (e.g. Chandler, 2003;Erel & Bulut, 2007;Beuningen et al, 2008;Abedi, Latifi, & Moinzadeh, 2010;Lu, 2010) are still inconclusive. Beuningen et al (2008) found that direct corrective feedback is more helpful and brings long-term effects on the students' writing accuracy.…”